Source: Ōno 1954

Ōno states that the Guoqu wushisan Fo ming jing 過去五十三佛名經 is an excerpt text from the Wushisan jingli 五十三佛敬禮 portion of the Guan Yaowang Yaoshang er pusa jing 觀藥王藥上二菩薩經 T1161. Just like the Sanshiwu Fo ming jing 三十五佛名經, the Guoqu wushisan Fo ming jing is preserved in the appendix of the Korean and Song editions of the Ākāśagarbha Contemplation Sūtra 觀虛空藏菩薩經 T409. The Guoqu wushisan Fo ming jing is listed in the section of extant anonymous scriptures of CSZJJ with a note reading: 出藥王藥上觀亦出如來藏經 (T2145 [LV] 22b6). Although this note says that it is also excerpted from the Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra 出如來藏經, the extant T666 does not contain the names of the 53 Buddhas, while the San jie san qian Fo yuanqi 三劫三千佛縁起 (T446, which bears a note saying it too was excerpted from T1161 出觀藥王藥上經 next to the title) does.

Edit

404

“The Pusa jie jing菩薩戒經 in one juan, also called the Fan wang pusa jie jing 梵網菩薩戒經, is an excerpt of the second juan of the “Brahma net sūtra” 梵網經 T1484. It is structured with the ten grave and forty-eight light precepts 十重四十八輕戒 as the main content, each with a verse before and after it. This structure is the same as that of the “Bodhisatva prātimokṣa” 菩薩戒本 and the translated precept 戒 scriptures of the vinayadharma 律法.

This Pusa jie jing in one juan has been extant since the Liang 梁 period or earlier, but has never been included in the canon. However, Ōno states that a preface to the text 菩薩戒序 is inserted between the first and second juan of T1484 (in the Korean edition; T1484 (XXIV) 1003a15-b3 and 1003 n. 3), indicating that the inclusion of the text in the canon was at least considered. Probably, the canonisation of the text was not carried through because its contents are the same as the second juan of the “Brahma net sūtra”, so that it sufficed to include the preface only at this juncture.

Ōno maintain that in fact, the Pusa jie jing should have been entered into the canon, because it does not use all of the second juan of T1484 (unlike the “Avalokiteśvara sūtra” 觀音經 = Guanshiyin pusa pumen pin jing 觀世音菩薩普門品經, which was included in the Ming “northern” canon 明北藏, but excised in the Shukusatsu daizōkyō 縮藏 and the Taishō except for the preface, title and ascription, because it was exactly the same 同文 as the entirety of Ch 25 of T262, 妙法蓮華經觀世音菩薩普門品第二十五).

Ōno adds that the text of the Pusa jie ben came to include the entirety of the second juan of T1484 only in the mid-Tang 中唐 (the text originally began with the verse portion of the second juan). This version became dominant in the Song period and thereafter, but Ōno maintains that it was in fact the original version that had the standard prātimokṣa(?) 戒本 structure. Ōno ends his discussion of the Pusa jie jing with a list of its alternate titles (419-425).

Earlier in the book, Ōno discusses the same text: LDSBJ lists a Fan wang jing 梵網經 ascribed to Kang Mengxiang 康孟詳, and is followed in this regard by DZKZM, KYL and 貞元錄. However, Ōno points out that there was only ever one scripture firmly established as the work of Kang Mengxiang, viz., the Zhong benyi jing 中本起經 T196. He also states that even if there were another text with the title Fan wang jing, it was probably a translation of the Fan dong jing 梵動經 (*Brahmajāla-sūtra, corresponding to Brahmajāla-sutta DN 1) from the Dīrghāgama 長阿含經. DZKZM lists both a Fan wang jing 梵網經 ascribed to Kang Mengxiang and the same title ascribed to Kumārajīva, but the former does not exist, and the latter is a Chinese composition.

Edit

419-425

Edit

404

Edit

402

The Bannihuan jing 般泥洹經 (Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra) T6 is incorrectly given the title Fangdeng nihuan jing 方等泥洹經 in the three editions 三本, due to confusion with the Fangdeng bannihuan jing 方等般泥洹經 T376. The title in the Korean edition, Bannihuan jing 般泥洹經, is correct.

Edit

226

Ōno claims that, although KYL classifies the Yiqiezhiguangming xianren cixin yinyuan bu shi rou jing 一切智光明仙人慈心因縁不食肉經 T183 as an anonymous scripture of the Qin period (as per the byline still carried in T), the date of translation should rather be the Liang 梁 period or later, as the title is not listed in CSZJJ.

Edit

362

A “smaller [Prajñāpāramitā] sūtra” 小品經 is ascribed to Dharmarakṣa in LDSBJ. Ōno argues that this text has survived in the present canon as T226, where it is misidentified, as the end product of a series of confusions and errors.

The Taishō mistakenly identifies this text with the Mohe banre chao jing 摩訶般若鈔經 in five juan (T226, ascribed to *Dharmapriya 曇摩蜱 and Zhu Fonian 竺佛念). Ōno states that a Mohe banre chao jing [mentioned in historical sources as translated by *Dharmapriya and Fohu 佛護] cannot in fact have been the present T226, since the preface to the Dharmapriya/Fohu translation by Dao’an (in CSZJJ, T2145 [LV] 52b8-c26) records that the text was a “larger” Prajñapāramitā 大品經, while T226 is in fact a “smaller” 小品. [This would already imply that the ascription of the present T226 to Dharmapriya and Zhu Fonian is erroneous --- MR.]

Dao’an was involved in the translation of the Mohe banre chao jing 摩訶般若鈔經, and he gives the title as 摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經抄. However, the extant Mohe banre chao jing T226 does not contain the term boluore 鉢羅若 [for *prajñā] at all, instead using only banre 般若 throughout.

[Ōno clearly intends to imply by this that T226 cannot be the text Dao’an knew and helped to produce. In fact, however, 鉢羅若, in that exact orthography, is extremely rare, and excluding false hits across word boundaries, first occurs, in translation literature, in a single transcription of a dhāraṇī in *Jñānagupta/Jinagupta’s T993 (XIX) 510c9; and thereafter, always as part of the longer term 三摩地鉢羅若, a handful of times in Xuanzang’s T1605 and T1606; it is mentioned once by Jizang, so before or under the Sui, T1696 [XXXIII] 63c28. This surely introduces the possibility that it is some sort of later scribal error in the transmission of Daoan’s preface. --- MR.]

