Text: T0150A; 七處三觀經

No

• T0150A; 七處三觀經

In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Su Jinkun has responded to Harrison (1997). Su argues that texts 2–29 and 32–47 in the Qi chu san guan jing 七處三觀經 T150A may not be the Zajing sishisi pian 雜經四十四篇 translated by An Shigao. They refer to

Su Jinkun 蘇錦坤. “Qichu sanguan jing de jiegou yu yizhe — jian dui Paul Harrison lunwen (1997) de huiying” 《七處三觀經》的結構與譯者——兼對 Paul Harrison 論文 (1997) 的回應. Zhengguan 正觀 62 (2012): 99–192.

Entry author: Mengji Huang

Edit

No

• T0150A; 七處三觀經

Harrison presents a groundbreaking new model of the history of T150A, (a) to argue that most of the discourses contained in it probably derive from an *Ekottarikāgama tradition known to An Shigao; (b) to restore the text to its original order; and (c) to argue that the collection as received includes three extraneous texts of a different origin and character than the rest.

According to Harrison, the extant T150A is a "complete and utter jumble". Indeed, the contents of the collection are even jumbled differently in the “Three Editions” lineage (SYM) and the Korean lineage. Harrison demonstrates that prior to the introduction of this confusion into textual history, the collection must have been ordered as follows (roman numerals are used to indicate the number that discourses currently carry in the Taishō):

A. 七處三觀經Qi chu san guan jing: i(a) 875b4 – c16 & iii(b) 876b1 – c7
B. 九橫經 Jiu heng jing: xxxi 880b20 – 881a1
C. 雜經四十四編 Zajing sishisi bian:
1-9: xxxii – xl
10: xli(a) 881b18-22 & i(b) 875c16-18
11: ii 875c19 – 876a15
12: iii(a) 876a16-b1 & xli(b)881b22-c3
13 – 18: xlii – xlvii
19 – 44: iv – xxix
D. 積骨經 Ji gu jing: xxx 880b10 – 18

Harrison was able to reconstruct this order by producing a complete xerox of the current Taishō version, and identifying three points where a sutra is interrupted in mid-sentence by another (he shows these rupture points, as reproduced here, with a second point indicating where the interrupted text is resumed—usually mid-sentence):

875c16 何當[sic! > 等]為思-> 876b1-2想盡識栽
881b22身惡行便 -> 875c16望惡便望
876b1 人從後說 -> 881b22 絕無有財

In addition, one also needs to introduce two more cuts for the rearrangement to be complete: one at 876c7 (the end of iii in T) to identify the end of A [the other side of this cut begins the entirety of the second half of the collection, beginning at Harrison's §19 = T "iv"]; and one at 880b19 (the end of xxx in T) to mark the end of D (which in Harrison's reconstruction is the end of the whole collection). Harrison then literally cut his xerox at the points, rearranged, and pasted back together to reproduce a more plausible original ordering of the text.

As Harrison reconstructs the history that led to the "jumble" we have received, in the course of transmission, the original order suffered from both hapless reshuffling and, in the case of the lineage of the Korean edition, the loss of some discourses: B and parts of C (1-10a; 12b-18). Then the Taishō editors took these missing discourses from the Ming edition and tacked them to the end of the extant Korean edition, i.e. after the end of discourse D.

Harrison gives a diagram (264), which allows readers to visualise the project of reordering he proposes. Additional support is lent to both Harrison's restitution of the original order of the text, and his reconstruction of the process that led to the "jumble", by the fact that the chunks he identifies and moves around are either the size of a plausible single folio, or a multiple of such folio-sized textual units. Thus, the original folios 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, for instance, wound up in the order 1, 5, 2, 3, 4. A second unit, covering Harrison's §§12b-18, comprised three folios, the original folios 6-8 (this was one of three chunks, comprising five folios in all, lost in K).

After restoring the discourses to their original order, Harrison also attempts to better understand what kinds of texts represented by the collection, by examining parallels found in Pāli, Sanskrit, and Chinese.

First, discourses A, B, and D stand out from the rest (C) because they all bear titles and they are supposedly drawn from the Saṃyuktāgama rather than the Ekottarikāgama. By contrast, Harrison is inclined to attribute the 44 discourses in C to an Ekottarikāgama. Harrison suggests that A, B, and D might have been merged with C because these three also exhibit “a similar numerical principle of arrangement”.

In their correct order, the 44 discourses of C follow the classic EĀ pattern: sets of 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 dharmas in ascending order. In contrast to A, B, and D, all of the 44 discourses in C do not have titles. Harrison also follows Hayashiya in identifying C as the missing Zajing sishisi bian mentioned in CSZJJ [the exact title in CSZJJ is actually 雜經四十四篇 Za jing sishisi pian, T2145 [LV] 6a13 --- SC]. Dao’an’s note indicates that this collection is taken from the EĀ, but the lack of titles make it hard to identify which exact sūtras are at issue. Sengyou marks this collection as missing in his time. Based on the fact that there are separate CSZJJ listings for a Qi chu san guan jing in 2 juan an Jiuheng jing in 1 juan, Harrison deduces that the Zajing sishisi bian had most likely already been merged with Qi chu by Sengyou’s time, as Qi chu alone could never have amounted to 2 juan.

