| Identifier | T0510 [T] |
| Title | 採花違王上佛授決號妙花經 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Unspecified | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Sakaino 1935] |
| Translator 譯 | Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 (*Dharmaratna?) [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 |
[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 |
[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 |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 211-220 |
|
Sakaino argues that many of our extant ascriptions to Tanwulan were added by LDSBJ, and are incorrect. He shows that the ascriptions for these extant texts are part of a broader pattern whereby Fei Changfang, in LDSBJ, takes titles in groups from lists of anonymous scriptures in Sengyou's CSZJJ, and assigns an entire group holus-bolus to a single translator. This procedure leads to a sudden ballooning of a given translator's corpus (if not its creation ex nihilo), and other absurd consequences, like the appearance that a certain translator specialised in texts on a particular topic (because Sengyou grouped titles in his lists by topic). Sakaino also studies this pattern in application to other translators (or supposed translators) elsewhere in his work; see esp. 80-86 for a general analysis of the overall pattern. Tanwulan is one of the purported "translators" to whom Fei applies this procedure, and in this case, it leads to the especially misleading consequence that Tanwulan looks as if he was a pioneer in the systematic introduction of proto-Tantra into China, because Fei Changfang chose to assign to him portions of Sengyou's lists that had tantric-sounding topics. This entry lists extant texts ascribed to Tanwulan to which Sakaino's criticism here applies. Sakaino points out that in CSZJJ, by contrast, only two works are ascribed to Tanwulan: the 三十七品經 [perhaps not extant? cf. T604, ascribed to An Shigao; but on that text, cf. Nattier 2008: 55, Zacchetti 2007: 15-17 --- MR] and the 賢劫千佛名經 [cf. T447a/b, treated as anonymous in the Taishō --- MR], for which the ascription is carried in CSZJJ. Sakaino states that LDSBJ only presents (supposed) sources for its ascriptions to Tanwulan in six cases. He discusses these sources for these cases. Most of the texts in question are not extant. Sakaino surmisaes that among these six texts, the Sanshiqi pin jing 三十七品經 [perhaps not extant? cf. T604, ascribed to An Shigao; but on that text, cf. Nattier 2008: 55, Zacchetti 2007: 15-17 --- MR”] and the Xian jie qian Fo ming jing 賢劫千佛名經 [cf. T447a/b, treated as anonymous in the Taishō --- MR] are correctly ascribed to Tanwulan, as source for them is CSZJJ, based on Dao’an. 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. — 80-86 |
|
Sakaino Kōyō gives a general criticism of the manner in which LDSBJ allocates purported translators holus-bolus to entire sets of texts from various lists of anonymous scriptures from CSZJJ, without any solid grounds for doing so. Sakaino’s tone is irascible and disbelieving (“Fei Changfang’s behaviour is so problematic that it demands psychiatric examination” 費長房の行為については、精神の鑑定を要する程の問題である); and he complains bitterly about the fact that scholars have nonetheless for centuries placed implicit faith in Fei’s ascriptions. Without going into details, Sakaino lists, as examples of this problem (in addition to works ascribed to An Shigao), groups of texts ascribed to Nie Daozhen 聶道真, Faju 法炬, and Tanwulan 曇無蘭 (81) (elsewhere in the book, he goes into more detail on the way this problematic treatment in LDSBJ affects each of these individual corpora). Sakaino offers an analysis based upon Fei’s treatment of two separate lists of anonymous scriptures in CSZJJ. According to Sakaino, in his “catalogue of anonymous translations” 失譯經錄, Sengyou in fact loosely categorized anonymous scriptures, mostly on the basis of titles and the topics that could be inferred from them. Such categories include: - “Buddhas’ names scriptures” 佛名經; Sakaino claims that Sengyou did not examine the content of each of scripture in classifying them in the above manner, but rather, collected them from past catalogues, and listed them according to the titles. For example, 24 scriptures with the word Brahmin in the title are listed as a group; or 39 scriptures with the word “king” 國王 (81-82). Sakaino maintains that Fei then picked certain parts of Sengyou’s list and allocated them to different translators arbitrarily. As a result, one translator is presented as if he was specialised in scriptures related to hells, another in those related to heavens, or another in scriptures featuring allegories (82). For a notable example, Tanwulan 曇無蘭 of the E. Jin has been considered as having translated many short esoteric scriptures, making him the main figure in the introduction of the esoteric Buddhism to China prior to the Tang. However, Sakaino points out that this is a misunderstanding originating with Fei, who groundlessly allocated the esoteric portion of the Sengyou’s anonymous lists to Tanwulan. Sakaino suggests that in fact, Tanwulan had nothing to do with esoteric Buddhism (82-83). [The present entry lists all extant works ascribed to Tanwulan affected by this problem.] In his analysis of Sengyou’s “continuation to the catalogue of anonymous translations” 續失譯經錄, Sakaino also points out that in the case of An Shigao, one peculiarity is that he is ascribed with such a large number of scriptures related to the disciples of Buddha, to Brahmins, and to chan 禪 (*dhyāna). Sakaino argues that it is simply the result of Fei’s arbitrary choice of which parts of Sengyou’s “continuation to the catalogue of anonymous translations” to allocate to An Shigao. Sakaino illustrates this claim by quoting the following lists of titles from Sengyou’s list: 23 scriptures with titles related to the disciples of Buddha (83-84): Sakaino points out that 10 scriptures out of the 23 are ascribed to An Shigao by Fei, and maintains that it is virtually impossible that Sengyou merely happened by chance to classify as anonymous so many as 10 (out of 23) of An Shigao’s works, and that at the same time, all those works just happened to have titles featuring the name of a disciple of the Buddha. 