Ōno claims that, judging from its vocabulary, T226 is actually the “retranslation of the smaller [Prajñāpāramitā] sūtra 更出小品經 in seven juan ascribed to Dharmarakṣa in Dao’an’s catalogue. Ōno conjectures that the confusion about the nature of the text was probably partly occasioned by the loss of two juan from the text that became T226 (which now has five juan), or the fact that they were perhaps missing in the first place. This relative brevity in the text may have made it seem somehow suitable to identify it with an “excerpted” or “abridged” version of the sūtra 抄. The mistaken identification of the text has a long history. It is already seen in CSZJJ, and something corresponding to the 經抄 has always been recorded in catalogues as an extant text, but with varying titles. The title even differs between different printed editions of the canon.

To add further to the confusion, there is another misconception in traditional catalogues about this scripture. The title “lesser [Prajnāpāramitā] sūtra” 小品經, as ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, was listed as an extant “newer Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāparamitā” 新道行經 from Fajing onwards, but the text in question was in fact the “smaller Prajñāpāramitā” 小品般若經 of Kumārajīva (小品般若波羅蜜經 T227). Fajing records: 新道行經十卷(一名新小品經或七卷)(晉太始年竺法護譯) (T2146 [LV] 119b4). Catalogues down to DZKZM followed Fajing in this regard, but KYL pointed out that the text should be re-ascribed to Kumārajīva, commenting (in a note to the title) 新道行經:撿諸藏本並與小品般若文句全同者其本錯也。護公所譯新道行經時無其本(承聞東都有護譯本尋之未獲) ( T2154 [LV] 664a10-12).

Jingtai and DTNDL did not notice that the two titles 新道行經 and 小品般若經 referred to the same text, although both of them recorded that the two were the same length, viz., 154 sheets.

Ōno points out that this confusion occurred due to the fact that Kumārajīva’s “smaller Prajñāpāramitā” 小品般若 was in seven juan, and was also called the “new version of the lesser [sūtra]” 新小品. The name “retranslation of the smaller sūtra” 更出小品經 was used by Dao’an and Sengyou just for convenience. Ōno uses the name “smaller sūtra” 小品經 following LDSBJ and DTNDL.

Edit

82-83

Ōno maintains that the later version of the “Sūtra of Human Kings” 仁王護國般若波羅蜜多經 T246 ascribed to Amoghavajra 不空 differs too greatly from the earlier version, T245, for it to be considered an alternate translation of the older text. The titles of four out of eight chapters are different; odd original terms were replaced; Chinese-specific terms were removed, etc. Following Mochizuki and Shiio , Ōno states that T246 is rather a revised version of T245.

Edit

92

The core part of the Dasheng liqu liu boluomiduo jing 大乗理趣六波羅蜜多經 T261 is based on the section of the Akṣayamati-nirdeśa 無盡意經 (T397(12)?) related to the six perfections. Ōno presents a list on page 312 showing which part of T261 is taken from which part of the Akṣayamati. Ōno also states that the “Sūtra on the Six Perfections” 六波羅蜜經 repeatedly referred to in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa 大智度論 T1509 might have been an early version 古形 of T261.

Edit

312-313

The *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka sūtra 薩曇分陀利經 (T265, anonymous) in one juan is an abridged version 抄要經 of the “larger version” 大本, with complete opening, main and concluding sections 序正流通三分 according to the regular structure of a sūtra. One-third of the first part 始部 is an abridgement 抄要 of the beginning and end of the Prabhūtaratna chapter 見寶塔品 of the larger version, while the rest of the text excerpts the entire Devadatta chapter 提婆品.

Edit

123-124

T268 is recorded as co-translated by Zhiyan 智嚴 and Baoyun 寶雲 in CSZJJ, followed by other catalogues. The Taishō omits Baoyun 寶雲 and ascribes it to Zhiyan 智嚴 only.

Edit

133

The *Vajrasamādhi-sūtra 金剛三昧經 T273 has a number of factors relating it to the "larger version" 大本 of the Lotus Sūtra. It is also related to many other texts, as it calls itself as, in the closing part 結説, a compendium and epitome of multiple sūtras 攝諸經要 and a sūtra summarising the Mahāyāna 攝大乘經. Texts related to T273 include the Mahāyānasaṅgraha 攝大乘論 T1592-T1594, the Da mingzhou jing 大明呪經 T250, and the 菩薩瓔珞本業經 T1485 [itself composed in China --- MR]. Ōno claims that, therefore, it is not appropriate to include T273 in the Lotus portion of the canon 法華部, and the text should be classified as apocryphal, based on the fact that it is in part derived from T1485.

Edit

125-126

According to Ōno, the Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin 菩薩十住行道品 T283 originally formed a single text in combination with the Dousha jing 兜沙經 T280 and the Zhu pusa qiu Fo ben ye jing 諸菩薩求佛本業經 T282, which must subsequently have been split and transmitted separately.

Edit

157

According to Ōno, the Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin 菩薩十住行道品 T283 originally formed a single text in combination with the Dousha jing 兜沙經 T280 and the Zhu pusa qiu Fo ben ye jing 諸菩薩求佛本業經 T282, which must subsequently have been split and transmitted separately.

Ōno endorses the ascription of the Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin 菩薩十住行道品 T283 to Dharmarakṣa in the Taishō, since CSZJJ lists it in the section of extant Dharmarakṣa‘s works as the Pusa shi zhu jing 菩薩十住經. There was also extant at that time an anonymous Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin in one juan, which was regarded as an excerpt text 菩薩十住行道品一巻抄, as listed in CSZJJ. This text was lost in the time of Yancong 彥琮 and Jingtai, but found again by Zhisheng. He found that the Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin 菩薩十住行道品 was identical with the Pusa shi zhu jing 菩薩十住經 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa and used the former title when including it in the canon.

Edit

157

According to Ōno, the Trisaṃvara-nirdeśa 大方廣三戒經 T311 was first listed in Fajing, followed by LDSBJ, Yancong, Jingtai, DTNDL and other catalogues, as anonymous. The ascription to *Dharmakṣema was first given by DZKZM citing Fashang, followed by KYL and then the Taishō. Ōno claims that the phraseology of T311 is not that of *Dharmakṣema. Hence T311 should be reclassified as an anonymous scripture of the (Liu) Song period.

Edit

337

Pointing to information conveyed in CSZJJ and KYL, Ōno inclines to the belief that the *Vinaya-viniścaya 決定毘尼經 T325 (= Upāli-paripr̥cchā) dates to the E. Jin, probably to the latter part of that period.

