| Identifier | T0073 [T] |
| Title | 須達經 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Translator 譯 | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Hung et al. 2010] |
There may be translations for this text listed in the Bibliography of Translations from the Chinese Buddhist Canon into Western Languages. If translations are listed, this link will take you directly to them. However, if no translations are listed, the link will lead only to the head of the page.
There are resources for the study of this text in the SAT Daizōkyō Text Dabatase (Saṃgaṇikīkṛtaṃ Taiśotripiṭakaṃ).
| Preferred? | Source | Pertains to | Argument | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
No |
[Mizuno 1969] Mizuno Kōgen 水野弘元. “Chū agon kyō kaidai 中阿含経解題.” Kokuyaku issaikyō 国訳一切経, Agon bu 阿含部 6. Revised Edition, 1969: 403-411. Cited in Hung et al. 2008. |
|
Mizuno suggested that a group of 24 discourses originally belonged to an alternate translation of the Madhyamāgama (MĀ): T47, T49, T50, T51, T53, T55, T56, T58, T60, T64, T65, T66, T70, T73, T75, T77, T79, T82, T83, T90, T91, T92, T93, T94. Mizuno further suggested that this group was translated by Zhu Fonian and Dharmanandi(n). Cf. also Hung et al. 2010. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[T] T = CBETA [Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association]. Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經. Edited by Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 and Watanabe Kaigyoku 渡邊海旭. Tokyo: Taishō shinshū daizōkyō kankōkai/Daizō shuppan, 1924-1932. CBReader v 5.0, 2014. |
Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
Yes |
[Hung et al. 2010] Hung, Jen-Jou, Marcus Bingenheimer and Simon Wiles. "Quantitative Evidence for a Hypothesis Regarding the Attribution of Early Buddhist Translations." Literary and Linguistic Computing 25, n. 1 (2010): 119-134. |
|
On the basis of computer stylometrics, Hung et al. argued that Mizuno was right in thinking that this group of texts share a common author, but did not support the identification of the author(s) as (Zhu Fonian and) Dharmanandi(n). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 647-651 |
A Zhangzhe Xuda jing 長者須達經is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures. According to Hayashiya, CSZJJ 出三藏記集 also lists an alternative translation of this Zhangzhe Xuda jing 長者須達經, namely, the Xuda zhangzhe jing 須達長者經 translated by *Guṇavṛddhi 求那毘地. However, Hayashiya points out that Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu lists *Guṇavṛddhi's version only, as the Xuda jing 須達經. In that catalogue, Zhangzhe Xuda jing 長者須達經 appears merely as an alternate tile of *Guṇavṛddhi's Xuda jing 須達經, with another alternate title, San gui wu jie cixin yanli gongde jing 三歸五戒慈心厭離功徳經. Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu offers a similar description. KYL 開元錄 also shows San gui wu jie cixin yanli gongde jing 三歸五戒慈心厭離功徳經 as an alternate translation of the Xuda jing 須達經/Xuda zhangzhe jing 須達長者經. However, this San gui wu jie cixin yanli gongde jing 三歸五戒慈心厭離功徳經 is extant, as an anonymous scripture, T72. This text does not contain the word Xuda 須達 at all. Hence, it is a different version of the text from the Zhangzhe Xuda jing 長者須達經 of Dao'an's list, and must have had its present title from the very beginning. Given this is a separate text, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu is incorrect in treating it as an alternate title of 須達經. Two more alternate translations have survived in the present canon (??現藏): the Xuda jing 須達經, shown as translated by *Guṇavṛddhi 求那毘地 T73; and the Zhangzhe Shibao jing 長者施報經 T74 translated by Fatian 法天 (*Dharmadeva) under the Song 宋. The latter is too recent to be considered in Hayashiya's discussion. Hayashiya points out that the extant Xuda jing 須達經 must have been translated earlier than the E. Jin 東晋 period, because its style is clearly older than that of the Xudaduo jing 須達哆經 in the Madhyamāgama 中阿含 T26(155), which was translated by Saṃghadeva 僧伽提婆 under the E. Jin 東晋. It therefore cannot have been produced in the Qi 齊 period, when *Guṇavṛddhi was active. The title of the text also shows it cannot be the text translated by *Guṇavṛddhi. *Guṇavṛddhi’s translation was produced in 495 CE. By that time, it had become customary to determine the title of the text when the translation was completed. Therefore, Hayashiya argues, given that *Guṇavṛddhi's biography reports that the Xuda jing was also called the Xuda zhangzhe jing 須達長者經, if the Xuda jing 須達經 was really translated by *Guṇavṛddhi, the name Xuda zhangzhe 須達長者 should appear in the text itself. However, this name does not appear in the text, although a similar name, Xuda jushi 須達居士, appears in places. Hence, it is clear that *Guṇavṛddhi cannot be the translator of the