| Identifier | T1492 [T] |
| Title | 佛說舍利弗悔過經 [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 | An Shigao, 安世高 [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. |
Nattier does not regard the ascription to An Shigao as reliable. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Boucher 1996] Boucher, Daniel. "Buddhist Translation Procedures in Third-Century China: A Study of Dharmarakṣa and his Translation Idiom." PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1996. — 281 |
Boucher notes that the Shelifu huiguo jing 舍利弗悔過經 T1492 is attributed to An Shigao “but almost certainly postdates both him and Dharmarakṣa”. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
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). — 33, 331 n. 82 |
|
According to Zürcher, the ascription of this text to An Shigao is not supported by the earliest external evidence. Zürcher says that Dao'an ascribes 34 texts in total to An Shigao. Setting aside T32 (see below), only 19 of the remaining 30 texts on Dao'an's list are extant: T13, T14, T31, T36, T48, T57, T98, T105, T109, T112, T150a, T150b, T397, T602, T603, T605, T607, T792, and T1557. This implies that other ascriptions to An Shigao in the modern (Taishō) canon are more open to question. This record lists all such texts: T16, T91, T92, T131, T140, T149, T151, T167, T348, T356, T492, T506, T525, T526, T551, T553, T554, T604, T621, T622, T684, T701, T724, T729, T730, T731, T732, T733, T734, T779, T791, T1467, T1470, T1492, T2027. [NOTE: Dao'an ascribed four texts to An Shigao only with hesitation. Three are no longer extant; the only extant text among them is T32. See separate entry on T32.] [NOTE: In a later publication (Zürcher 1991) Zürcher came to the opinion that T1508 should also be ascribed to An Shigao---JN/MR.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Ui 1971] Ui Hakuju 宇井伯寿. Yakukyōshi kenkyū 譯經史研究. Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 1971. — 449 |
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 Shelifu huiguo jing 舍利弗悔過經 (T1492) is one of those 34 titles. Ui’s main reasons for rejecting the ascription of it to An Shigao are as follows: - No Shelifu huiguo jing 舍利弗悔過經 is listed in CSZJJ. [This is in fact incorrect: it is listed among the extant works of Dharmarakṣa, T2145 [LV] 8b11 --- AI.] There is a Huiguo jing 悔過經 in 1 juan ascribed to Zhi Qian with the alternate title Xu shifang lihui guowen 序十方禮悔過文, but Yui thinks that this may well be a different text from the Shelifu huiguo jing, 舍利弗悔過經 as the alternate title does not appear to match T1492 very well. - LDSBJ lists a Shelifu huiguo jing in 1 juan, ascribed to An Shigao, with the alternate title Huiguo jing. Fei does not provide any further information including evidence for the ascription. - KYL also lists a Shelifu huiguo jing in 1 juan, ascribed to An Shigao with the alternate title Huiguo jing, citing LDSBJ. - Ui points out that the addition of the alternate title Huiguo jing 悔過經 in LDSBJ and KYL does not mean that the two catalogues confuse the Huiguo jing ascribed to Zhi Qian with An Shigao’s work, because both LDSBJ and KYL list the Huiguo jing ascribed to Zhi Qian separately from the Shelifu huiguo jing. Thus, Ui claims that the alternate title Huiguo jing was added by Fei for no good reason. - (Although Ui does not present directly his reasons for rejecting the ascription of the 舍利弗悔過經 T1492 to An Shigao, he appears to assume that it should be rejected, as Fei does not show any evidence for it.) Thus, the ascription to An Shigao should be rejected. In his general discussion of titles wrongly ascribed to An Shigao (450-452), Ui emphasizes that those ascriptions were retained in the Taishō due to the direct influence of KYL, which accepted the majority of the ascriptions given by LDSBJ (according to Ui, LDSBJ claims 176 scriptures in 197 fascicles were translated by An Shigao, while KYL states that he translated 95 scriptures in 105 fascicles). 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. — 71-75 |
