Source: Bokenkamp 1990

Bokenkamp, Stephen R. "Stages of Transcendence: The Bhūmi Concept in Taoist Scripture.” In Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, edited by Robert E. Buswell, Jr., 119-148. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990.

Assertions

Assertion	Argument	Place in source	Search
Texts: T1485; 菩薩瓔珞本業經; Pusa yingluo jing 菩薩瓔珞經	Bokenkamp states that the Pusa yingluo benye jing 菩薩瓔珞本業經 T1485 is an “apocryphon.” He argues that its concepts are related to those of Daoism and presents its methods as “comparable to other Daoist methods but superior to them.” He argues that the message of the bodhisattva path as a method of transcendence, and the options for different paths of practice (“compromise for the benefit of the Chinese laity”, e.g. spending “one, two or...three kalpas laboring through the initial stages of disbelief”) provided in the Pusa yingluo benye jing, mirror those of the Daoist Benxiang jing 本相經. He suggests that such concession to competing Chinese beliefs is typical of Buddhist apocryphal works. Edit	134-137	Bokenkamp states that the Pusa yingluo benye jing 菩薩瓔珞本業經 T1485 is an “apocryphon.” He argues that its concepts are related to those of Daoism and presents its methods as “comparable to other Daoist methods but superior to them.” He argues that the message of the bodhisattva path as a method of transcendence, and the options for different paths of practice (“compromise for the benefit of the Chinese laity”, e.g. spending “one, two or...three kalpas laboring through the initial stages of disbelief”) provided in the Pusa yingluo benye jing, mirror those of the Daoist Benxiang jing 本相經. He suggests that such concession to competing Chinese beliefs is typical of Buddhist apocryphal works. T1485; 菩薩瓔珞本業經; Pusa yingluo jing 菩薩瓔珞經
Texts: T0278; 大方廣佛華嚴經	Bokenkamp avers that both the Indic source and the Chinese development of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra 大方廣佛華嚴經 T278 are problematic. He claims that the Avataṃsaka contains a model of forty-two stages with problematic origins. The first twenty stages derive from two successive versions of the ten-stage path. The first ten are taken from from Zhi Qian's 菩薩本業經 T281 (an early, proto-*Buddhāvataṃsaka). The second set of ten is drawn from Dharmarakṣa's Jianbei jing 漸備一切智德經 T285 (itself a Daśabhūmika; this version of the ten stages was later modified in a different direction in the Shi zhu duan jie jing 十住斷結經 T309). This text, Bokenkamp writes, had been "mysteriously rediscovered”; in Dao'an's time, the text was said to have been translated by Dharmarakṣa, but to have remained "hidden" in Liangzhou. Oddly enough, instead of one of these models of the ten stages replacing the other, the two were glued together in T278 to make twenty successive stages out of the total 42. Bokenkamp adds that the Avataṃsaka was highly influential, and became a central text for the Kegonshū school, and suggests that because of the importance of Kegonshū in Japan, the text's origin from an Indic manuscript has never been questioned. He continues, “even Nakamura Hajime,” who concludes that the text must have been translated in Central Asia, claims that that the original “must have been a much lengthier version of the Gaṇḍavyūha than is represented by any of the 'fragments' that have come down to us.” (Nakamura, Indian Buddhism, 94-197 citing Kegon shisō kenkyū). Bokenkamp does not attempt to draw any firm conclusions, but notes that the expanded bodhisattva path represented in the Avataṃsaka follows the same structure as texts which are “unambiguously” composed in China, and generally recognised as “apocryphal.” Edit	124-125	Bokenkamp avers that both the Indic source and the Chinese development of the Avatamsaka-sutra 大方廣佛華嚴經 T278 are problematic. He claims that the Avatamsaka contains a model of forty-two stages with problematic origins. The first twenty stages derive from two successive versions of the ten-stage path. The first ten are taken from from Zhi Qian's 菩薩本業經 T281 (an early, proto-*Buddhavatamsaka). The second set of ten is drawn from Dharmaraksa's Jianbei jing 漸備一切智德經 T285 (itself a Dasabhumika; this version of the ten stages was later modified in a different direction in the Shi zhu duan jie jing 十住斷結經 T309). This text, Bokenkamp writes, had been "mysteriously rediscovered”; in Dao'an's time, the text was said to have been translated by