This article examines three correlated entries of three respective Buddhist Encyclopaedias. They ... more This article examines three correlated entries of three respective Buddhist Encyclopaedias. They are ‘Za a-han jing 雜阿含經’ of Zhong Guo Fo Jiao 中國佛教 by Tian Guang-Lie 田光烈and You-Xia 游俠, ‘Saṃyuktāgama’ of Encyclopaedia of Buddhism by Rod Bucknell, and ‘Za a-han jing 雜阿含經’ of Zhong Hua Fo Jiao Bai Ke Quan Shu 中華佛教百科全書. It will first introduce the content of each entry briefly and highlight points that are either inappropriate or worthy of further investigation. Then it examines and explores five common issues of these entries, such as the translation era, the person brought back the Indic source book, the meaning and reasons why adopting ‘雜 za’ to translate ‘Saṃyukta’, the language of the Indic source book, and the structure of the ‘雜阿含經Saṃyuktāgama’ as T99 denoted by the Taishø Tripitaka 大正藏.
In 2023, Jan Nattier has her article “On Two Previously Unidentified Verses in Zhi Qian’s Hybrid ... more In 2023, Jan Nattier has her article “On Two Previously Unidentified Verses in Zhi Qian’s Hybrid Dharmapada” published on the ARIRIAB (Annual Report of The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University). It indicates that the so-called ‘two previously unidentified verses’ of the Faju jing (T210, here highlighted as verse 22.7 and 22.8) may be traced to two verses of the Divyāvadāna and Uv 17.7-8 as their paralles. Her article also provides detailed expoundings and comparative studies among them. It examines verses of the Shufo chapter 述佛品 of T210 with comments against its translation style. By the end of this article it reflects and proposes that these multi-language ‘recensions’ of extant manuscripts of ‘Dharmapada/Dhammapada’ may be referred as ‘books belong to a specific catagory’ instead of ‘versions of the same book’. Authors (Zhang and Su) introduce and make notes on key arguments of Nattier’s article following these six topics: 1. Parallels of the first verse of the Shufo vagga述佛品 of T210. 2. Parallels of the twelfth verse of the Shufo chapter 述佛品 of T210. 3. Zhi Qian used to translate Indic ‘bhikkhu’ as ‘沙門’(Sha-Men). 4. On Ge’s 700-verses version of ‘Dharmapada/Dhammapada’. 5. On possible Indic sources of verse 22.7 and 22.8. 6. The underlying language of the Faju jing (T210) by Zhi Qian 支謙
Both Chinese Za Ahan Jing(T99) and Pāli Saṃyutta Niākya are the major two of important sources in... more Both Chinese Za Ahan Jing(T99) and Pāli Saṃyutta Niākya are the major two of important sources in the field of the early Buddhism studies. Scholars claimed that they must have shared coherent contents for its common origination, though there are variations here and there. This article explains that we should pay attention to coherent structure and contents as well as variations between them. Here I highlight eight types of variations about them. They are: 1. Total numbers of texts. 2. The structure of chapters. 3. Title of each single text. 4. Uddāna. 5. Unique text and/or special dogmatic claim(s). 6. Derivative texts. 7. Stereotype phrases. 8. Details of the parallel text.
These eight types of variations points to the complicate relations between them, it might not show a simple and single line transition through a dedicated genealogical investigation. It takes further tasks to find out if each pair of Āgama/Nikāya were collected under specific editorial guidelines, or they came simply out of a single recension under ages of historical changes.
