| Identifier | T0206 [T] |
| Title | 舊雜譬喻經 [T] |
| Date | Liu Song [Hayashiya 1945] |
| Unspecified | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Hayashiya 1945] |
| Compiler 編集 | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Chen Hong 2004] |
| Translator 譯 | Kang Senghui, 康僧會 [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. — 151 n. 111 |
Nattier clearly does not regard the traditional ascription to Kang Senghui as reliable. However, it is not entirely clear [to me: MR] from n. 111 what more we might conclude about the nature of the text. 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). — 53 |
Zürcher notes that the (Jiu) Za piyu jing 舊雜譬喻經 T206 ascribed to Kang Senghui is not mentioned in any of the earliest bibliographies. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Shyu 2008] Shyu, Ching-mei. “A Few Good Women: A Study of the Liu du ji jing (A Scripture on the Collection of the Six Perfections) from Literary, Artistic and Gender Perspectives.” PhD dissertation, Cornell University, 2008. — 13-14 n. 30 |
Shyu argues that T206 cannot be by Kang Senghui, because of a range of basic stylistic differences between T206 and T152, Kang Senghui's benchmark text. In so doing, Shyu makes a number of detailed observations about stylistic features of the two texts, though with relative brevity. 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 Jiu za piyu jing 舊雜譬喩經 T206 ascribed to Kang Senghui 康僧會 can be summarised as follows: According to Hayashiya, a Jiu za piyu jing 舊雜譬喩經 was listed in CSZJJ 出三藏記集 as an anonymous scripture, and was first ascribed to Kang Senghui 康僧會 by Fajing, without specifying any reasons. Hayashiya compares the text of T206 with the Liu du ji jing 六度集經 T152 (established asKang Senghui’s work) and concludes that T206 is by Kang Senghui. Hayashiya maintains that T206 should be reclassified as an anonymous scripture of the Liu Song period or earlier, since it first appear in CSZJJ (283-286, 313-315). Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 22a4 |
In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, T206 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): 舊譬喻經二卷. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fajing 594] Fajing 法經. Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. — T2146 (LV) 144b13 |
A title probably referring to the same text is ascribed to Kang Senghui in an interlinear note in Fajing: 舊雜譬喻經集二卷(吳世康僧會譯). [This text is treated as anonymous in CSZJJ. This therefore probably represents the earliest ascription of the text to Kang Senghui. --- MR.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 54b24 |
In LDSBJ, T206 is listed among anonymous Han texts, for which list (in general) Fei cites CSZJJ 僧祐律師出三藏記, Gu lu and Jiu lu 古舊二錄, and Dao’an. 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 |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 238 |
Sakaino claims that the ascription of the extant 雜譬喩経 [舊雜譬喩經 T206 ] to Kang Senghui 康僧會 is questionable, without giving any concrete reasons. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Chen Hong 2004] Chen Hong 陳洪. "Jiu za piyu jing yanjiu"《舊雜譬喻經》研究. Zongjiaoxue yanjiu 宗教學研究 2004, no. 2: 92-99. |
Chen argues that T206 is not a translation of Kang Senghui, but should rather be regarded as anonymous. His reasons are as follows: This work is not mentioned in Kang Senghui’s biography in CSZJJ. In Sengyou's catalogue of anonymous scriptures in CSZJJ, fasc. 4, a Jiu piyu jing 舊譬喻經 in two fascicles is mentioned, but treated as anonymous 失譯. GSZ added a Za piyu jing 雜譬喻經 to the list of texts ascribed to Kang Senghui, thus beginning the problematic attribution. Later catalogues confused the titles 雜譬喻經, 雜譬喻集經, 舊雜譬喻經, and 舊雜譬喻集經, mingled all of these into one, and attributed it to Kang Senghui. Two stories in T206 also occur in the Liu du ji jing 六度集經 T152, namely, the story of the peacock king "孔雀王與青雀" T152(20) and the rabbit jātaka "兔本生" T152(21) [Chen's labels for the stories, not their original titles]. By comparing these two stories in T206 and T152, Chen Hong notices that the wording differs significantly, that in T206 being simpler and inferior in quality. Therefore, Chen Hong concludes that T206 is not a work of Kang Senghui. Information about the status of the Taishō version of T206 is also chaotic.The Jing lü yi xiang 經律異相 T2121 (JLYX) quotes 6 stories marked as from the Jiu za piyu jing 舊雜譬喻經 or Jiu piyu jing 舊譬喻經, indicating that a Jiu za piyu jing existed prior to JLYX. But at least one of the stories quoted in JLYX is not included in the present T206, and therefore, [our present] T206 cannot be the original of the Jiu za piyu jing mentioned in JLYX. Daoxuan’s DTNDL records a Jiu za piyu jing with a length of 二卷三十七紙 “2 fascicles, 37 pages”. The same notice appears in Zhisheng’s KYL. Chen suggests that around 20 stories in the Fa yuan zhu lin 法苑珠林 T2122 (FYZL) are from this version of the Jiu za piyu jing. All of these approx. 