Dharmaraksa, but to have remained "hidden" in Liangzhou. Oddly enough, instead of one of these models of the ten stages replacing the other, the two were glued together in T278 to make twenty successive stages out of the total 42. Bokenkamp adds that the Avatamsaka was highly influential, and became a central text for the Kegonshu school, and suggests that because of the importance of Kegonshu in Japan, the text's origin from an Indic manuscript has never been questioned. He continues, “even Nakamura Hajime,” who concludes that the text must have been translated in Central Asia, claims that that the original “must have been a much lengthier version of the Gandavyuha than is represented by any of the 'fragments' that have come down to us.” (Nakamura, Indian Buddhism, 94-197 citing Kegon shiso kenkyu). Bokenkamp does not attempt to draw any firm conclusions, but notes that the expanded bodhisattva path represented in the Avatamsaka follows the same structure as texts which are “unambiguously” composed in China, and generally recognised as “apocryphal.” T0278; 大方廣佛華嚴經
Texts: T0285; 漸備一切智德經	Bokenkamp states that while there is no doubt that the Jianbei yiqie zhide jing 漸備一切智德經 T285 is a translation of the Daśabhūmika sūtra, "we may have grounds for disbelieving the attribution of the translation to Dharmarakṣa." He notes that Dao’an was suspicious about the attribution, and suggests that this text may have been attributed to Dharmarakṣa due to the translator’s involvement with “a quite different bhūmi sūtra”, the Yogācārabhūmi T606. For this insight he cites Nakamura, Indian Buddhism, p. 171. In discussing this problem, Bokenkamp also implies that it might imply further problems for the provenance and composition of the entire *Buddhāvataṃsaka, as it has come down to us in Chinese and Tibetan translations only: “The importance of the Kegonshū in Japan has ensured that the origin of the Avataṃsaka from a single Sanskrit or Prākrit text has never been seriously questioned. Even Nakamura Hajime, who finally comes to the conclusion that the text must have been translated in Central Asia, since it mentions China and Kashgar, avers that the original must have been a much lengthier version of the Gaṇḍavyūha than is represented by the “fragments” that have come down to us. We need not come to any conclusion on this complex problem here, except to note that the articulation of an expanded bodhisattva path as represented in this scripture seems to follow the same principles of systematization that we will find continued in sūtras unambiguously written within the Chinese cultural sphere, for the development from forty-two to fifty-two stages was accomplished in scriptures now generally recognised as apocryphal .” Edit	124-125, 141	Bokenkamp states that while there is no doubt that the Jianbei yiqie zhide jing 漸備一切智德經 T285 is a translation of the Dasabhumika sutra, "we may have grounds for disbelieving the attribution of the translation to Dharmaraksa." He notes that Dao’an was suspicious about the attribution, and suggests that this text may have been attributed to Dharmaraksa due to the translator’s involvement with “a quite different bhumi sutra”, the Yogacarabhumi T606. For this insight he cites Nakamura, Indian Buddhism, p. 171. In discussing this problem, Bokenkamp also implies that it might imply further problems for the provenance and composition of the entire *Buddhavatamsaka, as it has come down to us in Chinese and Tibetan translations only: “The importance of the Kegonshu in Japan has ensured that the origin of the Avatamsaka from a single Sanskrit or Prakrit text has never been seriously questioned. Even Nakamura Hajime, who finally comes to the conclusion that the text must have been translated in Central Asia, since it mentions China and Kashgar, avers that the original must have been a much lengthier version of the Gandavyuha than is represented by the “fragments” that have come down to us. We need not come to any conclusion on this complex problem here, except to note that the articulation of an expanded bodhisattva path as represented in this scripture seems to follow the same principles of systematization that we will find continued in sutras unambiguously written within the Chinese cultural sphere, for the development from forty-two to fifty-two stages was accomplished in scriptures now generally recognised as apocryphal .” T0285; 漸備一切智德經