exant Xuda jing 須達經 included in the Taishō. On the other hand, the Zhangzhe Xuda jing 長者須達經in Dao'an's list should have been originally called the Xuda jing 須達經, since Dao'an tended to show the titles of texts in his list of anonymous scriptures with just two characters each. Sengyou 僧祐 also mentions that the Zhangzhe Xudai jing 長者須達經 was also called simply the Xuda jing 須達經. Thus, the Xuda jing 須達經 in the Taishō, which is ascribed to *Guṇavṛddhi, must actually be the text of the Zhangzhe Xuda jing 長者須達經 given in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures. This being the case, Hayashiya argues, the Xudai jing 須達經 in Dao'an's list, the San gui wu jie cixin yanli gongde jing 三歸五戒慈心厭離功徳經 T72, and the Zhangzhe Shebao jing 長者施報經 T74 translated by Fatian 法天 are the only surviving translations of the Xuda jing 須達經. The Xuda zhangzhe jing 須達長者經 translated by *Guṇavṛddhi must have been lost at an early stage, since Fajing already misunderstood the title in Dao'an's list and the *Guṇavṛddhi to be the same. Nonetheless, it is clear that *Guṇavṛddhi's version existed at the time of Sengyou, as he recorded it separately from the one in Dao'an's list and also mentioned it in his biography of *Guṇavṛddhi. Thus, the Xuda jing 須達經 in Dao'an's list is not lost, and should be recorded as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period. It is *Guṇavṛddhi's translation that has been lost. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Chen 2005] Chen, Jinhua. "Some Aspects of the Buddhist Translation Procedure in Early Medieval China: With Special References to a Longstanding Misreading of a Keyword in the Earliest Extant Buddhist Catalogue in East Asia." Journal Asiatique 293.2 (2005): 603-662. — 657-661 |
|
Chen lists thirty-three texts discussed in Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji for which dates are given, but where those dates cannot be corroborated by any "translation documents" [meaning primary sources discussing circumstances etc. of translation, such as colophons]: Fangdeng nihuan jing 方等般泥洹經 T378; Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
No |
[Su 1995] Su Jinren 蘇晉仁. "Xuyan" 序言. In Su Jinren and Xiao Lianzi 蕭鍊子, eds. Chu sanzang ji ji 出三蔵記集. Zhongguo Fojiao dianji xuankan 中國佛教典籍選刊, 1-32. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1995. — 19-20 |
At the end of the section on Qi texts, CSZJJ features a somewhat jumbled list of five texts, T2145 (LV) 13c9-20. Like Naitō (whom he does not cite), Su Jinren, "Intro" 19-20, regards this list as a later addition. He points out that the texts are not presented in chronological order, like other texts preceding them in the same section. LDSBJ does not cite CSZJJ as a source for these five texts. In fact, Zhisheng, in KYL, is the first to report them on the basis of CSZJJ. Su believes that this list must have been added to CSZJJ by a later hand. The titles affected by this theory are: 教戒比丘尼法, 大智論抄, 虛空藏經, 十二因緣經, and 須達長者經. [The ascription of the present T73 to 求那毗地 may ultimately rest on this CSZJJ notice --- MR.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Naitō 1958] Naitō Ryūo 内藤竜雄. "Shutsu sanzō ki shū no senshū nenji ni tsuite 『出三藏記集』の撰集年次について.” IBK 7, no. 1 (1958): 162-163. |
For the 撰出經論 section of CSZJJ, LDSBJ T2034 (XLIX) 125c17-126a8 reports 30 texts/66 fascicles less than our extant CSZJJ. Naitō cannot account for all these differences, but suggests that in part, they should be accounted for by five texts/31 fascicles at the end of the 詮名錄 in our received CSZJJ. [T2145 (LV) 13c9-20 --- MR.] This list of five texts is messy, and inconsistent with what precedes it. Preceding items are grouped chronologically, but this list jumps around in time. Three items on the list appear to interrupt a listing of the works of *Guṇavr̥ddha 求那毘陀, after which the section in question returns to him and adds two more lists to his name. Naitō suggests that this list is a later addition, and that Fei Zhangfang saw a version of CSZJJ without it. The five texts include the 教戒比丘尼法, dated to Tianjian 3 (504), and so the revision should have occurred after that year; the two texts ascribed to Guṇavr̥ddha among the presumed additions are dated to Jianwu 建武 2 (495), and so the text preceding the revision should have covered texts down to that year at the latest. The titles affected by this hypothesis are: 教戒比丘尼法, 大智論抄, 虛空藏經, 十二因緣經, and 須達長者經 (cf.T73). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Su 1995] Su Jinren 蘇晉仁. "Xuyan" 序言. In Su Jinren and Xiao Lianzi 蕭鍊子, eds. Chu sanzang ji ji 出三蔵記集. Zhongguo Fojiao dianji xuankan 中國佛教典籍選刊, 1-32. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1995. |