Ōno also points out that the , ascribed to “the Dunhuang Trepiṭaka” 燉煌三藏 [usually taken to mean Dharmarakṣa --- MR] was widely used in other scriptures. For example, it is reused as the Upāliparipṛcchā 優婆離會 T310(24) in the Ratnakūṭa of Bodhiruci. It also became the first "introduction" chapter 第一序品 of the Pusa shan jie jing 菩薩善戒經 in nine juan, T1582, one section 一節 of which is in turn quoted in the Dasheng xiuxing pusa xing men zhu jing yaoji 大乗修行菩薩行門諸經要集 T847 ascribed to Zhiyan 智嚴 (of the Tang).

The rite for contrition before the thirty-five Buddhas 三十五佛懺悔法 of T325 was valued particularly highly in China, as it was an important source in the development of the Guan Xukongzang pusa jing 觀虛空藏菩薩經 T409. Furthermore, two versions of a text entitled Sanshiwu Fo ming jing 三十五佛名經 were produced on the basis of the 三十五佛懺悔法:

1) A scripture recorded in the section of anonymous extant scriptures of CSZJJ as the Sanshiwu Fo ming jing in one fascicle, 三十五佛名經一巻 出決定毘尼經, which is an excerpt scripture of the names of the Buddhas from Śākyamuni 釈迦牟尼佛 to Lianhuaguang shanzhu shaluoshu wang Fo 蓮華光善住沙羅樹王佛. Ōno points out that this text exists in the Hou zai za lu 後載雜錄 of the Korean and Song editions of the Guan Xukongzang pusa jing 觀虛空藏菩薩經 (Ōno states that he made this point already in the fourth section of Chapter One, Part One of the same book).

2) the extant Sanshiwu Fo ming lichan wen 三十五佛名禮懺文 T326 in one juan ascribed to Amoghavajra 不空. The note 出烏波離所問經 added to the title is an alternate title 異名 used in India [sic!]. Ōno states that he will discuss this text later in the same book (Chapter 16 of Part Two).

Edit

120-121

Ōno points out that the Kāśyapaparivarta 遺日摩尼寶經 T350 ascribed to *Lokakṣema has never been treated as a precepts 戒 text in catalogues, although it clearly is one. This is a very old text, as one version was translated by *Lokakṣema as early as Guanghe 光和 2 of the Latter Han (179 CE). Ōno also states that the text is quoted in the *Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā 十住毘婆沙論, which he follows tradition in ascribing to Nāgārjuna. However, Ōno holds that the ascription of T350 to *Lokaṣema is incorrect, as the vocabulary of the extant T350 is later than the E. Jin. Meanwhile, he holds that the alternate translation, called just “Ratnakūṭa” 寶積經 (or also called Monibao jing 摩尼寶經), was attributed correctly attributed to *Lokakṣema, but has been lost.

Sengyou included T350 in his newly compiled continuation of the catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous scriptures 新集續撰失譯雜經錄. Fajing first ascribed the text to *Lokakṣema. Ōno thinks that this mistake derived from confusion between the alternate title of *Lokakṣema’s so-called Ratnakūṭa 寶積經, viz., Monibao jing 摩尼寶經, and the title Weiri [ > Weiyue 遺曰] monibao jing 遺日摩尼寶經. Most catalogues followed Fajing. DZKZM 大周錄 ascribes the Monibao jing 摩尼寶經 to Dharmarakṣa, citing LDSBJ, but there is no such entry in LDSBJ. LDSBJ lists the Weiri [ > Weiyue] monibao jing 遺日摩尼寶經 as an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han period (in addition to the ascription of the same title to *Lokakṣema). KYL is mistaken in identifying the “older version of the scripture in which Weiri expounds prajñā” 古品遺日説般若經 with T350.

Ōno adds that the Kāśyapaparivarta (the 遺日摩尼寶經 T350) was developed later into a variety of texts, including the 大寶積經 in one juan, an anonymous scripture of Latter Qin 後秦（viz., 第四十三普明菩薩會 T310(43) in the Ratnakūṭa T310).

Edit

98-102

According to Ōno, the ascription of the Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra 無量清淨平等覺經 T361 to *Lokakṣema in the Taishō
came from KYL. Ōno claims that this ascription should not be accepted, since many of the vocabulary items in T361 were not used by *Lokakṣema. Before KYL, LDSBJ lists this title in the group of *Lokakṣema’s translation works, but Ōno points out that LDSBJ also ascribes the same title to other two translators, so that LDSBJ as a whole is indeterminate on the ascription of this title.

The scholars before KYL who actually saw T361 gave two different ascriptions other than that to *Lokakṣema: CSZJJ (like LDSBJ juan 6) ascribes it to Dharmarakṣa; and Yancong, Jingtai, DTNDL, DZKZM, Fajing and GSZ (like LDSBJ juan 5) ascribe it to Bo Yan 帛延 of the Cao Wei 曹魏 period (174).

Ōno himself supports the ascription to Bo Yan. Still, Ōno admits that it may appear that the ascription to Dharmarakṣa is more plausible because it was given by Sengyou, LDSBJ provides a specific date of translation for it, and the vocabulary of T361 has a lot in common with that of the Guangzan jing 光讃經 T222 and Dharmarakṣa’s Lotus 正法華經 T263.

Ōno supports the ascription to Bo Yan for the following reasons: CSZJJ used the title 無量清淨平等覺經 as an alternate title for the Wuliiangshou jing 無量壽經 in two juan ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. This Wuliangshou jing was first listed in Dao’an’s catalogue. Ōno argues that the scripture that Dao’an saw was not T361, because ) if he had seen it (and ascribed it to Dharmarakṣa), he would not have used in the title the name Wuliangshou , which does not appear in the text even once, 2) if he had seen T361 as well as the Dharmarakṣa’s Wuliangshou jing (assuming that it existed), Dao’an would have listed T361 independently of the Wuliangshou jing, and 3) if Dharmarakṣa’s Wuliangshou jing was missing, and Dao’an identified T361 with that title, it would be difficult to see the reason for that identification.

Ōno goes on to consider in further detail the likely circumstances that led to the misascription of T361 on page 174 and 175.

