Text: T0553; 佛說㮈女祇域因緣經

No

• T0553; 佛說㮈女祇域因緣經

In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Fang, writing alone, and Fang and Gao, publishing together, have argued that the translation of the Nainü qiyu yinyuan jing 㮈女祇域因緣經 T553 postdates the Western Jin period. They refer to

Fang Yixin 方一新. “Foshuo Nainü qiyu yinyuan jing fanyi niandai kaobian” 《佛說㮈女祇域因緣經》翻譯年代考辨. In Hanyu shi xuebao 漢語史學報, vol 7, edited by Zhejiang daxue Hanyu shi yanjiu zhongxin 浙江大學漢語史研究中心, 238–261. Shanghai: Shanghai jiaoyu chubanshe, 2008;

Fang Yixin 方一新 and Gao Lieguo 高列過. Donghan yi wei Fojing de yuyan xue kaobian yanjiu 東漢疑偽佛經的語言學考辨研究. Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 2012: 121–148.

Entry author: Mengji Huang

Edit

No

• T0553; 佛說㮈女祇域因緣經

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

• Title: 佛說㮈女祇域因緣經
• People: An Shigao, 安世高 (translator 譯)
• Identifier: T0553

No

• T0553; 佛說㮈女祇域因緣經

According to Saitō, there exists an alternate translation of the Nainü qiyu yinyuan jing 奈女祇域因縁経 that is also ascribed to An Shigao [viz. T554], differing in the existence/non-existence of the introduction 序分. The translation work was probably actually done in the Nanbeichao period. The verse portion (212) has only eight lines, and is identical with the a verse in the Zhu fudetian jing 諸徳福田経 T683 ascribed toFalu 法立 and Faju 法炬 (16.778b). Saitō suspects that the verse in T553 was taken from the T683 (212).

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

• People: Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 (translator 譯)

No

• T0553; 佛說㮈女祇域因緣經
• T0554; 佛說柰女耆婆經

The Āmrapalī and Jīvaka Avadāna Sūtra (Fo shuo Nainü Qiyu yinyuan jing, T. 553) and the Āmrapāli and Jīvaka Sūtra (Fo shuo Nainü Qipo jing T554) are very similar, differing only in minor details, so that they cannot be regarded as independent translations or compositions, but rather, constitute variant transmissions of the same basic text. Both texts are one fascicle long, tell of Jīvaka’s life and healing exploits, refer to him the “Medicine King,” and are named after Jivaka and his mother Āmrapālī. T553 is considerably longer than T554, and contains interpolations from the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya 四分律 T1428. [Salguero does not specify where these overlapping passages appear in either text, nor his reasons for thinking that the direction of borrowing or influence could not be --- as would be chronologically easier to understand --- T553 → T1428 --- MR.] In addition, there are occasional divergences in Chinese characters and phrasing which Salguero writes are “probably due to scribal error or correction.”

Tradition ascribes the translation of the Jīvaka Sūtra (both T553 and T554) to An Shigao, but Salguero writes that we cannot accept this attribution. He notes that Zürcher’s definitive list of sixteen extant texts which can be reliably attributed to An Shigao does not include the Jīvaka Sūtra (Zürcher, 1992). Salguero finds no evidence that this text existed in the Eastern Han, when An Shigao worked at Luoyang. The first references to the full title, Āmrapāli and Jīvaka Avadāna Sūtra, do not appear until the Tang. The shorter Jīvaka Sūtra T553 is reproduced in a Liang Dynasty Buddhist encyclopaedia (which Salguero does not name [but referring almost certainly to the 經律異相 T2121 (LIII) 166c17-170a9 --- MR]). CSZJJ lists the Amrapāli and Jīvaka Sūtra [奈女耆域經一卷(或云奈女經, T2145 (LV) 8b1], but notably does not list the text among those translated by An Shigao. Instead, Sengyou attributes it to Dharmarakṣa, on the basis of Dao’an’s catalogue. Attributions to An Shigao, however, “also become commonplace by the Tang.” Attribution to An Shigao has remained dominant, and is “repeated in all reference books in Chinese or European languages” that Salguero consulted in preparing his article.

[NOTE: For the exact title in CSZJJ, viz., 奈女耆域經, Fajing still carries the attribution to Dharmarakṣa, T2146 (LV) 128a21; so too does LDSBJ, T2034 (XLIX) 63c7; Yancong, T2147 (LV) 154b3-4; Jingtai, T2148 (LV) 186c18; DTNDL, T2149 (LV) 234b9, 299a6-7, 322c29; Gu jin yi jing tu ji, T2151 (LV) 353c3. This makes it appear that the ascription to An Shigao is first carried by DZKZM, T2153 (LV) 417b28-29, but a note there says that the ascription is taken from LDSBJ. However, the problem is a confusion of title, and as so often, the trouble does indeed trace back to LDSBJ, who gives the ascription to An Shigao under the title 㮈女祇域經, T2034 (XLIX) 52a5. Salguero's handling of this information, p. 188 and n. 16, is confused somewhat by his treatment of LDSBJ as "dating to the Tang", and his omission of Fajing and Yancong from his survey --- MR.]