法鼓文理學院的「阿含研究小組 Āgama research group」在2018年十月底於阿根廷召開「《雜阿含經》研究」國際學術研討會，會中宣讀的最後三篇論文依次為馬德偉、筆者以及辛島靜志，我... more 法鼓文理學院的「阿含研究小組 Āgama research group」在2018年十月底於阿根廷召開「《雜阿含經》研究」國際學術研討會，會中宣讀的最後三篇論文依次為馬德偉、筆者以及辛島靜志，我們三人發表的論文都涉及與《別譯雜阿含經》漢譯所據的印度文本相關的議題，而各自有不同的主張。
In 1965, Lü Cheng呂澂 published an article in the Buddhist Journal Xian Dai Fo Xue 現代佛學titled The D... more In 1965, Lü Cheng呂澂 published an article in the Buddhist Journal Xian Dai Fo Xue 現代佛學titled The Date When the Sūtra on the Forty-two Chapters (Si-shi-er zhang jing) was Extracted. This article claims that the Sūtra on the Forty-two Chapters dates from the Eastern Jin dynasty and was extracted from Tan Guo’s translation of the Dharmapada (Fa Ju Jing). Lü’s article is concise and brief on details about the deduction process and philological evidence. In his article, there is an appendix of comparative verses that cross references the texts of the Sūtra on the Forty-two Chapters with verses from three extant Chinese translations of the Dharmapada. This paper will first examine the comparison of the verses presented in the appendix and highlight the many points that are worthy of further investigation. This task concludes that there are only five verses showing reasonable correspondence to support the claim that the text was extracted from the Dharmapada. This paper also demonstrates that some texts from the Sūtra on the Forty-two Chapters can be traced back to the Āgamas and/or Nikāyas. Lü’s claim that the Sūtra on the Forty-two Chapters is an extract from the Dharmapada that was then converted into prose format lacks convincing philological evidence. Furthermore, the possibility of other sources cannot be ruled out. This paper takes a different position to that of Lü’s claim.
五十卷本《雜阿含經》偶有字句疑義，筆者認為這些疑義，部分是出於抄寫訛誤，部分是誤判「否定接首詞-a」或「否定詞 ma」之有無，部分為字句遺漏。本文嘗試列舉部分經例，作為未來精審版《雜阿含經》校勘... more 五十卷本《雜阿含經》偶有字句疑義，筆者認為這些疑義，部分是出於抄寫訛誤，部分是誤判「否定接首詞-a」或「否定詞 ma」之有無，部分為字句遺漏。本文嘗試列舉部分經例，作為未來精審版《雜阿含經》校勘之建議。
Karashima Seishi’s article, ‘The Sarvāstivādins “Encroachment” into the Chinese Translation of th... more Karashima Seishi’s article, ‘The Sarvāstivādins “Encroachment” into the Chinese Translation of the Daśottara-sūtra in the Dīrgha-āgama of the Dharmaguptakas’, highlights that there are differences among recensions of the Shisang jing(十上經) of Chinese Dīrgha-āgama (T1). These differences locate majorly in the three-dhammas(三法) section and the four-dhammas(四法) section of this very sūtra. He classifies the major recensions into two groups according to its own variants of that counter passages. These two groups are so-called the ‘Korean Tripitaka group’ and the ‘Song-Yuan-Ming Tripitaka group’. Furthermore, he claims that passages of these two sections of the previous group are ‘original translation’ and that of latter group are ‘the Sarvāstivādins “Encroachment”’. This article firstly introduces Karashima’s major claims in his own article then it enumerates and offers a critical review or comment to the following items: 1. For both the three-dhammas(三法) section and the four-dhammas(四法) section, details of the ‘Song-Yuan-Ming Tripitaka group’ and that of the Sarvāstivādins manuscript(in Sanskrit) are exactly the same. 2. The counter passages of the Taishō Tripitaka, which is ascribed to the ‘Korean Tripitaka group’, are the ‘original translation’. They are replaced by the ‘new translation’ in the ‘Song-Yuan-Ming Tripitaka group’. 3. The translator or the translation team of the counter variants of the ‘Song-Yuan-Ming Tripitaka group’ might have had the Indic text in hands. They somehow simply change those two sections according to their Indic text. 4. It is highly probable that this very Indic text, the Indic text of An Shigao’s Shibao fa jing (十報法經) and the Sanskrit Daśottara-sūtra belong to the same Buddhist School. 5. The counter variants in the ‘Song-Yuan-Ming Tripitaka group’ would probably be translated before the Tang Dynasty. 6. Due to unknown reasons, the counter variants from ‘new translation’ in the ‘Song-Yuan-Ming Tripitaka group’ occur only in that very two sections. 7. There might be similar cases apply to other yet-to -define Chinese translations that Indic texts of ‘new arrivals’ was adopted to modify the previous translation anonymously.
