| Identifier | T2042 [T] |
| Title | 阿育王傳 [T] |
| Date | E. Jin or later [Fang and Lu 2023] |
| Unspecified | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Sakaino 1935] |
| Translator 譯 | An Faqin, 安法欽 [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 |
[Palumbo 2012] Palumbo, Antonello. "Models of Buddhist Kingship in Early Medieval China." In Zhonggu shidai de liyi, zongjiao yu zhidu 中古時代的禮儀、宗教與制度 (New Perspectives on Ritual, Religion and Institution in Medieval China), edited by Yu Xin 余欣, 287-338. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe 上海古籍出版社, 2012. — 311 |
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 |
|
|
|
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). — 70, 277, 423 n. 163 |
The Ayu wang zhuan 阿育王傳 in seven juan (Aśokarājāvadāna) tells the "legendarized" history of Aśoka. According to late bibliographic sources, the text was translated by An Faqin 安法欽 in 306. However, Zürcher notes that An Faqin is not discussed by either Dao’an or Sengyou in the Gaoseng zhuan or the bibliographical chapters of the CSZJJ. Zürcher notes that Sengyou mentions a text with a similar name, the Da Ayu wang jing 大阿育王經, consisting of one juan, which Dao’an classed among “suspected” scriptures. The Ayu wang juan is attributed to An Faqin in DTNDL 大唐內典錄 T2149, which refers to Zhu Daozu’s 竺道祖 early fifth century catalogue, the Jinshi zalu 晉世雜錄. The only other ascription to An Faqin in the canon is 道神足無極變化經 T816. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
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. — 98 |
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 |
|
|
|
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. — 92-98 |
Sakaino claims that the vocabulary of the Aśokāvadāna 大阿育王經 [阿育王傳, T2042] ascribed to An Faqin 安法欽, is clearly newer than that of the Shen daozu wuji bianhua jing 道神足無極變化經 T816, also ascribed to An Faqin. He also points out several terminological oddities in T2042, which include its use of 眞陀羅 (as a transliteration of caṇḍāla 屠者, whereas Dharmarakṣa, whom LDSBJ states was a contemporary of An Faqin, uses the same transcription 眞陀羅 for kinnara). [Sakaino does not say anything clear about the true ascription of T2042. It is not known what source Fei referred to in giving this ascription (there is no 大阿育王經/阿育王傳 in Sengyou's new catalogue of anonymous scriptures 續失譯錄, which Sakaino is otherwise here discussing as a source for many of Fei's new ascriptions) ---AI.] Sakaino states that LDSBJ is the source of the ascriptions to Tandi (*Dharmasatya?) 曇諦, An Faxian 安法賢, An Faqin and Shengjian 聖堅 in various catalogues [Sakaino seems to suggest that all of those ascriptions, including the ascription of T816 to An Faqin, are groundless simply because they were first given by LDSBJ ---AI]. Sakaino also states that probably An Faqin did not exist. One of the reasons for his suggestion is the oddness of the character 欽 in his name, which does not appear to be either the translation or transliteration of any Sanskrit word (95-96). Sakaino proposes that probably both An Faqin and An Faxian were both probably created as a result of some misunderstanding about Shenjian (96-98). 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. — 92-98 |
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 |
|
|
|
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. — 286 |
Kamata discusses a list of W. Jin translators mentioned in in KYL, noting that it might include figures who never existed, or existed but did not in fact translate. Zhi Lianglouzhi 彊梁婁至 and An Fayin 安法欽 are such dubious figures, as they do not appear in Dao’an’s catalogue, nor in CSZJJ. Zhi Lianglouzhi firsts appears in LDSBJ as the translator 譯出 of the Shi’er you jing 十二遊經 [cf. T195 ascribed to *Kālodaka 迦留陀伽; no texts are ascribed to Zhi Lianglouzhi in the present T --- MR]. An Faqin 安法欽 appears [in LDSBJ, Kamata seems to mean -- AI] as the translator of five titles in twelve juan, including the “Sūtra of the Mighty King Aśoka” 大阿育王經 (阿育王傳 T2042, still ascribed to An Fayin in T) and the Dao shenzu wuji bianjua jing 道神足無極変化經 T816 (which also still carries the ascription to An Faqin). Kamata maintains that these ascriptions to An Faqin are not reliable, as their supposed source is the “catalogue of the Jin era” 晉世雜錄 by Zhu Daoyu 竺道祖. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Naitō 1970] Naitō Ryūo 内藤竜雄. "Hō Kyō roku ni tsuite 法經錄について." IBK 19, no. 1 (1970): 235-238. |
|
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 |
|
|
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. — 12 |
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 |
|
|
|
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. — 12 |
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Xu and Huang argue that the Ayuwang zhuan 阿育王傳 T2042 and the Dao shenzu wuji bianhua jing 道神足無極變化經 T816 were translated by An Faqin, on the basis of comparison of the lexical and syntactic features of T2042 and T816. They refer to Xu Zhengkao 徐正考 and Huang Na 黃娜. “Yuyan tezheng de kaocha yu ‘wuti’ yijing yizhe de queding–yi Ayuwang jing he Ayuwang zhuan wei li” 語言特征的考察與“誤題”譯經譯者的確定——以《阿育王經》和《阿育王傳》為例. Jilin daxue (Shehui kexue xuebao) 吉林大學（社會科學學報） 1 (2013): 160–167. 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. — 12 |
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 |
|