24 scriptures with titles containing Brahmins (84-85): Sakaino points out that 19 scriptures out of the 24 are ascribed to An Shigao by Fei, with the “laughable outcome” (笑ふべき結果) that An Shigao appears as if he was a specialist in the translation of texts with such titles. 17 scriptures related to chan 禪 (85-86): Sakaino points out points out that 12 scriptures out of the 17 are ascribed to An Shigao by Fei, and asserts that Fei must have taken this section also and baselessly ascribed most of the titles to An Shigao. Sakaino adds that Fei ascribed to such many titles to An Shigao maybe because An was respected as a pioneer of chan (*dhyāna, meditation practice) in China. [The present entry lists all extant works ascribed to An Shigao affected by this problem.] The lists analysed most closely by Sakaino in this portion of his book are: 23 scriptures with the title related to the disciples of Buddha, T2145 (LV) 23b3-25; 24 scriptures with titles containing the word Brahmin, T2145 (LV) 26a7-b2; 17 scriptures related to chan,T2145 (LV) 30b20-c11. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Bagchi 1927] Bagchi, Prabodh Chandra. Le canon bouddhique en Chine: Les traducteurs et les traductions. Sino-Indica: Publications de l’Université de Calcutta, Tome 1er. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1927. — 322-334 |
|
Bagchi notes that CSZJJ only listed two works under the name of Zhu Tanwulan 竺曇無蘭 [the two works in question are: 三十七品經; 賢劫千佛名經; see T2145:55.10b17-20 [note, however, that CSZJJ also preserves a preface to a third text, entitled 大比丘二百六十戒三部合異, by Tanwulan himself]. Bagchi suggests that this circumstance is not odd, because Sengyou was working in the South, and this meant that his information was always incomplete. This makes it all the more striking, however, that LDSBJ and catalogues following attributed a huge number of works to Tanwulan, e.g. 110 in LDSBJ. Zhisheng (KYL) only speaks of 61 works, of which he stated that 48 of those works were either "fake" or extracts from longer works. In Bagchi's individualised list of texts, those regarded as suspect by Zhisheng are placed in square brackets. Zhisheng's suspicions extended to one of the works listed by Sengyou, the Sanshiqi pin jing 三十七品經, which he took to be an extract from a Vinaya. The [Da biqiu] erbailiushi jie san bu he yi [大比丘]二百六十戒三部合異 was lost by the time of Zhisheng (Bagchi 323). Zhisheng also remarked of the 賢劫千佛名經 that it appeared to be the work of someone other than Tanwulan (Bagchi 324). [Note that this means, in fact, that none of the works ascribed to Tanwulan by Sengyou was extant in Zhisheng's time, and regarded by him as beyond suspicion---which might make us question the benchmark against which Zhisheng arrived at judgements about the authenticity of the other works he did admit as genuine, as noted below. In addition, none of these three works is now extant. This means that Sengyou is silent on ALL extant texts ascribed to Tanwulan, which in and of itself, and regardless of other mitigating factors, warrants caution in accepting all of those ascriptions---MR] The extant texts NOT regarded as suspect by Zhisheng [which would perhaps, on these grounds, be prima facae among the most potentially reliable ascriptions---MR] are: Śrāmaṇyaphala 寂志果經 T22; 鐵城泥犁經 T42; 阿耨風經 T58; Pravāraṇa-sūtra 新歳經 T62; 梵志頞波羅延問種尊經 T71; 泥犁經 T86; 水沫所漂經 T106; 戒德香經 T116; 四泥犁經 T139; 玉耶經 T143; 國王不梨先泥十夢經 T148; 大魚事經 T216; 迦葉赴佛般涅槃經 T393; 阿難七夢經 T494; 比丘聽施經 T504; 採花違王上佛授決號妙花經 T510; 呵鵰阿那鋡經T538; 五苦章句經 T741; 自愛經 T742; 忠心經 T743; 見正經 T796; 陀鄰尼鉢經 T1352; 檀特羅麻油述經 T1391; 摩尼羅亶經 T1393. The following work is not mentioned in KYL, even though it is extant (Bagchi 333): 元師颰所說神咒經 T1378a. The following works are mentioned as lost in KYL, even though they are extant (Bagchi 333): 咒時氣病經 T1326 [a very short text, which carries no ascription in the Taishō]; 咒齒經 T1327; 咒目經 T1328 [a very short text, which carries no ascription in the Taishō]; and 咒小兒經 T1329 [a very short text, which carries no ascription in the Taishō]. [Note: With the exception of T1326, T1328 and T1329, which carry no ascription in the Taishō, the above list coincides perfectly with the Taishō ascriptions to Tanwulan, showing that the Taishō version of Tanwulan's corpus is entirely due to Zhisheng---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) 69c12, 113b19 |
The ascription of T510 to Tanwulan in the present canon (the Taishō) probably dates back to LDSBJ, where we see various complications in the title, and no particular source, 採蓮華王經一卷(或云採蓮華[ - P]王[ - SYM]上佛授決號妙華經). Anomalously still treated as anonymous in Fascicle 13, under the title 採蓮違王上佛受決經一卷. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fajing 594] Fajing 法經. Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. — T2146 (LV) 121c25 |
T510 is treated as anonymous in Fajing. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 22a16 |
In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, T510 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): 採華違王上佛授記妙華經一卷(或云採華違王經). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|