| Identifier | T0128 [T] |
| Title | 須摩提女經 [T] |
| Date | 魏呉 [Hayashiya 1941] |
| Translator 譯 | Zhi Qian 支謙 [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. |
Nattier does not regard the traditional ascription to Zhi Qian as reliable. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 865-873 |
The Xumoti nü jing 須摩提女經 (cf. T128a, T128b) is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録, and was extant at the time of Sengyou. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu records the title Xumoti nü jing as an alternate title of the Samojie jing 三摩竭經 translated by Zhu Lüyan 竺律炎, along with other alternate titles, Fenhetan wang jing 忿惒 [var. 分和] 檀王經 and Nan guowang jing 難國王經. However, since the Fenhetan wang jing 忿惒檀王經 is listed separately in Dao’an’s list, Dao’an would have recorded the same text twice, if the Fenhetan wang jing 忿惒檀王經 were an alternate name for the Sanmojie jing 三摩竭經. This is highly unlikely, Hayashiya maintains. Sengyou lists the Sanmojie jing 三摩竭經 and Nan guowang jing 難國王經 separately as well in his catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures 失譯雑經錄, showing that he regarded all three titles refer to separate texts. However, Sengyou states that the difference between the Sanmojie jing and the Fenhetan wang jing is minor. Hayashiya thinks that the Sanmojie jing and Fenhetan wang jing are variations of the same text, with only minor differences that were made during the process of transmission. He further points out that the content of the surviving Sanmojie jing 三摩竭經 T129 suggests that the text could have been called Nan guowang jing as well. The Nan guowang jing was listed as an unseen text by Sengyou, so it is plausible that Nan guowang jing was indeed an alternate title of the Sanmojie jing. Thus, it might appear that Fajing is right that the Sanmojie jing, Fenhetan wang jing and Nan guowang jing are the same text. However, Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu is not right in regarding the Xumoti nü jing and the Fenhetan wang jing as the same text. Hayashiya shows three reasons for this claim. Firstly, these two texts are clearly shown as different by Dao’an. Secondly, all three texts---the Xumoti nü jing, the Sanmojie jing, and the Fenhetan wang jing---were extant in Sengyou’s time, so if the Xumoti nü jing and the Fenhetan wang jing really could have been considered as the same text, Sengyou would have stated that there were only minor differences between the two texts, as he did in the case of the Sanmojie jing. Thirdly, the surviving Xumoti nü jing T128 and Sanmojie jing T129 are clearly different in content, although both must have been composed in the the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. For these reasons, Hayashiya claims that Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu was wrong in considering the Xumoti nü jing and the Fenhetan wang jing as the same text. Hayashiya claims that although it may appear odd that such a mistake as this can occur even in Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, which was produced through discussions by twenty excellent scholars 大徳, the most plausible cause of the confusion is a daughter of Anāthapiṇḍada 給孤獨長者: Since the stories of both the Xumoti nü jing and the Sanmojie jing are about the same woman, if scholars who had directly seen the two texts merely summarised their content, the two could have been easily misunderstood to be the same during discussions among the group of scholars. There are two Xumoti nü jing in the Taishō, one from the Korean edition (T128a), and the other from the (Song, Yuan and) Ming edition (T128b). They are clearly different: T128b is almost double the length of T128a. T128b contains many words that are not in the former, although the two share a significant amount of vocabulary. As such, these two text must have been composed by different translators using different original texts. Judging from their vocabulary, Hayashiya judges, both texts are old, composed in the W. Jin 西晋 period or the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. Thus, although the Xumoti nü jing has been recorded as a single text ever since CSZJJ 出三藏記集, there are actually two Xumoti nü jing. This leads to the question of which is the one listed in Dao’an. Hayashiya argues that Dao’an referred to T128a. This is because T128a uses Xumoti 須摩提 all the way through, while T128b mostly uses the transcription Xiumoti 修摩提 instead of Xumoti 須摩提. However, Yancong and Jingtai follow Fajing and regard the Xumoti nü jing and the Sanmojie jing