For the 異出經緣 of CSZJJ, LDSBJ T2034 (XLIX) 125c17-126a8 reports a different number of texts and fascicles to that found in our present CSZJJ. Naitō suggests that the difference in numbering between the LDSBJ report and the transmitted CSZJJ lies in the last 9 texts in the list. [T2145 (LV) 15a8-25 --- MR.] This list of nine texts also differs in form from the bulk of the section that precedes it. The preceding 34 texts in the same list are divided in an orderly manner into sūtra-vinaya-śāstra, but these nine items mess up that categorisation [all are sūtras again --- MR.] Annotations to earlier items give number of fascicles, but here, only names of translators are given. Further, there are items among the nine that were already recorded in the preceding, more orderly list of 34, but which are here recorded again with errors. On this basis, Naitō proposes that these 9 items are a later addition, added in a rather sloppy manner. This section also features the 長者須達經 of *Guṇavr̥ddhi 求那毘地, which appears in a list at the end of the 撰出經論 that Naitō also suspects of being a later addition. He therefore proposes that this section was added at the same time as that list, sometime after 504. The titles affected by this hypothesis are: 成具光明經 For the same list, Su Jinren (20, without reference to Naitō) also points out some of the same problems. Su does not believe that this list could have been added to the text by Sengyou himself, partly on the basis of the fact that the annotations appear to reflect too much ignorance. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. |
Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Zhangzhe Xuda jing 長者須達經 is listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 或云須達經; 17c1. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Xuda jing 須達經 T73, attributed in the present canon (T) to *Guṇavṛddhi 求那毗地. Entry author: Merijn ter Haar |
|
|
|
No |
[Mizuno 1989] Mizuno Kōgen 水野弘元. "Kan'yaku Chū agon kyō to Zōichi agon kyō 漢訳『中阿含経』と『増一阿含経』." Bukkyō kenkyū 仏教研究 18 (1989): 1-42[L]. Chinese translation: "Hanyi Zhong ahan jing yu Zengyi ahan jing 漢譯《中阿含經》與《増一阿含經》," in Shuiye Hongyuan [=Mizuno Kōgen ], Fojiao wenxian yanjiu: Shuiye Hongyuan zhuzuo xuanji (1) 佛教文獻研究‧水 野 弘 元 著 作 選 集( 一), translated by Xu Yangzhu 許洋主, 509-579. Taipei: Fagu wenhua, 2003. |
|
External evidence suggests that both EĀ and MĀ were translated twice each, once by “Dharmanandi” [= Zhu Fonian --- SC] and once by Saṅghadeva. Mizuno attempts to find vestiges of the "lost" second translation for each collection, and determine their relation with the extant, transmitted, intact full collections. This entry covers Mizuno's arguments for MĀ (arguments for EĀ are treated in a separate entry). Mizuno reports that both the external records and the extant T26 align, and on that basis, confirms that T26 is the second translation of MĀ by Saṅghadeva. In fact, Mizuno asserts that the extant T26 and T125 should both be considered as Saṅghadeva’s second translations, because we find elsewhere in the canon (in the sections spanning T27-98 for MĀ, and T126-151 for EĀ) scattered individual sūtras that evince a uniform style; according to Mizuno, this style is that of “Dharmanandi” [Zhu Fonian]. For MĀ, these sūtras are (hereafter "MĀ-alt"): MĀ-alt: T47, T49, T50, T51, T53, T55, T56, T58, T60, T64, T65, T66, T70, T73, T75, T77, T79, T82, T83, T90, T91, T92, T93, T94. (Mizuno also identifies as vestiges of "EĀ-alt" the following sūtras, which he holds share the same style as MĀ-alt: T29, T39, T89, T106, T119, T122, T123, T127, T131, T133, T134, T136, T138, T139, T140, T149, T215, T216, T508, T684.) Mizuno bases his judgment of style largely on opening and ending formulas. [However, his own quotations sometimes bear discrepancies with all editions recorded in CBETA --- SC.] Among the 24 MĀ-alt sūtras, 23 are found in Sengyou’s "Shiyi zajing lu" while one is recorded in the “Jing lü lunlu” 經律論錄 (but without ascription). Mizuno rejects all of the current ascriptions in the Taishō for these works as false information inherited from LDSBJ. Next, Mizuno also examines excerpts in the Jinglü yixiang 經律異相 T2121 that are attributed by Baochang to MĀ and EĀ. Mizuno lists 5 from MĀ. However, only one of them has correspondence in the extant canon—specifically, T79, which is one of the MĀ-alt sūtras Mizuno ascribes to “Dharmanandi” [Zhu Fonian]. In Mizuno’s opinion, Baochang was quite faithful in his practice of quotation (based on comparison of his SĀ excerpts with T99); therefore, Mizuno argues that the rest of the MĀ entries in T2121 must also represent the now lost first MĀ translation by “Dharmanandi” [Zhu Fonian]. [A big pitfall in Mizuno’s method is that he mis-ascribes T125 to Saṅghadeva. Thus, his observation that the EĀ-alt and MĀ-alt sūtras share one uniform style warrants further investigation, and it is questionable how it fits back into the larger picture --- MR, SC.] Entry author: Sharon Chi |
|