Assertion

Argument

Place in source

Texts: T1485; 菩薩瓔珞本業經; Pusa yingluo jing 菩薩瓔珞經

Bokenkamp states that the Pusa yingluo benye jing 菩薩瓔珞本業經 T1485 is an “apocryphon.” He argues that its concepts are related to those of Daoism and presents its methods as “comparable to other Daoist methods but superior to them.” He argues that the message of the bodhisattva path as a method of transcendence, and the options for different paths of practice (“compromise for the benefit of the Chinese laity”, e.g. spending “one, two or...three kalpas laboring through the initial stages of disbelief”) provided in the Pusa yingluo benye jing, mirror those of the Daoist Benxiang jing 本相經. He suggests that such concession to competing Chinese beliefs is typical of Buddhist apocryphal works.

Edit

134-137

Texts: T0278; 大方廣佛華嚴經

Bokenkamp avers that both the Indic source and the Chinese development of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra 大方廣佛華嚴經 T278 are problematic. He claims that the Avataṃsaka contains a model of forty-two stages with problematic origins. The first twenty stages derive from two successive versions of the ten-stage path. The first ten are taken from from Zhi Qian's 菩薩本業經 T281 (an early, proto-*Buddhāvataṃsaka). The second set of ten is drawn from Dharmarakṣa's Jianbei jing 漸備一切智德經 T285 (itself a Daśabhūmika; this version of the ten stages was later modified in a different direction in the Shi zhu duan jie jing 十住斷結經 T309). This text, Bokenkamp writes, had been "mysteriously rediscovered”; in Dao'an's time, the text was said to have been translated by Dharmarakṣa, but to have remained "hidden" in Liangzhou. Oddly enough, instead of one of these models of the ten stages replacing the other, the two were glued together in T278 to make twenty successive stages out of the total 42.

Bokenkamp adds that the Avataṃsaka was highly influential, and became a central text for the Kegonshū school, and suggests that because of the importance of Kegonshū in Japan, the text's origin from an Indic manuscript has never been questioned. He continues, “even Nakamura Hajime,” who concludes that the text must have been translated in Central Asia, claims that that the original “must have been a much lengthier version of the Gaṇḍavyūha than is represented by any of the 'fragments' that have come down to us.” (Nakamura, Indian Buddhism, 94-197 citing Kegon shisō kenkyū). Bokenkamp does not attempt to draw any firm conclusions, but notes that the expanded bodhisattva path represented in the Avataṃsaka follows the same structure as texts which are “unambiguously” composed in China, and generally recognised as “apocryphal.”

Edit

124-125

Texts: T0285; 漸備一切智德經

Bokenkamp states that while there is no doubt that the Jianbei yiqie zhide jing 漸備一切智德經 T285 is a translation of the Daśabhūmika sūtra, "we may have grounds for disbelieving the attribution of the translation to Dharmarakṣa." He notes that Dao’an was suspicious about the attribution, and suggests that this text may have been attributed to Dharmarakṣa due to the translator’s involvement with “a quite different bhūmi sūtra”, the Yogācārabhūmi T606. For this insight he cites Nakamura, Indian Buddhism, p. 171. In discussing this problem, Bokenkamp also implies that it might imply further problems for the provenance and composition of the entire *Buddhāvataṃsaka, as it has come down to us in Chinese and Tibetan translations only: “The importance of the Kegonshū in Japan has ensured that the origin of the Avataṃsaka from a single Sanskrit or Prākrit text has never been seriously questioned. Even Nakamura Hajime, who finally comes to the conclusion that the text must have been translated in Central Asia, since it mentions China and Kashgar, avers that the original must have been a much lengthier version of the Gaṇḍavyūha than is represented by the “fragments” that have come down to us. We need not come to any conclusion on this complex problem here, except to note that the articulation of an expanded bodhisattva path as represented in this scripture seems to follow the same principles of systematization that we will find continued in sūtras unambiguously written within the Chinese cultural sphere, for the development from forty-two to fifty-two stages was accomplished in scriptures now generally recognised as apocryphal .”

Edit

124-125, 141