Text: T2042; 阿育王傳

No

• T2042; 阿育王傳

In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Wang Haolei argues that the Ayuwang zhuan 阿育王傳 T2042 should have been translated no earlier than the Eastern Jin dynasty, and in the north. They refer to

Wang Haolei 王浩壘. “Tongben yiyi Ayuwang zhuan yu Ayuwang jing cihui bijiao yanjiu” 同本異譯《阿育王傳》與《阿育王經》詞匯比較研究. PhD diss., Zhejiang daxue 2012: 13–25.

Entry author: Mengji Huang

Edit

• Date: E. Jin or later

No

• T2042; 阿育王傳

In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Wang Haolei argues that the ascription of the Dao shenzu wuji bianhua jing 道神足無極變化經 T816 to An Faqin is unreliable. Wang also argues, on the basis of phraseology, that the translation of the Ayuwang zhuan 阿育王傳 T2042 postdates the Eastern Jin. They refer to

Wang Haolei 王浩壘. “Yiming de guilü xing yu wuti jing yizhe de panding–‘Ayuwang zhuan wei Xi Jin An Faqin yi’ xianyi” 譯名的規律性與誤題經譯者的判定——“《阿育王傳》為西晉安法欽譯”獻疑. In Hanyu shi xuebao 漢語史學報, vol. 20, edited by Zhejiang daxue Hanyu shi yanjiu zhongxin 浙江大學漢語史研究中心, 64–74. Shanghai: Shanghai jiaoyu, 2018.

Entry author: Mengji Huang

Edit

• Date: after E. Jin

No

• T2042; 阿育王傳

The Ayu wang zhuan 阿育王傳 (Aśokarājāvadāna) T2042 appears for the first time in Fei Changfang’s LDSBJ 歷代三寶紀 T2034 where it is attributed to An Faqin 安法欽 in 306. Palumbo argues that this attribution is suspicious, not only due to the text’s mysterious disappearance for three centuries or Changfang’s notorious imprecision, but the translation’s terminology, which resembles that which is only seen after the work of Kumārajīva in the early fifth century; for example, such forms as niepan 涅槃 for Sanskrit nirvāṇa, or the transcription of Aśoka as Ashuqie 阿恕伽. Furthermore, the text contains “extended textual parallels” with the Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因緣傳 T2058. Palumbo cites Maspéro, who has previously argued that T2058 was a sixth century “forgery” which lifted text from T2042. However, Palumbo suggests either that the Ayu wang zhuan is based on T2058, or that both texts draw on a common source. Citing Maspero (1911).

Entry author: Sophie Florence

Edit

No

• T0196; 中本起經
• T0234; 佛說濡首菩薩無上清淨分衛經; Jueliao zhufa ru huanhua sanmei jing 決了諸法如幻化三昧經
• T0360; 佛說無量壽經; Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra
• T0495; 佛說阿難分別經
• T0527; 佛說逝童子經
• T0640; 佛說月燈三昧經
• T0641; 佛說月燈三昧經
• T0816; Dao shenzu jing 道神足經; He dao shenzu jing 合道神足經; 佛說道神足無極變化經
• T0839; 占察善惡業報經
• T1432; 曇無德律部雜羯磨
• T1490; Rulai suoshuo qingjing tiaofu 如來所說清淨調伏; 寂調音所問經
• T2034; 歷代三寶紀
• T2042; 阿育王傳
• T2146; 眾經目錄
• X0011; 佛說無量壽佛名號利益大事因緣經

Naitō gives some general information about Fajing's 法經 Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. It was composed in the space of two months in 594 by a commission of 22 scholars. Hayashiya argued that the catalogue was composed in preparation for the copying of the full canon. Naitō argues that there must have been some circumstances precipitating the rush. He notes that suspicious texts were also recorded and categorised as such, which would be odd if the sole purpose of the catalogue was to list works to be included in an approved version of the canon. He therefore proposes that the catalogue, and the canon connected to it, were prepared as a response to the notorious incident in Guangzhou in 593 surrounding the use of the Zhancha jing 占察經, in which practices of self-flagellation, "stupa repentance" rites, and the "mixing of the sixes" were connected with the use of a scripture that a commission of experts then declared spurious. Among the reasons they gave that the text was inauthentic was that the text was recorded in no earlier catalogues, which Naitō treats as circumstantial evidence that there was a mentality current that could see the compilation of a new catalogue as associated with a similar agenda to determine which texts were authoritative and, by implication, which were spurious, in order to forestall recurrence of like incidents.