The vocabulary of T361 contains both words typical of Dharmarakṣa, and words that he did not use. For example, while Dharmarakṣa uses terms such as 我等, 汝等, 無量壽佛, 光世音, 大勢至 (o r 得大勢), and 江河沙, T361 uses 我曹, 若曹, 無量清淨佛, 廅樓亘, 摩訶那鉢, 恒水邊流沙. Ōno thinks that such differences indicate that the T361 is not Dharmarakṣa’s work.

Ōno admits, however, that there is no decisive evidence that endorses the ascription of T361 to Bo Yan. The oldest material that ascribes the text to him is GSZ, and the [supposed] Jin catalogue 晋世雜錄 by Zhu Daozu 竺道祖. Ōno assumes that there were more material that supported this ascription, since Fajing, who was influenced by various catalogues in the Northern and Southern Dynasties 南北朝 period, accepts the ascription. The Xulai jing 須賴經 T328 is the only extant work of Bo Yan. T361 has only words such as 我曹 and 若曹 in common with T328, while also using different terms from the ones used in T361, such as 布施持戒忍辱精進禪衆智慧 for the six perfections. Thus, Ōno states that the main reason to suspect that T361 should be reascribed to Bo Yan is a negative one, that the ascription to Dharmarakṣa is too hard to buy.

Edit

274-276

Ōno maintains that the account of the translation process of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra 大般涅槃經 (T374) (北本) in the biography of *Dharmakṣema in GSZ is not quite right (236). It records that the first ten juan were translated in 414 CE; *Dharmakṣema went to Khotan 于闐 later and obtained a middle portion; after coming back, he sent a person/persons 使 to obtain the last part; and the translation work was finished on October 23, 421 CE. CSZJJ also records the same in the section of *Dharmakṣema’s works.

Ōno thinks more reliable the preface 經序 by Hexi Daolang 河西道朗 ( T2145 (LV) 59c15-25, quoted on page 236). According to this account, *Dharmakṣema first came to Dunhuang 燉煌 with a variety of scriptures, and then moved to the Northern Liang 北涼, where he translated the first ten juan of T374 upon the request of Juqu Mengxun 蒙遜, finishing on October 23, 421 CE. This preface is included in the Ming edition of the canon and in CSZJJ. In the latter, some lines are added to the end of the preface. Ōno claims that this addition was made after the entire text was translated in order to make the preface by 道朗 look like as if it was written for the later, longer version of the text. GSZ was misled by this addition and recorded incorrectly that the translation of the entire text (not only the first ten juan) was completed in 421 CE (236-237).

Another account of the translation work of T374 is the “Da niepan jing ji” 大涅槃經記 in CSZJJ [but details of this record again contradict other sources]. It records the following: the first ten juan of T374, comprising five chapters 五品, was brought to Gaochang 高昌 by Zhimeng 智猛, which Juqu Mengxun 蒙遜 obtained and had *Dharmakṣema translate. Further chapters existed in Dunhuang 燉煌, and were translated later. However, the true end portion of the text still had to be sent from “Hu dao” 胡道, and ultimately remained untranslated, due to the political instability of the time. Ōno points out about this record that Zhimeng could not in fact have brought the first ten juan because, according to his biography (in CSZJJ), he departed India 天竺 to come back to China in 424 CE, and hence should still have been in India when the first ten juan were translated. Ōno supposes that the “Da niepan jing ji” confused the acquisition of the text by Zhimeng in Pātaliputra, more than a decade after Faxian, with the acquisition of the first ten juan by Faxian himself. Ōno states that it is certain that the source text for the remaining thirty juan incorporated into Dharmakṣema’s T374 came from Khotan, and the translation of the first ten juan was completed in 424 CE. Ōno also states that T374 circulated 流布 in Jiangnan 江南 relatively late, as evidence by traditions about Daosheng’s 道生 interpretations of the texts and its doctrines (237).

Edit

236-237

Ōno remarks that a Dengji sanmei jing 等集三昧經 in one juan ascribed to Bo Fazu 白法祖 in LDSBJ (T2034 [XLIX] 66b12) should be reascribed to Dharmarakṣa [almost certainly referring to the Dengji zhongde sanmei jing 等集眾德三昧經 T381 (Sarvapuṇyasamuccayasamādhi)] (249). [Ōno just mentions this point in one sentence, with no explanation --- AI.]

Edit

249

The ascription of the Ji yiqie fude sanmei jing 集一切福德三昧經 T382 (Sarvapuṇyasamuccayasamādhi) to Kumārajīva carried in the present canon (T) comes from KYL, which accepted the ascription given in DZKZM 大周錄 citing the Zhenji si catalogue 眞寂寺錄. No prior catalogue had ascribed T382 to Kumārajīva. Ōno claims that the ascription to Kumārajīva is incorrect, and the date of translation should be sometime between the end of the Liang 梁 period and the beginning of the Sui period 梁巳後隋まで.

Edit

249

Ono states that the Mahāsaṃnipāta 大集經 T397 has a complex history, as further texts were added to the collection and different versions of the overall collection were compiled after *Dharmakṣema’s initial translation. Versions of the text differ between different editions of the canon. He compares the structure of six different versions (a table is presented on 296-297).

He divides the six versions into three groups based on their structures, explaining the characteristics of each group (297-298). He also discusses “six faults 六失” of the structure of the Mahāsaṃnipāta 大集經, based on Zhisheng’s view, as presented in the “colophon to the Mahāsaṃnipāta [compiled] after critically scrutinising [the text]” 大集經校正後序 (originally found in K but missing from SYM, today carried at the end of the first fascile of the text in T, T397 [XIII] 8b3-c28).

Edit

295-298

Ōno states that the anonymous Dafangguang shi lun jin 大方廣十輪經 T410 (Daśacakrakṣitigarbha) was intended to be connected to the Candragarbha-sūtra 月藏經 T397(15), as indicated by the phrase 説月藏訖爾時 (T410 [XIII] 681a9-11). As such, it is odd that Sengjiu 僧就 did not include T410 in the Mahāsaṃnipāta. T410 was first dated to the northern Liang 北涼 by KYL, but Ōno thinks that it should be redated as in or around the 北齊 period (550-570), after the end of the Liang 梁 period (505-570 CE). This is because T410 is not listed by Sengyou, but is listed in Fajing under the title Fangguang shi lun jing 方廣十輪經. Fajing cites other catalogues of the Nanbeichao 南北朝 period, the latest of which is Fashang of the Northern Qi.