Following Zysk, Salguero notes that at loci in the Sarvāstivada Vinaya T1421 and the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya T1435 where we would expect to find the Jīvaka narrative, it is missing (“has been removed.....excised”). Salguero writes, with apparent approval, "Zysk speculates that in China the Jīvaka story was excised from this original location due to its popularity (or, I would add, its potential for popularization)." [However, Salguero does not make clear the relation between this speculation and T553/T554, nor, alternatively, the form and location in which the resulting “independent sūtra in its own right” is supposed to have circulated. From his arguments later in the article (see below), we presumably should infer that this supposed "independent sūtra" is precisely T553/T554. --- MR]

Salguero points out that the transcription 祇域 for Jīvaka's name is extremely rare. He says "it appears only in the Jīvaka sūtra and in one other composition from the Northern Wei dynasty", 192. [Salguero does not specify what that other texts is; in fact, it appears only in T553, not T554; and aside from T553, in two texts, MPPU T1509, and the "Sūtra of the Wise and the Foolish" T202. --- MR] Salguero suggests, "This may provide a clue as to the provenance of the Jīvaka Sūtra, suggesting a temporal and possibly even a geographic range for the production of the extant texts" (192) [sic plural, even though this detail only appears in T553; Salguero does not specify here what place or time this clue would point to --- MR].

[By contrast, 耆婆 for Jīvaka's name, found in T554, is common, but seems to be unknown before the fifth century. --- MR.]

Salguero discusses a range of medical ideas that may suggest that some of the text is of Chinese origin, including acupuncture needles (195), terms like 藥方 and 針脈 (196) or the 五臟 (200), a reference [unique in translation literature] to the 本草經 (197), and a diagnosis in terms of qi 反戾向後，氣結不通故死 (200).

Salguero summarises his conclusions about the date and provenance of the two texts, and their relative priority, as follows: "A watertight argument for the dating of the received versions of the Jīvaka Sūtra remains impossible....While pinpointing the provenance more narrowly must remain speculative, I believe the evidence outlined above suggests that the shorter Jīvaka Sūtra [viz. T554] is a composite text made up of selections of the Medicine King's hagiography from a number of sources translated in the early medieval period (including a fourth-century [sic? --- Dharmarakṣa was active a few years into the fourth century, but the bulk of his career falls in the third --- MR] text by Zhu Fahu [Dharmarakṣa], and possibly other versions of the tale excised from the Vinayas), brought together with the addition of apocryphal material in the fifth century. I take the longer version of the Jīvaka Sūtra [viz. T553] to be a later, re-edited version of this same text that incorporated the passages from the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, which was possibly compiled in the Northern Wei, and which was available by the Tang" (192).

[NOTE: Salguero shows no textual evidence of a connection between T554 and T1421 or T1435, nor details of the connection between T553 and T1428, as noted above; he shows no stylistic evidence associating either text with Dharmarakṣa, nor stylistic evidence dissociating them from An Shigao; he gives no evidence, that I can find, connecting T553 to the N. Wei, unless he means the single appearance of 祇域 in T202. --- MR]

Given Jīvaka’s position as the “Medicine King” Salguero suggests that An Shigao may have seemed a logical person to associate with the translation, because he too was said to have possessed great medical knowledge.

Entry author: Sophie Florence

Edit

• People: Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 (unspecified)
• Date: fifth century

No

• T0016; 尸迦羅越六方禮經
• T0021; 梵網六十二見經
• T0137; 舍利弗摩訶目連遊四衢經
• T0361; 佛說無量清淨平等覺經
• T0418; 般舟三昧經
• T0553; 佛說㮈女祇域因緣經
• T0701; 佛說溫室洗浴眾僧經
• T0713; 聞城譬經; 貝多樹下思惟十二因緣經
• T1492; 佛說舍利弗悔過經
• T2027; 迦葉結經; Jiashe jie Anan jing 迦葉詰阿難經

Lu writes that ten texts ascribed to other translators in T have been "found" to be "translated by Dharmarakṣa". Lu gives no references or arguments in support of this assertion. The texts in question are:

*Sigālovāda-sūtra 尸迦羅越六方禮經 T16
*Brahmajāla-sūtra 梵網六十二見經 T21
Shelifu Mohemulian you si qu jing 舍利弗摩訶目連遊四衢經 T137
Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra 無量清淨平等覺經 T361
Pratyutpannabuddhasaṃmukhāvasthitasamādhi-sūtra 般舟三昧經 T418
*Āmrapālī-jīvakāvadāna 㮈女祇域因緣經 T553
Wenshi xiyu zhongseng jing 溫室洗浴眾僧經 T701
*Nagaraopama-sūtra 貝多樹下思惟十二因緣經 T713
*Triskandhaka 舍利弗悔過經 T1492
Jiashe jie jing 迦葉結經 T2027

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

No

• T0553; 佛說㮈女祇域因緣經
• T0554; 佛說柰女耆婆經

In his Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究, Ui maintains that quite a few scriptures ascribed to An Shigao 安世高 in the Taishō are in fact not his work but wrongly ascribed to him by LDSBJ. Ui lists 34 titles in the Taishō ascribed to An Shigao and explains why those ascriptions are incorrect one by one.