Taishō Tripitaka lays down milestones for modern Chinese tripitakas. Buddhist scholars do not hes... more Taishō Tripitaka lays down milestones for modern Chinese tripitakas. Buddhist scholars do not hesitate to give greater esteems to its contributions of following areas: ‘new structure of Chinese Buddhist literature’, ‘more collections of ancient Chinese translation, local Chinese writings and works done by Japanese’, ‘new critical editions of extant Buddhist literature’, ‘new corresponding tables between Pāli and Chinese Buddhist literature’, ‘including newly found Dunhuang manuscripts’, ‘including newly found Indian religious texts other than Buddhism’, ‘including apocryphal texts’, and ‘new numbering systems of its Buddhist literature’. Be that as it may, both Master Yinshun and Professor Fang Guangchang highlighted some pitfalls of it. Following their works, this article aims to highlight errors ascribed to the editor’s note with examples enumerated from Taishō volume I and II. Those so-called errors was grouped by me into three categories: 1. errors out of quoted Pāli passages: They are pitfalls of incorrect title of a sutta, wrong spelling and improper passage quoted as the parallel of a Chinese passage. 2. improperly identify some Pāli suttas as the counter Chinese parallel: Since it is the very beginning to set up the corresponding tables between them, it would be inevitably leave a big room for further improvements. 3. collation errors: in addition to its collation errors, some examples pertaining to its collating guidelines are highlighted here. Of course it is definitely not my intention to be nitpicking against this fantastic Taishō Tripitaka. My humble opinions are to offer some suggestions to the upcoming tripitakas-to-be, and hopefully, as a guideline and warning signal for those students to quote something from it.
This article was published in "Research on the Saṃyukta-āgama", pp. 843-880, Dhammadinnā Bhikkhun... more This article was published in "Research on the Saṃyukta-āgama", pp. 843-880, Dhammadinnā Bhikkhunī (ed.), Dharma Drum Publication Corporation, Taipei, Taiwan. (2020) In this article I first explore the relationship between T 100 and T 99, and then present reasons why the translation of T 100 was based on an oral recitation (sections I to III). Last, I examine the proposals by Karashima Seishi 辛嶋 靜志 (2020) regarding the translators and Indic sources of both T 99 and T 100 (section IV).
Uploads
Papers by Ken Yifertw
第九講──《雜阿含經》(T99)與單卷本《雜阿含經》(T101)
第十講──《雜阿含經》(T99)與《別譯雜阿含經》(T100)
Then it examines and explores five common issues of these entries, such as the translation era, the person brought back the Indic source book, the meaning and reasons why adopting ‘雜 za’ to translate ‘Saṃyukta’, the language of the Indic source book, and the structure of the ‘雜阿含經Saṃyuktāgama’ as T99 denoted by the Taishø Tripitaka 大正藏.
第一講：「雜」與「阿含」
第二講：《雜阿含經》選讀
第三講：《雜阿含經》的篇章結構
第四講：《雜阿含經》的經題、經名與攝頌
第五講：《雜阿含經》的詮釋
第六講：《雜阿含經》的特有經典
第七講：《雜阿含經》引述的經典
第八講：《雜阿含經》與《相應部》的差異
Authors (Zhang and Su) introduce and make notes on key arguments of Nattier’s article following these six topics:
1. Parallels of the first verse of the Shufo vagga述佛品 of T210.
2. Parallels of the twelfth verse of the Shufo chapter 述佛品 of T210.
3. Zhi Qian used to translate Indic ‘bhikkhu’ as ‘沙門’(Sha-Men).
4. On Ge’s 700-verses version of ‘Dharmapada/Dhammapada’.
5. On possible Indic sources of verse 22.7 and 22.8.
6. The underlying language of the Faju jing (T210) by Zhi Qian 支謙
《嘉興藏》為私人勸募、集資、鳩工而開雕刊印，無法與朝廷集官方人力、物力所完成的「官刻大藏經」比擬。
本文僅以「阿含經」與「法句經」為主，就以下四類異讀予以評述：
1、《大正藏》的校勘註記與《嘉興藏》顯示的用字不同。
2、《嘉興藏》比《大正藏》錄文「正確」的異讀。
3、《嘉興藏》的異讀是明顯的訛誤。
4、《嘉興藏》的異讀與《大正藏》的錄文均為「訛誤」。
從以上所舉的四類異讀可知，《嘉興藏》的異讀具多種情境：有些保存難能可貴的譯本原貌，有些純粹出諸抄寫或刊刻訛誤，也有些難辨優劣。《大正藏》與《嘉興藏》有關的校勘註記，或應記而未記，或註記與今本不盡相符，顯示不能全賴前者的校勘，有待以實本覆驗。
為研習經典的讀者設想，僅是陳列歷代大藏經的各種異讀，其實幫助不大；必需能有較可靠的方法去校勘、辨析，進而抉擇最貼切的用字，才能得到譯本的「原貌」，並借助梵、巴對應經典，以探討漢譯的差異是出自文本的流變、部派詮釋的差異，還是出自翻譯團隊的誤解。
本文也說明《嘉興藏》有其校勘價值，也有其瑕疵；過度頌揚或忽視、貶抑，都不是面對古代文獻的合理態度。
This article explains that we should pay attention to coherent structure and contents as well as variations between them. Here I highlight eight types of variations about them. They are:
1. Total numbers of texts.
2. The structure of chapters.
3. Title of each single text.
4. Uddāna.
5. Unique text and/or special dogmatic claim(s).
6. Derivative texts.
7. Stereotype phrases.
8. Details of the parallel text.
These eight types of variations points to the complicate relations between them, it might not show a simple and single line transition through a dedicated genealogical investigation. It takes further tasks to find out if each pair of Āgama/Nikāya were collected under specific editorial guidelines, or they came simply out of a single recension under ages of historical changes.
在詮釋經義、字義方面，跨語言文本的對應詞彙可以作為詮釋的鑰匙，解開窒礙不通的文句，或如推窗見日一般，顯示另一可能的經典相貌。例如《相應部1.61經》偈頌當中的「addhabhavi 勝過、征服 overpowered, weighed down」，可能詮釋為「anvabhavi」，而作「包含、包圍 to encompass, to cover」解釋；因此改變了《雜阿含1020經》、《別譯雜阿含247經》、《中部101經》與《相應部35.29經》的相關句意。又如巴利《法句經》266頌的「vissaṃ dhammaṃ」字義，《雜阿含97經》與《別譯雜阿含263經》的譯詞「在家法」，替此一爭訟不定的詞彙提供一個古義。而《雜阿含1041經》對亡者「信心布施、信施」的譯詞，對應的巴利用字「saddhaṃ, saddhāni」(供品)顯示了不同層面的意涵。
當然，其他版本的異讀或字義差異僅僅是另外一把詮釋的鑰匙，而不該將其當作唯一的答案而完全抹煞以往既存的解讀。但是，當原來的字義無法顯示合理的經義時，此一額外的線索所提供的新視角就顯得彌足珍貴了。
無著比丘出版於西元2009年的詞條則未概述全經內容，也未依次條列各經的摘要。該文專注於探討《增一阿含經》的重要議題，諸如「譯者」、「部派歸屬」、「大乘元素」、「篡入晚期資料」、「保存與巴利文獻不同的經文」。
雖然錫蘭版的《佛教百科全書》最終採用無著比丘的詞條，而未存錄前者；但是，田光烈編纂的詞條遵循早期「佛教經典題解」的風格，應該算是編輯宗旨的差異，而不是繁簡優劣的差別。
筆者介紹兩則詞條，並評述《增一阿含經》的「譯者忘失」及「編後增刪」等議題，以作為下一版《佛教百科全書》的參考。
This paper will first examine the comparison of the verses presented in the appendix and highlight the many points that are worthy of further investigation. This task concludes that there are only five verses showing reasonable correspondence to support the claim that the text was extracted from the Dharmapada. This paper also demonstrates that some texts from the Sūtra on the Forty-two Chapters can be traced back to the Āgamas and/or Nikāyas.
Lü’s claim that the Sūtra on the Forty-two Chapters is an extract from the Dharmapada that was then converted into prose format lacks convincing philological evidence. Furthermore, the possibility of other sources cannot be ruled out. This paper takes a different position to that of Lü’s claim.