Edit

318

Ōno states that the Fo ming jing 佛名經 T441 was compiled in China in the early Tang period, based on the Fo ming jing 佛名經 T440 (which Ōno regards as a genuine translation text). Each juan of T441 (thirty juan in total) has the following structure:

a) the names of three treasures三寶;
b) a contrition liturgy 懺悔文; and
c) a section from the Dasheng Lianhuabaoda wenda baoying shamen jing 大乘蓮華寶達問答報應沙門經 (?) at the end (according to Ōno, this text is identical with the Dasheng Lianhuamatou luocha jing 大乘蓮華馬頭羅刹經).

In sections on the three treasures 三寶, the names of Buddhas are the same as those in the twelve-juan version T440, except for in the last two juan. By contrast, the names of the Dharma(s) 法 (i.e. titles of texts) are unique. A substantial part of the names of 信(?) are the names of the Bodhisatvas listed at the end of T440.

That last two juan of T441 are largely the same as the Xianzai Xian jie qian Fo ming jing 現在賢劫千佛名經 T447 (the Korean edition), with their format adjusted to the preceding juan. The contrition liturgy 懺悔文of the previous juan has some elements common with the Guoqu Zhuangyan jie qian Fo ming jing 過去莊嚴劫千佛名經 T446.

T441 was listed in the section of KYL treating spurious and false works 僞妄亂真錄, and was developed from Chinese "folk beliefs" 俚俗信仰. The proof-reader 校合者 of the Korean edition records the existence of an eighteen-juan version of T441, without the sections corresponding to the 大乘蓮華寶達問答報應沙門品. The thirty-juan version was called the Matou luocha Fo ming 馬頭羅刹佛名 due to the later addition of the Dasheng Lianhuamatou luocha jing 大乘蓮華馬頭羅刹經, which is extant in the Korean edition only. The same text was regarded by Zhisheng as apocryphal. Ōno states that T441 nearly went missing due to this later interpolation of Chinese-derived text, but now it can be valued as a historical record of contrition practices and thought 懺悔 in China.

The titles of scriptures listed under the head of the “Dharma Jewel” 法寶 in the thirty juan version of T441 represents scriptures extant at the time the text was composed. Xuanzang’s Cheng weishi lun 成唯識論 (*Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi) T1585 is included, so the text must have been produced after the early Tang. The contrition liturgy 懺悔文 in juan 29 is mostly the same as the one appears in the Wangsheng lizan 往生禮讃 by Shandao 善導.

Edit

407-408

LDSBJ first lists a Wenshushili jing lü jing 文殊師利淨律經 as one of the scriptures ascribed to Nie Daozhen 聶道眞, citing the Bie lu 別錄 with a note reading, “第二出。與法護譯小異.” DZKZM includes it in an alternate translation group (consisting of the Wenshushili jing lü jing, here again ascribed to Nie Daozhen, the extant Wenshushili jing lü jing T460 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, the Jitiaoyin suowen jing 寂調音所問經, and the Qingjing pini fangguang jing 清淨毘尼方廣經) and states that three of them are extant, and one missing 前後四譯三存一缺. However, Ōno points out that as Nie Daozhen worked for Dharmarakṣa as amanuensis 筆受 in the translation of T460, the Wenshushili jing lü jing ascribed to him surely never existed, and should be excised. Ōno adds that a report of a non-extant scripture like this indicates just how unreliable the Bie lu is.

Edit

32

Ōno follows LDSBJ for the ascription of the Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā 文殊師利問經 T468. LDSBJ records that the original text was brought to China by *Mandra 曼陀羅 from Funan 扶南國, and translated in Tianjian 天監 17 (518 CE) by *Saṅghavarman/Saṅghabhara 僧伽婆羅, who was also from Funan. Yuan Tanyun 袁曇允 worked as amanuensis 筆受, and Fayun of Guangzhai si 光宅寺法雲 did the proofreading 詳定. DZKZM, DTNDL, and KYL accepted this ascription from LDSBJ. However, Fajing, Yancong, and Jingtai classify T468 as anonymous.

Edit

250-251

According to Ōno, the contents of the Anan si shi jing 阿難四事經 T493 are a continuation of the Fo chui niepan lüe shuo jiao jie jing 佛垂般涅槃略說教誡經 (Fo yijiao jing 佛遺教經) T389.

Edit

242

Ōno points out that the ascription of the Xianshou jing 賢首經 T570 to Shengjian 聖堅 of the W. Qin 西秦 period was given first by LDSBJ, citing the Shixing catalogue 始興錄. The ascription was taken up by DTNDL, DZKZM, and KYL as well. However, T570 was listed in Dao’an’s catalogue, as well as in Fajing and Yancong 彥琮錄, as an anonymous scripture. Ōno claims that, as it was already listed in Dao’an’s catalogue compiled in 374 CE, T570 could not have been translated in the W. Qin period, which started in 385 CE, hence the ascription to Shengjian is incorrect. Ōno re-classifies T570 as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin period.

Edit

159

According to Ōno, the Drumakinnararāja-paripṛcchā T624 is listed in Dao’an’s catalogue as the anonymous Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來經 in two juan.

It is also included as an extant scripture in CSZJJ (juan 3) with the alternate titles Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來三昧經 and Dun zhentuoluo jing 伅眞陀羅經. Even so, CSZJJ gives still another entry for the same title in the section on Lokakṣema, citing the Bie lu 別錄: 伅真陀羅經二卷, with a note stating that the Jiu lu and Bie lu record the text, but it is missing from Dao’an’s catalogue, and was missing in Sengyou’s time 舊錄云屯真陀羅王經別錄所載安錄無今闕. Ōno maintains that this is a redundant entry caused by Sengyou’s misunderstanding that there were two scriptures when there was just one, presumably because he was misled by the variations of the titles.

Fajing inherits CSZJJ’s mistaken record and lists both the anonymous Dun zhentuoluo suowen rulai jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來經 and the alleged alternate translation, the Dun zhentuoluo suowen jing 屯真陀羅所問經 ascribed to Lokakṣema, also treating as an alternate translation of the same text the Dashu jinnaluo wang suowen jing 大樹緊那羅王所問經 (T625). The anonymous title has not been not listed since Yancong. In LDSBJ, we also see notice of a supposed Dun zhentuoluoni jing 伅眞陀羅尼經, and in DZKZM, of a Dun zhentuoluoni suowen jing 伅眞陀羅尼所問經, but in both cases, 尼 is in error for 王.