The Nainü Qiyu yinyuan jing 㮈女祇域因縁經 (T553) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows:

- Sengyou lists a Nainü Qiyu jing 奈女耆域經in 1 juan, ascribed to Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, with an alternate title Nainü jing 奈女經. He also includes a Nainü jing 㮈女經 in his "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄, stating that it is an excerpt from an āgama.

- LDSBJ lists a Nainü Qiyu jing in 1 juan, and ascribes it to An Shigao.

- LDSBJ includes a Nainü Qiyu jing 奈女耆域經 in 1 juan ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, stating in a note that it was translated in the Tai’an 太安 era (302-303 CE) and has the alternate title Nainü jing 奈女經, referring to Nie Daozhen’s catalogue 聶道眞錄 as its source.

- KYL lists a Nainü Qiyu yinyuan jing奈女祇域因縁經 ascribed to An Shigao, with the alternate titleNainü jing 奈女經, following LDSBJ.

- KYL also lists a Nainü Qiyu jing 㮈(奈)女耆域經 in 1 juan ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, with the alternate title Nainü jing 㮈(奈)女經

- The ascription of the Nainü Qiyu yinyuan jing 㮈女祇域因縁經 (T553) to An Shigao is incorrect and originates in LDSBJ. Fei somehow misunderstood Dharmarakṣa’s work as An Shigao’s. There is no record of this text being ascribed to An Shigao before LDSBJ.

Thus, the ascription of T553 to An Shigao should be rejected.

Ui further argues that T553 and T554 are the same text, which were taken as two different texts by some process of error or confusion during the transmission of the canon.

Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of the Nainü Qiyu jing柰女耆婆經 (T 554) to An Shigao are therefore as follows:

- Ui points out the peculiar fact that two almost identical texts are entered in the Taishō, viz., the Nainü Qiyu jing 柰女耆婆經 (T 554) and the Nainü Qiyu yinyuan jing 㮈女祇域因縁經 (T553), both ascribed incorrectly to An Shigao. CSZJJ records only one Nainü jing 㮈女經 in the "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄, and LDSBJ lists only one Nainü Qiyu jing 㮈女祇域經 1 juan ascribed to An Shigao.

- Although Ui concedes that it is difficult to know how T553 and T554 came to be treated separately, he points out that they came from different Tripitakas: T553 is the version in S and Y, and T554 is from M (no version of the text is included in K).

Thus, the ascription of both T554 and T553 to An Shigao should be rejected.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

• People: Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 (translator 譯)

No

• T0167; 太子慕魄經
• T0342; 佛說如幻三昧經
• T0395; 佛說當來變經
• T0553; 佛說㮈女祇域因緣經
• T0603; 陰持入經
• T0622; 佛說自誓三昧經
• T0623; 佛說如來獨證自誓三昧經
• T0701; 佛說溫室洗浴眾僧經
• T0770; 佛說四不可得經
• T1492; 佛說舍利弗悔過經
• T2027; 迦葉結經; Jiashe jie Anan jing 迦葉詰阿難經

Sakaino maintains that the following 13 texts ascribed to An Shigao in LDSBJ were taken from a list of Dharmarakṣa’s works in CSZJJ, and calls the resulting information "erroneous and confused" 誤傳混同:

- 溫室洗浴眾僧經 [cf. T701 ascribed to An Shigao]
- 自誓三昧經 [cf. T622 ascribed to An Shigao, T623 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa]
- 迦葉結經 [cf. T2027 ascribed to An Shigao]
- 流離王經
- 如幻三昧經 [cf. T342 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa]
- 當來變滅經 [cf. T395 當來變經 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa]
- 太子慕魄經 [cf. T167 ascribed to An Shigao]
- 四不可得經 [cf. T770 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa]
- 㮈[捺 in Sakaino]女祇域經 [cf. 㮈女祇域因縁經 T553 ascribed to An Shigao]
- 悔過法
- 舍利弗悔過經 [cf. T1492 ascribed to An Shigao]
- 住陰持入經 [cf. [陰持入經 [cf. T603 ascribed to An Shigao; 陰持入經註 T1694]
- 正齊經

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit

• People: Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 (unspecified)