20 stories are also preserved in the current T206, in the same wording, with no significant textual variations. Thus he concludes that T206 was copied from the Tang edition of the Jiu za piyu jing. Chen also notices that stories nos. 16, 17, 18, and 25 are in the same order in the FYZL and the Zhu jing yao ji 諸經要集 T2123 (ZJYJ), as well as in T206. He suggests that this indicates that T206 preserves some of the same sequences of stories as in the Tang Jiu za piyu jing. Similar sequences between the Tang Jiu za piyu jing and T206 can also be confirmed by the sequence of glosses in Xuanying’s 玄應 Yiqie jing yin yi一切藏經音 T2128 (YQJYY). Again this confirms that T206 is based on the Tang version of the Jiu za piyu jing, and preserves some features of the latter. However, Chen points out that some stories found in T206 also appear in JLYX, but are not marked as from the Jiu za piyu jing. Thus, T206 is not the same as the Tang Jiu za piyu jing. It includes stories from sources such as the 6 fascicle Za piyu jing 雜譬喻經, a 2 fascicle Piyu jing 譬喻經, and the Jashe jie Anan jing 迦葉詰阿難經. He concludes that T206 was compiled in the Tang period, later than the Tang Jiu za piyu jing, but earlier than YQJYY. Lastly, after comparing the same stories in JLYX, FYZL, and ZJYJ, Chen suggests that stories in T206 have many textual errors and omissions, and that T206 is thus a very poor edition. Entry author: Lin Qian |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
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. — 10 |
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Liang Xiaohong argues that the Jiu za piyu jing 舊雜譬喻經 T206 was not translated by Kang Senghui. They refer to Liang Xiaohong 梁曉虹. “Cong yuyanshang panding Jiu za piyu jing fei Kang Senghui suoyi” 從語言上判定《舊雜譬喻經》非康僧會所譯. Zhongguo yuwen tongxun 中國語文通訊 40 (1996): 62–68. 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. — 10 |
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Yu and Cao argue that the Jiu za piyu jing 舊雜譬喻經 T206 was not translated by Kang Senghui. They refer to Yu Xiaorong 遇笑容 and Cao Guangshun 曹廣順. “Ye cong yuyan shang kan Liudu ji jing yu Jiu za piyu jing de yizhe wenti” 也從語言上看《六度集經》與《舊雜譬喻經》的譯者問題. Gu Hanyu yanjiu 古漢語研究 2 (1998): 4–7. 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. — 10 |
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Cao and Yu argue that the Jiu za piyu jing 舊雜譬喻經 T206 was not translated by Kang Senghui. They refer to Cao Guangshun 曹廣順 and Yu Xiaorong 遇笑容. “Cong yuyan de jiaodu kan mouxie zaoqi yijing de fanyi niandai wenti––yi Jiu za piyu jing weili” 從語言的角度看某些早期譯經的翻譯年代問題——以《舊雜譬喻經》為例. In Hanyu shi yanjiu jikan 漢語史研究集刊 3, edited by Sichuan daxue Hanyu shi yanjiu suo 四川大學漢語史研究所, 1–9. Chengdu: Bashu shushe, 2000. 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. — 10 |
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Chen Hong argues that the Jiu za piyu jing 舊雜譬喻經 T206 overlaps with stories in the Liudu jijing 六度集經 T152, and that T206 was created on the basis of T152. They refer to Chen Hong 陳洪. “Jiu Za piyu jing yanjiu” 《舊雜譬喻經》研究. Zongjiao xue yanjiu 宗教學研究 2 (2004): 131–136. 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. — 10 |
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Matsue argues that the language of the Jiu za piyu jing 舊雜譬喻經 T206 reflects the features of 3rd–4th century Chinese. They refer to Matsue Takashi 松 江 崇. “Tan Jiu za piyu jing zai Fojiao Hanyu fazhan shi shang de dingwei” 談《舊雜譬喻經》在佛教漢語發展史上的定位. In Zhongwen xueshu qianyan 中文學術前沿, vol. 17, edited by Zhongwen xueshu qianyan bianji weiyuan hui 中文學術前沿編輯委員會, 44–53. Hangzhou: Zhejiang daxue, 2014. 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. — 10 |
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Jia and He argue that the translation of the Jiu za piyu jing 舊雜譬喻經 T206 may postdate the Han dynasty and predate the Jin dynasty, so that T206 and the Liudu jijing 六度集經 T152 should belong to the same period. They refer to Jia Junfang 賈君芳 and He Hongfeng 何洪峰. “Cong jieci jiaodu kan Liudu ji jing yu Jiu za piyu jing de fanyi shidai” 從介詞角度看《六度集經》與《舊雜譬喻經》的翻譯時代. Ningxia daxue xuebao (Renwen shehui kexue ban) 寧夏大學學報（人文社會科學版） 4 (2016): 35–39. Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|