as the same text. Since Jingtai shows the length of the text as eight sheets 紙, the text listed in Jingtai must have been T129, not the Xumoti nü jing, because both versions of the Xumoti nü jing (T128a, T128b) are not of that length. Hence, there is no record of the Xumoti nü jing in those catalogues that confuse the text with the Sanmojie jing. LDSBJ 三寶記 shows the Xumoti nü jing, the Sanmojie jing and the Fenhetan wang jing as different texts. The Xumoti nü jing is listed as Zhi Qian’s translation, the Sanmojie jing as by Zhu Lüyan 竺律炎, and the Fenhetan wang jing as by Juqu jingsheng. (For details on LDSBJ entries on the Sanmojie jing and the Fenhetan wang jing, Hayashiya refers to his own article about the Fenhetan wang jing in Hayashiya 1941, the present source.) DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 follows LDSBJ’s ascription of the three texts. However, the text of the Xumoti nü jing had been found by the time of DZKZM, as the catalogue shows the title with its length, viz., seven sheets long. This length is about six registers 段 in the Taishō. The Korean version is of about that length, and so this should be the text shown in DZKZM. KYL 開元錄 also listed the Xumoti nü jing, the Sanmojie jing and the Fenhetan wang jing separately, with the same ascriptions as LDSBJ and DZKZM. The Sanmojie jing and the Fenhetan wang jing should be regarded as the same text, so the entry on the Fenhetan wang jing is redundant. KYL listed the Xumoti nü jing as translated by Zhi Qian, but neither of KYL and LDSBJ shows any support for that, and the vocabulary and tone of the two surviving Xumoti nü jing differs from that of Zhi Qian. Hence, the Xumoti nü jing (presumably, in the Korean version) should be listed as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period or more plausibly, of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. Also, the other version of the Xumoti nü jing, which was not listed either by Dao’an or Sengyou, should be listed separately as an anonymous scripture of the same period. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Anālayo 2010] Anālayo, Bhikkhu. “The Influence of Commentarial Exegesis on the Transmission of Āgama Literature.” In Translating Buddhist Chinese: Problems and Prospects, edited by Konrad Meisig, 1–20. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010. — p. 7 n. 45 |
"Levi...draws attention to two texts preserved as individual translations in the Taishō edition that are near verbatim equivalents to discourses in the Ekottarika-āgama, cf. T 128b at T II 837c12 and EĀ 30.3 at T II 660a1; as well as T 453 at T XIV 421a6 and EĀ 48.3 at T II 787c2. The Taishō edition attributes both of these texts to translators that were active before the Ekottarika-āgama was translated. Though the identification of these two translators remains doubtful, nevertheless, these instances suggest that texts may have been incorporated in the translation of the Ekottarika-āgama that did not form part of the Indic original of this collection...” Referring to Lévi, Les seize Arhat protecteurs de la Loi,” Journal Asiatique, ser. II, 8 (1916): 191, 263. 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). — 50, 336 n. 137 |
|
According to Zürcher, Sengyou attributed thirty-six texts to Zhi Qian 支謙, of which twenty-three have survived. This entry lists texts which are ascribed to Zhi Qian in the present Taishō, yet do not appear among Sengyou’s attributions. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
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. — 132-133 |
Sakaino argues that the Sumagadhāvadāna 須摩提女經 [T128 ascribed to Zhi Qian] is not Zhi Qian’s work, since transliteration words are frequently instead of translation. Sakaino further suggests that T128 is likely to be Dharmarakṣa’s work, judging from several terminological traits. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
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 Xumoti nü jing 須摩提女經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; 17c8. 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 Xumoti nü jing 須摩提女經 T128, attributed in the present canon (T) to Zhi Qian 支謙. Entry author: Merijn ter Haar |
|
|
|
No |
[Iwamoto 1979] Iwamoto Yutaka 岩本裕. Sumāgadā avadāna kenkyū スマーガダー・アヴァダーナ研究. Tokyo: Keimei, 1979. — 97, 133 |
Iwamoto does not question the dubious attribution of T128a to Zhi Qian, but he points out that T128b is more or less the same text as the Sumāgadhāvadāna in the EĀ 30.3, and implies that EĀ 30.3 is the source of T128b. Entry author: Allan Ding |
|