Edit

354-355

According to Ōno, in traditional catalogues, three ascriptions are given to the Fa lü sanmei jing 法律三昧經 T631 (ascribed to Zhi Qian 支謙 in the Taishō):

Anonymous: Dao’an, Fajing, Yancong, Jingtai, DTNDL, and others;

An Shigao: the Fashang catalogue 法上錄 (as cited in DZKZM) (Ōno finds this ascription implausible); and

Zhi Qian: first given by LDSBJ, followed by DZKZM, KYL, the Zhenyuan catalogue 貞元錄, and the Taishō 現藏.

Ōno claims that the vocabulary of T631 differs from that of Zhi Qian. Ōno regards the oldest ascription as best, i.e. he regards the text as anonymous. He adds that judging from style and terminology, the date of translation should be no later than W. Jin.

Ōno also points out earlier in his book that the view that there existed multiple translations should naturally be rejected (DZKZM lists both the anonymous version and that ascribed to An Shigao; and KYL accepts both the missing version to An Shigao and the extant one ascribed to Zhi Qian).

Edit

356, 358

Ōno states that, according to LDSBJ and XGSZ, the original text of the Ratnamegha-sūtra 寶雲經 T658 was brought to China in the early Liang 梁 period, by Mandra[sena] 曼陀羅, who then translated it together with *Saṅghabhara 僧伽婆羅. Fajing differs, classifying it as anonymous. KYL records the date of translation as Tianjian 天監 2 (503 CE). Ōno does not say which ascription he supports (363).

Edit

363

According to Ōno, the Ratnamegha-sūtra 寶雨經 T660 is an extended version of the Ratnamegha-sūtra 寶雲經 T658, but not related to T659. DZKZM states: 右大周長壽二年三藏梵摩 於佛授記寺譯。新編入 (T2153 [LV] 396b29-c1). Ōno identifies “the Brahman” 梵摩 with Bodhiruci 菩提流志. Ōno also quotes KYL, which says, among other details, that the Indic text was recited 同宣 by the royal emissary śramaṇera *Brahma 梵摩, orally translated 譯語 by Zhantuo 戰陀 and Li Wuchan 李無諂: 中印度王使沙門梵摩同宣梵本。沙門戰陀居士婆羅門李無諂譯語。沙門慧智證譯語。沙門處一等筆受。沙門思玄等綴文。沙門圓測神英等證義。司賓寺丞孫辟監護 (T2154 [LV] 570a17-21). Ōno points out that the Taishō 現藏 attribution for this text reads *Dharmaruci 達摩流支, unlike other texts ascribed to Bodhiruci (363).

Edit

363

The ascription of the Si bei jing 四輩經 T769 to Dharmarakṣa, which is still carried in the Taishō, was first provided in DZKZM and accepted by KYL. Before DZKZM, T769 was classified as anonymous. Sengyou first listed this text in his section on missing anonymous scriptures (with the alternate titles Si bei dizi jing 四輩弟子經 and Si bei xue jing 四輩學經), while Dao’an did not list this text. Ōno states that he tentatively accepts the classification of T769 as an anonymous scripture of the Wei/Wu period 魏・呉, as its vocabulary is very old, containing many terms seen in Zhi Qian’s translations. However, he adds that it is an open question whether T769 is a true translation.

Edit

360

The Dao shenzu wuji bianhua jing 道神足無極變化經 T816 is an alternate translation of the same text as the Fo sheng Daoli tian wei mu shuo fa jing 佛昇忉利天爲母説法經 T815, although the verses spoken by Mahāmaudgalyāyana 目連 before the section on the Pure Lands of the eight directions 八方浄土 is unique to T816. T816 is listed in the section of extant anonymous scriptures of CSZJJ under the title Dao shenzu wuji bianhua jing, with the alternate title He dao shenzu jing 合道神足經. Fajing ascribes it to An Faqin 安法欽, followed by LDSBJ. Ōno states that he provisionally accepts the ascription to An Faqin.

Edit

376

Ōno states that the Wuwei sanzang chan yao 無畏三藏禪要 (T917 (“Śubhākarasaṃha Trepiṭaka’s epitome of instruction for dhyāna practice”) was produced while Śubhākarasaṃha 善無畏 was active as a monk (716-735 CE). It is an extended 増補 version of a text by Huijing 慧警, as a passage at the end of it states 京西明寺慧警禪師。先有撰集。今再詳補。頗謂備焉 (T917 [XVIII] 946a20-21). The Shukusatsu daizōkyō 大日本校訂縮刷大藏經 first included T917 in the canon, using the edition proofread and extended 校訂加筆 by Jōgon 淨嚴 at the Kawachi Enmeiji 河内延命寺 temple. The Taishō uses the Shukusatsu edition as its base text 原本. According to Ōno, the Shou wu jie ba jie wen 受五戒八戒文 T916, the Putixin yi 菩提心義 T1953, and the Gongyang yishi 供養儀式 T859 (one juan each) were also included in the canon through the same process as T917.

Edit

432-433

Ōno regards the Shou wu jie ba jie wen 受五戒八戒文 T916 as a Chinese composition 中國製作. He states that the author is unknown, but it was written probably in the Tang period. T916 was brought to Japan by Kūkai (Kōbō Daishi) 弘法大師 (in 御將來目錄), and the Shukusatsu daizōkyō 縮刷大藏經 was the first edition of the canon to include the text.

Edit

434-435

According to Ōno, T1161 was first ascribed to *Kālayaśas 畺良耶舍 in GSZ, followed by other catalogues including LDSBJ and Fajing. However, Sengyou classifies it as anonymous.

Edit

403-404

Ōno points out that the so-called *Kāśyapasaṃvara-sūtra(?) 迦葉禁戒經 T1469, ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng, is a digest of sections from the Chinese translation of the Kāśyapaparivarta entitled 遺日摩尼寶經 T350, which is ascribed [incorrectly in Ōno’s view] to *Lokakṣema 支婁迦讖; and further, that although traditional catalogues regarded this short text (T1469) as a “hīnayāna” scripture, it certainly belongs to the Mahāyāna, since it is an excerpt of the Monibao jing 摩尼寶經. Ōno asserts on the basis of comparison that T350 must be the source of T1469, rather than the other way around. T1469 is mentioned in Dao'an's catalogue, and on that basis, Ōno asserts that T374 is a terminus ante quem (following Hayashiya for the date of 374).