Of the 44 texts from the Zajing sishisi bian, 36 have close parallels to the Pāli Aṅguttara-nikāya, and five have parallels in the Chinese EĀ (T125). Harrison points out that this cements the "canonical status" of the collection. At the same time, Harrison cautions that these texts do not necessarily cover the whole extent of the EĀ tradition known to An Shigao, and we also cannot assume that these texts belonged to An Shigao’s EĀ just because they have parallels in the Aṅguttara-nikāya and T125. Nonetheless, the parallels increase this probability. On similar grounds, Harrison further proposes that the following translations also probably stem from An Shigao’s EĀ tradition: T31, T32, T36, T57, T792, and T605.

Furthermore, Harrison argues that An Shigao’s EĀ texts come from the Sarvāstivādin tradition. He gives the following reasons:

1. An Shigao’s has a connection with the Sarvāstivādin master Saṅgharakṣa.
2. An Shigao's translations of the Daśottara-sūtra (T13) and Artha-vistara-sūtra (T98) are both identified as Sarvāstivādin.
3. Dao’an most likely identified the Zajing sishisi bian as EĀ based on the Sarvāstivadin EĀ translated by Dharmanandin and Zhu Fonian (which is different from the extant T125, in Harrison’s opinion) [however, note that in making this point, Harrison assumes that the extant EĀ T125 is different from the Zhu Fonian version --- MR].
4. The texts found in T150A are often closely paralleled by citations in Vasubandhu and Śamathadeva.

Entry author: Sharon Chi

Edit

No

• T0013; 長阿含十報法經; Shi bao jing 十報經
• T0014; 人本欲生經
• T0031; 一切流攝守因經; 流攝經
• T0032; 四諦經
• T0048; 是法非法經
• T0057; 漏分布經
• T0098; 普法義經
• T0112; 佛說八正道經; 雜阿含三十章
• T0150A; 七處三觀經
• T0150B; 九橫經; 雜阿含三十章
• T0602; 佛說大安般守意經
• T0603; 陰持入經
• T0607; 道地經
• T1557; 阿毘曇五法行經
• T397(17); Jiaoji jing 校計經; Mingdu wushi jiaoji jing 明度五十校計經; 十方菩薩品; 十方菩薩品, 五十校計經

Kamata presents a list of thirty-five titles in forty-one juan ascribed to An Shigao in CSZJJ (claimed by Sengyou to be thirty-four titles in forty juan, list on 150-152). Kamata states that twenty of those thirty-five texts are extant today, among which four (安般守意經 T602, 陰持入經 T603, 人本欲生經 T14, and 大道地經 T607) are considered to be genuine An Shigao works. T602 has three prefaces written respectively by Kang Senghui 康僧會, Dao’an, and Xie Fu 謝敷, while T603, T14, and T607 each have a preface by Dao’an. Kamata maintains that those prefaces establish the ascriptions to An Shigao (149-152).

Kamata cites Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎, “安世高譯の雑阿含と増一阿含,” Bukkyō kenkyū 佛教研究 1 (1927): 152, who held that, based on the examination of the vocabulary commonly used in those four scriptures, the following thirteen scriptures are also genuine An Shigao works: 阿毘曇五法經 T1557, 十報經 T13, 普法義經 T98, 漏分布經 T57, 四諦經 T32, 七處三觀經 T150A, 九横經 T150B, 八正道經 T112, 五十校計經 T397(17), 流攝經 T31, and 是法非法經 T48. The terms Hayashiya paid particular attention in making this claim include一時佛在、聞如是、苦習尽道、直見、直語、直行、五陰、痛癢、思想、and 細滑.

Kamata states that the number of An Shigao’s translation texts increased in the catalogues after CSZJJ, to thirty-five in Fajing, 176 in LDSBJ, thirty-two in Yancong, 172 in DTNDL, and ninety-six in KYL. The Taishō ascribes fifty-five scriptures to An Shigao. According to Kamata, it is generally thought that seventeen titles of the fifty-five in the Taishō are genuinely An Shigao’s work, the other ten are suspicious, and the remaining twenty-eight are not An Shigao’s (153-154).

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit

• People: An Shigao, 安世高 (unspecified)

No

• T0150A; 七處三觀經

CSZJJ 出三藏記集 shows a Qi chu san guan jing 七處三觀經 in two juan. Hayashiya argues that this was because the Za jing sishisi jing 雑經四十四篇 was included in it, and if it was not, the Qi chu san guan jing 七處三觀經 should be one juan.

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit

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

No

• T0150A; 七處三觀經

An interlinear note in Fajing ascribes this text to An Shigao: 七處三觀經二卷(後漢世安世高譯), T2146 (LV) 130a5. This notice appears in a list of “alternate translation of a separate chapter from the Saṃyuktāgama” 雜阿含別品異譯. A second notice lists the same title as a byproduct/offshoot text 別生 from the *Saṃyuktāgama, this time with no ascription, T2146 (LV) 136a8 (this portion of Fajing’s catalogue, listing such byproduct/offshoot texts from all four Āgamas and a range of other texts, never gives ascriptions). Strangely enough, even though the Qi chu san guan jing is itself listed as such a byproduct/offshoot, later in the same list, three titles are given which are in turn supposed to be byproducts/offshoots of the Qi chu san guan jing, T2146 (LV) 137a19-22.

[Note: This same title is treated as anonymous in CSZJJ, which ought to mean that this interlinear note in Fajing is the first time we see the ascription to An Shigao --- MR.]

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit