| Identifier | T0043 [T] |
| Title | 閻羅王五天使者經 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Author | Huijian, 慧簡, 惠簡 [Strickmann 1990] |
| Unspecified | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Sakaino 1935] |
| Translator 譯 | Huijian, 慧簡, 惠簡 [T] |
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 |
[Radich 2019] Radich, Michael. “Fei Changfang’s Treatment of Sengyou’s Anonymous Texts.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 139.4 (2019): 819-841. |
|
According to the abstract, Radich argues: "Fei Changfang/Zhangfang’s 費長房 Lidai sanbao ji 歷代三寶紀 T2034 (completed in 598) is a source of numerous problematic ascriptions and dates for texts in the received Chinese Buddhist canon. This paper presents new evidence of troubling patterns in the assignment of new ascriptions in Lidai sanbao ji, and aims thereby to shed new light on Fei’s working method. I show that Lidai sanbao ji consistently gives new attributions to the same translators for whole groups of texts clustering closely together in a long list of texts treated as anonymous in the earlier Chu sanzang ji ji 出三藏記集 T2145 of Sengyou 僧祐 (completed ca. 515). It is impossible that Sengyou grouped these texts together on the basis of attribution, since he did not know them. The most economical explanation for the assignment of each individual group to the same translator in Lidai sanbao ji, therefore, is that someone added the same attributions in batches to restricted chunks of Sengyou’s list. This and other evidence shows that Lidai sanbao ji is even more unreliable than previously thought, and urges even greater critical awareness in the use of received ascriptions for many of our texts." Radich argues that the patterns of unreliable information he has here uncovered cast doubt upon the ascriptions of all the texts affected. Extant texts affected are the following (from Radich's Appendix 1; listed in order of Taishō numbering; listing gives title, Taishō number, Taishō ascription, and locus in LDSBJ): 七佛父母姓字經 T4, Anon., former Wei 前魏, 60b19. This CBC@ entry is associated with all of affected extant texts. 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 |
|
|
|
No |
[Strickmann 1990] Strickmann, Michel. "The Consecration Sutra: A Buddhist Book of Spells" in Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, edited by Robert E. Buswell, Jr., 75-118. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press, 1990. — 91-92 |
Strickmann mentions that "a century and a half" after his time, Huijian was credited with "a list of works", referring to LDSBJ T2034:49.93b7-c7 [also followed by DTNDL T2149:55.260c22-261a2]. [These catalogues mention 25 works that were supposedly translated by Huijian 慧簡 at Luye-si 鹿野寺: 1. 藥師琉璃光經; 2. 商人求財經; 3. 僧王五天使經; 4. 善生王子經; 5. 懈怠耕者經; 6. 釋迦畢罪經; 7. 貧窮老公經; 8. 殺身濟賈經; 9. 舍衛城中人喪子發狂經; 10. 譬喻經; 11. 請賓頭盧法經; 12. 阿難見水光瑞經; 13. 呪願經; 14. 瞿曇彌記果經; 15. 學人亂意經; 16. 竊為沙門經; 17. 佛母般泥洹經; 18. 長者子六過出家經; 19. 獵師捨家學道事經; 20. 瞿曇彌經; 21. 栴闍摩暴志謗佛事經; 22. 二老男子見佛出家得道經; 23. 真偽沙門經; 24. 佛涅槃後諸比丘經; 25. 大力士出家得道經; . Of these, the correspondence to extant works would seem to be as follows: Strickmann points out that the "sources" for these texts, viz. MĀ T26, EĀ T125, had already been translated into Chinese by Huijian's time. "Thus [Huijian] , or whoever was responsible for these brief independent versions, was obviously rewriting and adapting on the basis of prior Chinese translations." For Strickmann, this is consistent with the types of content and likely working method of T1331. Sengyou also ascribed T1331(12) to Huijian, and Strickmann suspects that this is a clue to the likelihood that actually, the entirety of T1331 was actually compiled and/or composed (in part) by Huijian. This leads him to note some material and tendencies common to T1331 and the present group of texts: the Fo bannihuan hou bian ji 佛般泥洹後變記, which is appended as a postface to T145, "accords perfectly with the parallel information included in [T1331]"; T1331 also includes "adaptations of tales from the Āgamas (like those in the independent little sūtras attributed to [Huijian]), and so on. Strickmann therefore suggests that "whether or not we are justified in retaining Huijian's name on any of these works, we must note that [LDSBJ] has effectively brought together a body of cognate literature, and one that appears to represent an important current in fifth-century writing and practice." Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 548 |