Acoording to Ōno, until KYL, T1469 circulated under different titles, which were regarded as different texts and given varying ascriptions. Ōno considers this to be a characteristic feature of texts that were not "proper translation sūtras" 正譯經. In CSZJJ, T1469 was listed as the 迦葉戒經或云迦葉禁戒經 in Daoan´s catalogue of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯錄, and also as the 真偽沙門經一卷(或云真偽經) in the main section of the newly compiled [catalogue] of anonymous extant texts 新集失譯有本部; and Fajing lists the 摩訶比丘經一卷(一名真偽沙門經) and the 迦葉禁戒經一卷 next to each other. It was KYL that pointed out that all of these titles are alternate titles for the same text, and recorded that text under the title 迦葉禁戒經.

Traditional catalogues proposed four different views about the ascription of T1469: 1) Dao’an, Fajing, Yancong 彥琮錄, and the catalogue of anonymous “hīnayāna” Vinaya texts 小乗毘尼失譯錄 of LDSBJ list it as anonymous; 2) LDSBJ (in juan ten, citing the Bie lu 別錄), DTNDL, the Gu jin yijing tu ji 古今譯經圖紀 T2151, DZKZM, KYL, the Zhenyuan 貞元 catalogue T2156 (and the Taishō) ascribe it to Juqu Jingsheng 沮渠京聲 of the Song period (however, Ōno points out that the vocabulary of the text is older than that of the Song); 3) LDSBJ (in juan seven, citing the anonymous Shixing lu 始興錄), and DTNDL and the Zhenyuan catalogue following LDSBJ, ascribe the text to Tui gong 退公 of the E. Jin (however, Ōno comments that this ascription is hard to buy); and 4) LDSBJ (in juan ten), DTNDL, Gu jin yijing tu ji, DZKZM and others, ascribe the text to Huijian 慧簡 of the Song period (KYL excised this ascription). (107-108).

Edit

106-108

Ōno lists the following six titles as Mahāyāna scriptures on the ten precepts 十戒: the *Mahāprajāpatībhikṣuṇī-sūtra大愛道比丘尼經 (T1478), the Shami shi jie bing weiyi 沙彌十戒并威儀 (T1471), the Shami weiyi 沙彌威儀 (T1472, ascribed to *Guṇavarman 求那跋摩 in the Taishō), the Shamini jie jing 沙彌尼戒經 (T1474, which the Taisho states was translated under the E. Han 在後漢錄), the Shamini li jie wen 沙彌尼離戒文 (T1475) , and the Shami shi jie yize jing 沙彌十戒儀則經 (T1473, ascribed to *Dānapāla 施護 in the Taishō). Ōno maintains that all of them except for T1478 and T1473 were composed in China 中國成立, although they are classified as anonymous in the catalogues.

Edit

389

Ōno states that part of the Shamini jie jing 沙彌尼戒經 T1474 is influenced by the Mahāprajāpatī[bhukṣuṇī]-sūtra 大愛道經 (T1478 ). In the portion in question, T1474 claims that if one practices the ten precepts 十戒 properly かの十戒を如法に行ずれば, she will naturally satisfy the full set of precepts 具足戒 (the five hundred precepts 五百戒). Ōno maintains that T1474 followed T1478, and not the other way round, because that effect of ten precepts 十戒 practice was stated simply in T1478, while explained with examples/an example in T1474.

T1474 was listed in the section of extant anonymous scriptures of CSZJJ as the Shamini jie 沙彌尼戒 in one juan. Fajing and LDSBJ recorded it as the Shamini shi jie jing 沙彌尼十戒經, while Yancong classified it as missing 闕本. Jingtai records: 沙彌尼十戒一巻。四紙。缺本訪得, as he rediscovered the text and included it in the canon. The title Shamini jie jing 沙彌尼戒經 has been used since KYL. The text has been classified as anonymous by the catalogues. LDSBJ gives the Latter Han period as the date of translation, but on no objective grounds; KYL accepts this date; the Korean edition records T1474 as in the E. Han catalogue 後漢錄, and the Song and Yuan editions in the Han catalogue 漢錄.

However, Ōno argues, this date of translation is incorrect and, moreover, the text was composed in China 中國成立, for the following reasons: a) it is clear that T1474 is a work newer than T1478; b) the vocabulary suggests that the text is not a genuine translation; c) it is titled as a sūtra 經 while lacking the introductory and concluding (liutong) 序流通 sections, and with no preacher of the Dharma 説者 or audience 聽者 specified; and d) it is similar to the Shami shi jie bing weiyi 沙彌十戒并威儀 T1471 (which Ōno also classifies as composed in China).

Edit

394-395

Ōno notes that, according to Nagai 長井, the Youposai wu jie lüe lun 優婆塞五戒略論 (優婆塞五戒相經 T1476) ascribed to *Guṇavarman 求那跋摩 was composed in China 中國成立. Ōno seems to give no exact reference to the Nagai work he has in mind.

Edit

204

Ōno asserts that the “Brahma Net Sūtra” 梵網經 T1484 was composed in China, based upon source texts including the *Buddhāvataṃsaka, Pusa nei jie jing 菩薩内戒經 T1487, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra, the Bodhisatvabhūmi, the Youposai jie jing 優婆塞戒經 T1488, the “Sūtra of Human Kings”, and Kumārajīva’s *Madhyama-śāstra 中論 T1564.

Ōno discusses four main sets of evidence indicating further that T1484 is a Chinese composition rather than a translation:

a. Internal inconsistencies, including the title of the text as a whole, and some chapter titles; the aforementioned insubstantiable claims that the text is part of a larger text; and vocabulary or terminology.

b. Peculiar vocabulary 用語奇異 (not seen in any other scriptures), e.g. 爾眞焰俗; chapter titles possibly influenced by Daoism (玄道定品, 日月道品,無相天王品); a peculiar list of the twelvefold sūtras 十二部經 (called 十二法品名味句):重誦, 記別, 直語, 偈, 不請説, 律戒, 譬喩, 佛界, 昔事, 方正, 未曾有, and 談説) which differs from the usual order, and includes many items not seen elsewhere; 十種力生品 for the ten powers of a Buddha; 十八聖人智品 for the eighteen āveṇikadharmas; names of the ten bodhisatva stages or “grounds” 十地; and 光光 instead of 光.

c. Chinese concepts 中國思想: 1. 三智, 2. 親靈の追善供養3. 大乗布薩, 4. 立法排拒, 5. 三千學士, 6. 讃戒偈.

d. The fact that the external evidence about the text is unreliable 史料不信, in which context Ōno attempts to explain the process by which the text came to be ascribed to Kumārajīva (279-280), and speculates about the date and circumstances of composition of the postface and the two prefaces (274-283).

