| Identifier | T0101 [T] |
| Title | 雜阿含經 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Translator 譯 | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [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 |
[Nattier 2008] Nattier, Jan. A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations: Texts from the Eastern Han 東漢 and Three Kingdoms 三國 Periods. Bibliotheca Philologica et Philosophica Buddhica X. Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2008. — 67 ff. |
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 |
|
|
|
No |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 1258-1264 |
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 |
|
|
|
No |
[Harrison 2002] Harrison, Paul. “Another Addition to the An Shigao Corpus? Preliminary Notes on an Early Chinese Saṃyuktāgama Translation.” In Early Buddhism and Abhidharma Thought: In Honor of Doctor Hajime Sakurabe on His Seventy-seventh Birthday, 1-32. Kyoto: Heirakuji shoten, 2002. |
Harrison suggests a provisional ascription of T101, the Za ahan jing 雜阿含經, to An Shigao, with the exception of sections 9 and 10. Harrison argues on the basis of internal, stylistic evidence, such as the use of prose to translate Indic gāthās, the choice of Chinese equivalents for Buddhist terms, and the introductory and closing formulae which are telling of An Shigao's work. However, Harrison sees grounds for caution in the fact that Dao'an does not attribute the text to An Shigao, although “Daoan was quite capable of making tentative attributions on the basis of style.” Thus, he suggests that a more definite attribution is best left until a more thorough study of An Shigao's terminology is completed. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Kamata 1982] Kamata Shigeo 鎌田茂雄. Chūgoku bukkyō shi, dai ikkan: Shodenki no bukkyō 中国仏教史 第一巻 初伝期末の仏教. Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1982. — 154 |
Kamata states that the Bu zi shou yi jing 不自守意經 (T107) ascribed to Zhi Qian, the Ma you san xiang jing 馬有三相經 (T114) and the Ma you ba tai pi ren jing 馬有八態譬人經 (T115) ascribed to Zhi Yao 支曜, may be by An Shigao, but there is no decisive evidence either way. The anonymous Saṃyuktāgama 雜阿含經 of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period (T101) may also be An Shigao’s work. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Harrison 1997] Harrison, Paul. "The Ekottarika-Āgama Translations of An Shigao." In Bauddhavidyāsudhākaraḥ: Studies in Honour of Heinz Bechert on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, edited by Petra Kieffer-Pülz and Jens-Uwe Hartmann, 261-283. Stisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica Verlag, 1997. |
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 |
|
|
|
No |
[Fang and Lu 2023] Fang Yixin 方一新 and Lu Lu 盧鹭. “Jin shiyu nian cong yuyan jiaodu kaobian keyi Fojing chengguo de huigu yu zhanwang” 近十余年從語言角度考辨可疑佛經成果的回顧與展望.” Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences Online Edition), Jan. 2023: 1–24. — 11 |
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Lin argues that the Za ahan jing 雜阿含經 T101 was most likely translated by An Shigao, but some parts of it, e.g., T101(9) and T101(10), may have been produced by a team or revised by others. They refer to Lin Yueh-Mei. A Study on the Anthology Za Ahan Jing (T101): Centered on its Linguistic Features, Translation Style, Authorship and School Affiliation. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing, 2010. Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|
|
|
No |
[Fang and Lu 2023] Fang Yixin 方一新 and Lu Lu 盧鹭. “Jin shiyu nian cong yuyan jiaodu kaobian keyi Fojing chengguo de huigu yu zhanwang” 近十余年從語言角度考辨可疑佛經成果的回顧與展望.” Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences Online Edition), Jan. 2023: 1–24. — 11 |
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 |
|