Naitō also treats the problem of the sources of Fajing's work. Determination of his sources is made difficult by the fact that the catalogue does not explicitly give its sources. Fei Zhangfang/Changfang says that Fajing had seventeen catalogues at his disposal, but then does not himself admit that so many catalogues were extant in their time. Naitō reports very briefly that he has compared the treatment of extant translations in Fajing with treatment in other sources, for a total of 79 translators and 556 works, but here gives no details, rather, promising to report his findings in another venue. He notes that a total of 428 texts were ascribed to named translators in CSZJJ, but in Fajing, that number increases to 459 for translators down to the end of the Qi (i.e. before Sengyou's time). In other words, Fajing has added at least 31 new ascriptions. As a matter of fact, there are 34 more ascriptions on which Fajing does not agree with CSZJJ, for a total of 65 new ascriptions. Naitō is unable to determine Fajing's sources for these ascriptions, but he notes that in total, they entail, among other things, the addition of nine new "translators" to the record: Tanguo 曇果 [cf. T196], Tankejialuo 曇柯迦羅 [to whom no extant texts are ascribed today], Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 [cf. T360, T1432, X11], Fajian 法堅 [cf. T495], Zhi Fadu 支法度 [cf. T17, T527], An Faqin 安法欽 [cf. T816, T2042], Fahai 法海 [cf. T1490], Xian gong 先公 [cf. T640, T641], and Xiang gong 翔公 [cf. T234].

Naitō argues that probably five catalogues were in fact extant at Fajing's (and Fei's) time, in addition to GSZ: CSZJJ, Baochang's 寶唱 catalogue, Li Kuo's 李廓 catalogue, Fashang's 法上 catalogue, and the Zhongjing bielu 眾經別錄. Prior scholarship had understood that Baochang collected information from a range of older catalogues, and that Baochang was in turn the proximate source for the use of information from these older catalogues in Fei's LDSBJ (Naitō refers to Tokiwa for this view). Naitō doubts this, because he believes that Baochang only reported 226 ascriptions for sutras, and this number probably did not exceed 300 even when śāstras and vinaya works are taken into account; but this total is too few to account for the profusion of new information reported under the Sui. He notes further that comparison to CSZJJ, the only case in which we can check Fei's information against his source, shows that when LDSBJ says "see such-and-such a catalogue", it only means that the title is listed in the source, not the ascription --- CSZJJ is cited in this manner for texts that CSZJJ itself clearly treats as anonymous.

Naitō also discusses Fajing's probable use of Fashang's catalogue. He notes that Fashang stopped at about 568-570, and that Fajing does the same. He takes this fact to indicate that Fajing just took Fashang's information over holus-bolus, and suggests that ascriptions to Fajian, Fahai, and Xian gong were probably added on this basis.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

No

• T0816; Dao shenzu jing 道神足經; He dao shenzu jing 合道神足經; 佛說道神足無極變化經
• T2042; 阿育王傳

Sakaino suggests that An Faxian 安法賢 as a person might have been created accidentally as a variation on the name of Fajian 法堅 (i.e., Shengjian 聖堅), and then An Faqin 安法欽 as a variation of An Faxian. This being so, both An Faxian and An Faqin might never have existed, but rather, be ghosts created by Fei. This would have the implication that all ascriptions to An Faxian and An Faqin are spurious.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

No

• T0816; Dao shenzu jing 道神足經; He dao shenzu jing 合道神足經; 佛說道神足無極變化經
• T2042; 阿育王傳

Sakaino proposes that An Faqin 安法欽, like An Faxian 安法賢, probably in fact never existed, but rather, was a ghost created as a result of some misunderstanding about Shengjian 聖堅. Sakaino states that LDSBJ ascribes the following five titles to An Faqin 安法欽: the Da Ayuwang jing 大阿育王經 (5 juan) (cf. T2042), the Dao shenzu wuji bianhua jing 道神足無極變化經 (2 juan) (T816), the Wenshushili xian baozang jing 文殊師利現寶藏經 (2 juan) (cf. T461), the Asheshi wang jing 阿闍世王經 (2 juan) (cf. T626), and the Anantuo muqunihelituo jing 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀經 (1 juan) (cf. T1013). Sakaino obviously rejects all of these ascriptions to An Faqin.

Among the above five titles, the Shen daozu wuji bianhua jing 道神足無極變化經 [T816] and the 大阿育王經 [阿育王傳 T2042] are extant and still ascribed to An Faqin in T. According to Sakaino, T816 is likely to be the work of *Lokakṣema 支讖 judging from the terminology. Sakaino suggests no alternate ascription for T2042, only claiming that its vocabulary is clearly newer than that of T816, and that this title is the only one among the five that does not appear in any of previous catalogues. As for the other four titles, the Shen daozu wuji bianhua jing and the Anantuo muqu nihelituo jing are found in the “continuation of the catalogue of anonymous translations” 續失譯經錄 of CSZJJ; the Wenshushili xian baozang jing is found in the catalogue of alternate translations from the (Northern) Liang country 安公凉土異經錄, and may be the same text as the Fazang jing 法藏經ascribed to Dharmarakṣa in CSZJJ; and the title Asheshi wang jing was probably taken from a title ascribed to Dharmarakṣa in CSZJJ. Sakaino maintains that these four were ascribed to An Faqin in LDSBJ by confusion or deliberate fabrication.

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit