| Identifier | T0033 [T] |
| Title | 恒水經 [T] |
| Date | Wei-Wu [Hayashiya 1945] |
| Unspecified | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Hayashiya 1945] |
| Translator 譯 | Faju 法炬 [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 |
[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 |
[Zürcher 1959/2007] Zürcher, Erik. The Buddhist Conquest of China: The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China. Third Edition. Leiden: Brill, 1959 (2007 reprint). — 70, 345 n. 254 |
|
"Dao’an only speaks about four works translated in the period 290-360 by Faju 法炬, a monk of unknown origin, and about two others translated by Faju together with the śramaṇa Fali 法立.... Later bibliographies have made Faju...the target of...wild attributions: no less than 132 works figure under his name in the late sixth century [LDSBJ], which number is reduced to 40 in the somewhat more critical [KYL]" (70). [MR: In fact, the passage in CSZJJ referred to in Zürcher's note (345 n. 254) shows that Zürcher has made an error here; the two texts supposedly translated with Faju were *among* the four translated by Fali (右四部。凡十二卷。晉惠懷時。沙門法炬譯出。其法句喻福田二經。炬與沙門法立共譯出; T2145:55.9c19-10a3), reducing the total number of ascriptions supported by this evidence even further. The four texts listed are: 樓炭經 (prob. = *Lokasthāna[?] 大樓炭經 T23) The main significance of Zürcher's remark is negative---the remaining ascriptions to Faju and Fali in the modern (Taishō) canon should be regarded as weaker and more open to suspicion. This record lists all such texts: T33, T34, T39, T49, T55, T64, T65, T70, T111, T113, T119, T122, T133, T178, T215, T332, T500, T501, T502, T503, T508, T509, T695, T739. However, we should also note that Zürcher adds:] "Sengyou states that Fali made a great number of translations which were lost during the troubles of the yongjia era (307-313) before they had been copied and put into circulation, a remark which is repeated by Huijiao in his Gaoseng zhuan....It may...have happened that some works were rediscovered at a rather later date, but Sengyou's silence about Faju remains puzzling. Dao'an's catalouge, our invaluable guide for the early period, gives out around 300 AD; although Dao'an compiled it at Xiangyang in 374 and probably added new entries until his death in 385, he did not include any works translated after the end of the Western Jin." Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 28c6 |
In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, T33 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): 恒水戒經一卷(舊錄云恒水經). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 58a14 |
In LDSBJ, T33 is ascribed to Zhi Qian, citing the Jiu lu, under the title 恒水戒經, with 恒水經 as a variant title. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Hayashiya 1945] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎, Iyaku kyōrui no kenkyū‚ 異譯經類の研究, Tokyo: Tōyō bunko, 1945. — 65-82 |
According to Hayashiya, among the titles he refers to as the group of Hai ba de jing 海八徳經 texts, only five ever existed, four of which are included in the Taishō. Those four titles are: the Heng shui jing 恒水經 T33, attributed to Faju 法炬 (The fifth one in the group, the Hai you ba de jing 海有八事經 listed by Dao’an, has been lost since the 梁 period.) Hayashiya argues that all of the attributions given to the four extant texts are incorrect, and that the texts should be reclassified as anonymous scriptures. The gist of Hayashiya’s analysis of T33, attributed to Faju, can be shown as follows: A Heng shui jing 恒水經 was listed by Sengyou in his catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雜經錄, as (a) the Heng shui jie jing 恒水戒經 (then extant) and also as (b) the Heng shui bu shuo jie jing 恒水不説戒經 (then lost), which Hayashiya claims to be one and the same text (70). Hayashiya points out that the ascription to Faju was first given by LDSBJ for the Heng he pi jing 恒河譬經 (77). KYL followed LDSBJ in this regard, by listing the Heng shui jing 恒水經with the ascription to Faju and the alternate title Heng he pi jing 恒河譬經. The Taishō took this ascription for the Heng shui jing 恒水經 T33 (75, 79). Hayashiya argues that the Heng he pi jing 恒河譬經 and the Heng shui jing 恒水經 were most likely different texts, because only KYL claims the two are identical, without giving any reasons, and because "Ganges" 恒河 and gaggarā 恒水 are totally different words (the latter referring to a pond near the Ganges 恒河) (75). Most of all, the ascription to Faju given by LDSBJ is baseless, as well as all other ascriptions it gives to the texts in the group of the Hai ba de jing. Hayashiya mentions a number of reasons for regarding LDSBJ as unreliable in this regard, including the fact that it ascribes the Fo wen Axulun da hai you jian jing 佛問阿須輪大海有減經 (the same text as the Hai you ba shi jing 海有八事經), as listed in CSZJJ, to Kumārajīva, which is chronologically impossible (77-78). Thus, Hayashiya asserts that T33 should be reclassified as an anonymous scripture of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 or W. Jin period (80-81). Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
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 |
|