| Identifier | T0205 [T] |
| Title | 雜譬喻經 [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 | 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 |
[Hayashiya 1945] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎, Iyaku kyōrui no kenkyū‚ 異譯經類の研究, Tokyo: Tōyō bunko, 1945. — 216-325 |
Hayashiya examines the identity and attributions of a number of titles that were dealt with as a Piyu jing 譬喩經 by the catalogues (Hayashiya limits his scope to those considered as independent works), which include seven texts surviving in the Taishō. Among those seven texts, Hayashiya claims that the ascription of the following five texts are incorrect or dubious: the Za piyu jing 雜讐喩經 T207; the Zhuan ji bai yuan jing 撰集百縁經 T200 ascribed to Zhi Qian 支謙; the Jiu za piyu jing 舊雜譬喩經 T206 ascribed to Kang Senghui 康僧會; the Za piyu jing 雜譬喩經 T204 ascribed to *Lokakṣema 支婁迦讖; and the Za piyun jing 雜譬喩經 T205 classified as an anonymous scripture of the Eastern Han period. Hayashiya’s argument about the Za piyun jing 雜譬喩經 T205, classified as an anonymous scripture of the Eastern Han period, can be summarised as follows: According to Hayashiya, T205, also called the Pusa du ren jing 菩薩度人經, first appeared in CSZJJ with no classifications. It was LDSBJ that first classified it as an anonymous scripture of the Eastern Han period. Hayashiya rejects that classification as groundless. He then examines the vocabulary and tone of the text and judges that it is not older than the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period. He concludes that further analysis is needed to give the more accurate period of translation, but for the moment, T205 should be reclassified as an anonymous scripture of the Wei-Wu 魏呉 period or later. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 22a5 |
In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, T205 (or T204?) 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): 雜譬喻經二卷. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 31a11-12 |
In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, a title most probably corresponding to T204 (which matches the details of the CSZJJ notice in length, and in which the number of stories is closest to the number given in the notice) 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). Note, however, that on the basis of the title alone, there is no way of excluding the possibility that this notice applies to T205, T206 or T207. 雜譬喻經一卷(凡十一事安法師載竺法護經目[v.l. 內 SYM]有譬喻經三百首二十五卷混無名目難可分別[v.l. + 今 SYM]新撰所得並列[v.l. + 名 SYM]定卷以曉覽者尋此眾本多出大經[v.l. + 雖 SYM]時失[v.l. 安 SYM]譯名然護公所出或在其中矣). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Radich 2019] Radich, Michael. “Fei Changfang’s Treatment of Sengyou’s Anonymous Texts.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 139.4 (2019): 819-841. |
|
According to the abstract, Radich argues: "Fei Changfang/Zhangfang’s 費長房 Lidai sanbao ji 歷代三寶紀 T2034 (completed in 598) is a source of numerous problematic ascriptions and dates for texts in the received Chinese Buddhist canon. This paper presents new evidence of troubling patterns in the assignment of new ascriptions in Lidai sanbao ji, and aims thereby to shed new light on Fei’s working method. I show that Lidai sanbao ji consistently gives new attributions to the same translators for whole groups of texts clustering closely together in a long list of texts treated as anonymous in the earlier Chu sanzang ji ji 出三藏記集 T2145 of Sengyou 僧祐 (completed ca. 515). It is impossible that Sengyou grouped these texts together on the basis of attribution, since he did not know them. The most economical explanation for the assignment of each individual group to the same translator in Lidai sanbao ji, therefore, is that someone added the same attributions in batches to restricted chunks of Sengyou’s list. This and other evidence shows that Lidai sanbao ji is even more unreliable than previously thought, and urges even greater critical awareness in the use of received ascriptions for many of our texts." Radich argues that the patterns of unreliable information he has here uncovered cast doubt upon the ascriptions of all the texts affected. Extant texts affected are the following (from Radich's Appendix 1; listed in order of Taishō numbering; listing gives title, Taishō number, Taishō ascription, and locus in LDSBJ): 七佛父母姓字經 T4, Anon., former Wei 前魏, 60b19. This CBC@ entry is associated with all of affected extant texts. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Bie lu (DH mss)] "Liu Song" Zhongjing bie lu 劉宋眾經別錄, S.2872, P.3747. Dating complex and unclear. |
|
In the "Liu Song" Zhongjing bie lu 劉宋眾經別錄, as represented by a Dunhuang manuscript fragment, P.3747, the following titles are listed, which may correspond to extant texts (in some cases, identification is rather tentative). In contrast to some other titles, which are treated in separate CBC@ entries, these titles are listed in the Bie lu without any further accompanying information (e.g. about ascription or date). Note that the Bie lu includes interlinear notes giving such information, and the scope of application of those interlinear notes is sometimes uncertain: it can be hard to tell whether they apply only to the single title preceding the note, or to a group of titles leading up to the note; and if they apply to a group of titles, how many. Titles in the DH ms. Bie lu are identified by the numbering in Tan (1991), given at the beginning of each line. S.2872 P.3747 Many of these same titles are treated as anonymous and extant in CSZJJ fascicle 4. The same is also true of a number of titles not listed here, because the texts in question appear not to be extant. Texts presently ascribed to Dharmarakṣa and to Zhi Qian (excepting T361) are excluded from this entry, because they are treated in other CBC@ entries. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|