Sakaino states that the title Seng wang wu tianshi jing 僧王五天使經 [T2034 (XLIX) 93b10], ascribed to Huijian 慧簡 in LDSBJ, is a mistake for the title Yanluo wu tianshizhe jing 鹽王五天使者經 (cf. T43) in Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures” [T2145 (LV) 28a6]. KYL corrected this title and listed it as the Yanluo wang wu tianshi jing. This is in fact one of a number of titles that Fei took from Sengyou’s “newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures”, and ascribed to Huijian without any factual basis. The catalogue 同書 [KYL ---AI] says that this text is the same 同經 as the Tie cheng nili jing 鐵城泥犁經 (T42, ascribed to Tanwulan), but in CSZJJ those two titles are listed separately. Sakaino also states more generally that there is not a single reliable ascription to Huijian, because all were the fabrications of Fei Changfang. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 546-548 |
Sakaino claims that that there is not a single reliable ascription to Huijian 惠簡/慧簡, because all were the fabrications of Fei Changfang. Fei took 25 titles from CSZJJ (24 from 新集失譯錄, viz., 新集續撰失譯雜經錄, and one from 新集疑經偽撰雜錄) and ascribed them to Huijian). This entry is associated with all texts ascribed to Huijian in the present T. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 93b10 |
The ascription of T43 to Huijian found in the present canon (the Taishō) probably dates back to LDSBJ, which cites no particular source. Fei lists the text under the title僧王五天使經, but a note in SYM gives the form of the title found in T43, 疑僧字[ +或作閻字 SYM]. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fajing 594] Fajing 法經. Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. — T2146 (LV) 129c4 |
This title is treated by Fajing as an “alternate translation of a separate chapter from the Madhyamāgama” 中阿含別品異譯, without an ascription (though this title appears in a list that includes some ascriptions in interlinear notes). An interlinear note gives the alternate title鐵城泥犁經 (cf. T42). These are the only notices for these two titles in Fajing. In other words, it appears that Fajing only knows one text, where the Taishō now has two, T42 and T43. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 28a6 |
In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, T43 is regarded as an anonymous translation, that is to say, it is listed in the "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄 (juan 4): 鹽[v.l. 閻 SYM]王五天使者經一卷(舊錄云鹽[v.l. 閻 SYM]王五[v.l. + 天 SYM]使者經). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Jiu lu CSZJJ] Jiu lu 舊錄 as reported by CSZJJ 出三藏記集 T2145. |
|
In his catalogue of anonymous texts in Facicle 4 of CSZJJ, Sengyou cites a/the Jiu lu 舊錄 as evidence for 110 titles, including items he states are extant, and also items he marks "presently missing". This shows that each such title, being listed in the Jiu lu, was extant by whatever date that catalogue was compiled. It also means, conversely, if the date of any of these texts can be determined, that the Jiu lu must date at earliest after those texts. Texts among these which appear to possibly be extant are as follows, here listed alongside the ascriptions given in the present Taishō to the possibly corresponding texts (note that this comparison serves in several cases mainly to show how tenuous the T ascriptions must be, if the texts in question are indeed those listed in CSZJJ 4): 沙曷比丘功德[v.l. 德經SYM]一卷(舊錄云沙曷比丘經) T501, Faju Entry author: Michael Radich |
|