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] Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
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. — 851 |
The ascription of the Shelifu hui guo jing 舍利弗悔過經 (T1492) to An Shigao is dubious, but in any case the text is one of the oldest scriptural translations. [Sakaino just says 然し少なくとも譯經中の最も古いものであることは否むことの出来ぬものである --- AI.] Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Ōno 1954] Ōno Hōdō 大野法道. Daijō kai kyō no kenkyū 大乗戒経の研究. Tokyo: Risōsha 理想社, 1954. — 398-399 |
Ōno maintains that the *Triskandhaka/Shelifu hui guo jing 舍利弗悔過經 T1492 is Dharmarakṣa’s work, as stated in catalogues from Sengyou, Fajing through to DZKZM and others, with the date of translation being Tai’an 太安 2 (303 CE). It uses terms such as 勸樂助喜 for anumodanā 随喜; 勸勉 or 勸樂 for *adhi/iṣ 勸請; and 布施 or 施與 for 回向. The ascription of this scripture to An Shigao in the Taishō comes from KYL. According to Ōno, DZKZM listed this title with three different ascriptions: to Dharmarakṣa, to An Shigao (following LDSBJ), and to Kumārajīva (following Fashang). Zhisheng maintained that one of these supposed three texts, T1492, was extant, and the other two were lost 一存二缺, ascribing the extant T1492 incorrectly to An Shigao. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Kamata 1982] Kamata Shigeo 鎌田茂雄. Chūgoku bukkyō shi, dai ikkan: Shodenki no bukkyō 中国仏教史 第一巻 初伝期末の仏教. Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1982. — 149-154 |
|
Kamata discusses ascriptions to An Shigao, and is willing, on various grounds, to accept the ascriptions for T13, T14, T31, T32, T48, T57, T98, T112, T150A, T150B, T397(17), T602, T603, T607, and T1557. This implies that in Kamata's opinion, the ascriptions for all other texts attributed to An Shigao in T are less reliable, namely, T16, T36, T91, T92, T105, T109, T131, T140, T149, T151, T167, T348, T356, T492, T506, T525, T526, T551, T553, T554, T604, T605, T621, T622, T684, T701, T724, T729, T730, T731, T732, T733, T734, T779, T791, T792, T1467, T1470, T1492, and T2027. This entry lists all the texts in this latter group. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Ōno 1954] Ōno Hōdō 大野法道. Daijō kai kyō no kenkyū 大乗戒経の研究. Tokyo: Risōsha 理想社, 1954. — 33-34 |
According to Ōno, there are three Shelifu hui guo jing 舎利弗悔過經 (*Triskandhaka; Śāriputra’s Sūtra on the Repentance of his Sins) listed in traditional catalogues: 1) the extant one (T1492), which Ōno regards as the work of Dharmarakṣa, since CSZJJ classifies it as such, and the ascription is also supported by phraseology and style; 2) a version ascribed to An Shigao, first appearing in LDSBJ, followed by DTNDL and others; and 3) a version ascribed to Kumārajīva, first listed in DZKZM citing Fashang 法上錄. Ōno states that KYL confused (1) T1492 with (2) and ascribed the former to An Shigao (the ascription still borne by T1492), while classifying (2) and (3) as missing 缺本. The succeeding catalogues followed KYL. Ōno points out that, however, the ascription to An Shigao was first given by LDSBJ on dubious grounds, and the ascription to Kumārajīva given by Fashang is also dubious. Meanwhile, neither (2) nor (3) is listed at all in Fajing or DTNDL. Ōno concludes that versions (2) and (3) did not exist, being just mistaken records concerning T1492 itself. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Lu 1989] Lu, Cheng. “Dharmarakṣa.” In Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, Volume 4, edited by W. G. Weeraratne, 552–54. Sri Lanka: Department of Buddhist Affairs, 1989. — 553 |
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 Entry author: Michael Radich |
|