Text: T0101; 雜阿含經; 雜阿含三十章

No

• T0101; 雜阿含經; 雜阿含三十章

In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Li Yan argues that the Za ahan jing 雜阿含經 T101 has some markers of An Shigao’s translations, and that its translator is most likely An Shigao. They refer to

Li Yan 李妍. “Cong Fojiao shuyu kan yi wei jing bianbie” 從佛教術語看疑偽經辨別. Huibei shifan daxue xuebao (Shehui kexue ban) 淮北師範大學學報 (社會科學版) 4 (2012): 194–195;

Li Yan 李妍. “Donghan yijing yuyan yanjiu gaishu ji yiyi—yi Donghan An Shigao yijing wei li” 東漢譯經語言研究概述及意義——以東漢安世高譯經為例. Qingnian wenxue jia 青年文學家 32 (2019): 168–169.

Entry author: Mengji Huang

Edit

No

• T0101; 雜阿含經; 雜阿含三十章

Nattier points out various features of the style of the text (even outside T101(9) and T101(10), for which see below) which are atypical of An Shigao's other works. She is not definitive in her conclusion, but says that "the language and style is clearly archaic, and...appears to be related to An Shigao's usage....We may provisionally include T101 (excepting...) as an 'adjunct text'--that is, one that is (though not produced by the great translator himself) highly likely to be associated with his lineage" (68).

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

• People: An Shigao, 安世高 (translator 譯)

No

• Ji gu jing 積骨經
• Qi chu san guan jing 七處三觀經
• T0101; 雜阿含經; 雜阿含三十章
• T101(11); (untitled)
• T101(27); (untitled)

Harrison notes that T101 includes two discourses that are completely identical with discourses from An Shigao’s T150A: T101(27) with the 七處三觀經 Qi chu san guan jing and T101(11) with the 積骨經 Ji gu jing.

Entry author: Sharon Chi

Edit

No

• T0101; 雜阿含經; 雜阿含三十章
• T0112; 佛說八正道經; 雜阿含三十章
• T0150B; 九橫經; 雜阿含三十章

A Za ahan sanshi zhang 雜阿含三十章 ("Thirty Chapters from the Saṃyuktāgama") is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄, but was regarded as lost at the time of Sengyou. The Za ahan sanshi zhang consisted of thirty texts. Hayashiya maintains that the Dan juan za ahan 単巻雑阿含 in the Taishō (T101) consists of twenty seven of those thirty texts. Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations somehow lists twenty five texts out of those thirty as independent titles, separately from the Za ahan sanshi zhang. The three texts that were included in the Za ahan sanshi zhang but not in T101 are the Jiu heng jing 九横經 T150B, the Ba zheng dao 八正道 T112 and the Shudusheng piluomen jing 署杜乘披羅門經. Among the thirty titles, only the Shudusheng piluomen jing is now lost. Hayashiya refers to section 2, chapter 5 of Part III of the current work for a detailed discussion on the twenty five titles listed in the Dao'an's catalogue which are actually part of T101.

Hayashiya compares the vocabulary and tone of the 29 texts that are included in the Za ahan sanshi zhang (and in T101 as well, except for two of them). He concludes that all of them are translated by the same person, and since T150B and T112 are considered An Shigao's 安世高 translation, the entire group of T101/Za ahan sanshi zhang should be by An Shigao as well.

Dao'an has an entry on the Za ahan sanshi zhang in his catalogue of archaic alternate translations, but not for T101. Nonetheless, Dao’an says “from SA” 出雜阿含 in the entries on the twenty five titles that are actually included in the Za ahan sanshi zhang. Hayashiya claims that 雜阿含 in 出雜阿含 most likely refers to the Za ahan sanshi zhang.

Hayashiya discusses confusion caused by the titles Za ahan sanshi zhang and "Dan juan za ahan" 単巻雑阿含 (T101) for catalogues after Dao’an. In short, nobody ever saw both the Za ahan sanshi zhang and the Dan juan za ahan, and Hayashiya argues that that the Dan juan za ahan that is supposed to have been rediscovered at the time of Fajing was probably called the Da juan za ahan simply because the three texts had somehow already been lost from the Za ahan sanshi zhang, and the total number of the text was no longer thirty, as the title says.

Thus, Hayashiya appears to think that the most plausible and important relation that we can posit between the Za ahan sanshi zhang and the Dan juan za ahan, in order to understand the different descriptions given by different catalogues, is that "Dan juan za ahan" is the name used to refer to a text with almost the same content as the Za ahan sanshi zhang, except that the Dan juan za ahan is missing the three aforementioned texts. He suggests that this use of the title, Dan juan za ahan, probably came from Sengyou, who listed both the Za ahan sanshi zhang and the Dan juan za ahan without actually seeing either of them, but the use may be also supported by the fact that Dao’an himself called the Za ahan sanshi zhang simply "Za ahan" 雑阿含 in the entries on its constituent texts.

Hayashiya concludes all of the entries that regard the Za ahan sanshi zhang as an anonymous scripture should be excised, since the text is translated by An Shigao 安世高. He also recommend excising all the entries on the Dan juan za ahan, and on the twenty five individual texts listed in the catalogues separately from the Za ahan sanshi zhang, because those entries are redundant.

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit

• Title: 雜阿含三十章
• People: An Shigao, 安世高 (translator 譯)