本文列舉《大正藏》僅出現【聖】的校勘註記，討論其中的四類異讀：
1. 正倉院「聖語藏經卷」的異讀與《大正藏》的錄文均可能是訛誤。
2. 正倉院「聖語藏經卷」保存了可貴的異讀。
3. 正倉院「聖語藏經卷」的異讀是明顯的訛誤。
4. 難以判定正倉院「聖語藏經卷」的異讀與《大正藏》的錄文的正誤或優劣。
唐人寫經為人類瑰寶，在文化、書法、佛教文獻等面向都是彌足珍貴的文物。這當中日本正倉院《聖語藏》的隋唐寫經，以及依據此類遣唐僧帶回經本的抄本尤其珍貴。雖然這些古代寫本遺珍都是價值連城的文化瑰寶，但是，如《開寶藏》為奉皇帝敕令開雕，在人力、物力都是一時之選，後繼的《思溪藏》、《崇寧藏》、《磧砂藏》、《嘉興藏》也都謹守其規矩。邊疆敦煌的寫本或日本遣唐僧帶回的經本雖有可能比上述雕本優秀，但是事實上，不可能每份鈔本都能達到如此水準。
對於古代漢譯佛典的「異讀」，一般讀者容或有一些不切實際而羅曼蒂克的幻想。例如認為「宋版」大藏經的錄文就優於「明版」大藏經，「明版」大藏經的錄文就優於《大正藏》；或者認為「敦煌遺書寫卷」的用字就會比《高麗藏》或《大正藏》正確；這樣的期待與事實不符。大抵版本之間的用字差異，應該如司法斷案，校勘取捨應持平而論，不能因年代早晚、寫本或雕本而有所偏頗。
This article firstly introduces Karashima’s major claims in his own article then it enumerates and offers a critical review or comment to the following items:
1. For both the three-dhammas(三法) section and the four-dhammas(四法) section, details of the ‘Song-Yuan-Ming Tripitaka group’ and that of the Sarvāstivādins manuscript(in Sanskrit) are exactly the same.
2. The counter passages of the Taishō Tripitaka, which is ascribed to the ‘Korean Tripitaka group’, are the ‘original translation’. They are replaced by the ‘new translation’ in the ‘Song-Yuan-Ming Tripitaka group’.
3. The translator or the translation team of the counter variants of the ‘Song-Yuan-Ming Tripitaka group’ might have had the Indic text in hands. They somehow simply change those two sections according to their Indic text.
4. It is highly probable that this very Indic text, the Indic text of An Shigao’s Shibao fa jing (十報法經) and the Sanskrit Daśottara-sūtra belong to the same Buddhist School.
5. The counter variants in the ‘Song-Yuan-Ming Tripitaka group’ would probably be translated before the Tang Dynasty.
6. Due to unknown reasons, the counter variants from ‘new translation’ in the ‘Song-Yuan-Ming Tripitaka group’ occur only in that very two sections.
7. There might be similar cases apply to other yet-to -define Chinese translations that Indic texts of ‘new arrivals’ was adopted to modify the previous translation anonymously.
Be that as it may, both Master Yinshun and Professor Fang Guangchang highlighted some pitfalls of it. Following their works, this article aims to highlight errors ascribed to the editor’s note with examples enumerated from Taishō volume I and II. Those so-called errors was grouped by me into three categories:
1. errors out of quoted Pāli passages: They are pitfalls of incorrect title of a sutta, wrong spelling and improper passage quoted as the parallel of a Chinese passage.
2. improperly identify some Pāli suttas as the counter Chinese parallel: Since it is the very beginning to set up the corresponding tables between them, it would be inevitably leave a big room for further improvements.
3. collation errors: in addition to its collation errors, some
examples pertaining to its collating guidelines are highlighted here.
Of course it is definitely not my intention to be nitpicking against this fantastic Taishō Tripitaka. My humble opinions are to offer some suggestions to the upcoming tripitakas-to-be, and hopefully, as a guideline and warning signal for those students to quote something from it.
In this article I first explore the relationship between T 100 and T 99, and then present reasons why the translation of T 100 was based on an oral recitation (sections I to III). Last, I examine the proposals by Karashima Seishi 辛嶋 靜志 (2020) regarding the translators and Indic sources of both T 99 and T 100 (section IV).