On the basis of several pieces of external evidence, Ōno infers that T1484 was composed sometime between 431 CE and the late fifth century (281-283).

The text itself claims that it is the end part of a larger text 大本, the structure of which, as here presented, resembles that of the *Buddhāvataṃsaka. However, Ōno maintains that this larger text probably never existed (252-254). Juan 1 expounds the path of the bodhisatva, and juan 2 the theory of precepts 戒. Ōno points out that such a structure was traditionally used in other sūtras (e.g., the Pusa benye jing 菩薩本業經 T281 by Zhi Qian, itself a kind of “proto-*Buddhāvataṃsaka” or early text in the larger *Buddhāvataṃsaka genre), especially in those composed in China (e.g., the section of T1487 on the bodhisatva path, and the Rulai du zheng zi shi sanmei jing 如來獨證自誓三昧經 T623).

According to Ōno, the content of the ten precepts against grave infractions 十重戒 in T1484 is a mixture of the eight precepts against grave infractions for renunciants 出家八重戒 from the Bodhisatvabhūmi 菩薩善戒經 (T1582) and the six precepts against grave infractions 在家六重戒 from the Youposai jie jing 優婆塞戒經 T1488 (善生経). He adds that the exposition of this same rubric is probably related to the four precepts against grave infractions 四重戒 from the Bodhisatvabhūmi 菩薩地持經 (T1581), the “four essential precepts against grave infractions”(?) 性重戒 from the Mahāparinirvāna-mahāsūtra [in portions of the text unique to *Dharmakṣema’s T374 and versions of the text derived therefrom --- MR], and the four precepts against grave infractions 四重禁 of the so-called Lü fa 律法 (a table of these ten items and corresponding elements in other materials is presented on 267). However, the ten precepts against grave infractions as presented in T1484 are richer in detail than in those other materials.

The forty-eight precepts against minor infractions 四十八輕戒 is called qinggouzui 輕垢罪 in T1484. According to Ōno, this term is used only in T1484 and the so-called Pusa yaoyi jing 菩薩要義 經 [perhaps referring to the [Pusa] Youposai wi jie weiyi jing [菩薩]優婆塞五戒威儀經 T1503? which is the only text besides shown by a CBETA search to contain 輕垢罪 --- MR]. These forty-eight precepts against minor infractions are based on the precepts to forestall derision from the world(?) 息世譏嫌戒 of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra [once again unique sections of *Dharmakṣema’s T374 and derived texts, in the same passage as the four precepts mentioned above --- MR], the 42 infractions 四十二犯事 from the T1581, the 28 misdemeanours of lapses of mind(?) 二十八失意罪 from T1488, the 47 precepts 四十七戒 from T1487, the “Sūtra of Humane Kings”, and the Lü fa 律法. Part of the contents are also unique to T1484. A table of relations between those elements is given on 271-273.

Edit

252-284

Ōno states that LDSBJ classified 125 scriptures from the section of CSZJJ on extant anonymous scriptures as Eastern Han 後漢 translations, without giving any objective supporting evidence [that is to say, CSZJJ gave no dates for these texts, but LDSBJ assigned them to the E. Han]. The Shou shi shan jie jing 受十善戒經 T1486 was one of these texts. KYL and then the Taishō followed LDSBJ in treating T1486 as anonymous and dating it to the Eastern Han. However, Ōno claims that the vocabulary of T1486 is clearly not of the Eastern Han period. He maintains that the vocabulary is of the E. Jin period, probably the late E. Jin period. He also notes that DTNDL regards T1486 as an anonymous scripture of the E. Jin .

Ōno adds that the description of the kinds of hell in the second chapter of T1486 is similar to that in the fourth chapter of the Guan Fo sanmei hai jing 觀佛三昧海經 T643 (377-378).

Edit

377-378

According to Ōno, the Youposai jie jing 優婆塞戒經 (T1488) is closely related in topics and contents to the Shou jie pin 受戒品 of the Pusa shan jie jing 菩薩善戒經 T1483. He also mentions T1488’s relation to other several other scriptures. T1488 is said to have been translated by Dharmakṣema with Daoyang 道養 as amanuensis 筆受. No objections have been made to this ascription.

Edit

209-210

The third oldest translation of the Paramārthasaṃvṛtisatya-nirdeśa is the Jitiaoyin suowen jing 寂調音所問經 T1490. The ascription of the text to Fahai 法海 of the Liu Song came from LDSBJ, citing the Shixing catalogue 始興錄 and Fashang. Other catalogues down to KYL 諸經[sic]乃至開元錄 followed LDSBJ and gave the same ascription. Ōno admits that the vocabulary of T1490 is that of the Liu Song period. Still, he points out that the title Jitiaoyin suowen jing is listed as an anonymous scripture in CSZJJ, and so too in LDSBJ (fourth juan), DTNDL, and other catalogues. [Ōno does not say which of the two views he thinks is more plausible ---AI .]

Edit

116

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.

Edit

398-399

According to Ōno, it was KYL that first classified the Jing ye zhang jing 淨業障經 T1494 as anonymous translation of the Qin period [this information is still carried by the byline in T]. KYL refutes an ascription to Dharmarakṣa given by DZKZM 大周錄, citing the Fashang catalogue 法上錄. Sengyou records a Jing chu ye zhang jing 淨除業障經 in one juan, characterising it as an excerpt text derived from T1494, but it has been lost.

Edit

114

Ōno states that the main contents of the Zheng gongjing jing 正恭敬經 T1496 are the same as those of the Shan gongjing jing 善恭敬經 T1495, except for the first part of T1495, which is not included in T1496. Nonetheless, Ōno maintains that T1496 is not a direct alternate translation of T1495, but a different scripture which, like T1495 but independent of it, was developed from the Da weide tuoluoni jing 大威徳陀羅尼經 T1341. Ōno arrives at this view because the introduction 序分 and conclusion 流通分of T1496 are totally different from those of T1495. Ōno quotes LDSBJ as a source for the ascription of T1496 to Buddhaśānta 佛陀扇多 (T2034 [LIX] 86c6). The title Zhengfa gongjing jing 正法恭敬經 was used in Fajing and onwards.

Edit

365

According to Ōno, the content of the Pusa jie jiemo wen 菩薩戒羯磨文 T1499 was taken from the precepts chapter 戒品 of the Maulībhūmi bodhisatvabhūmi 本地品菩薩地 section of the Yogācārabhūmi 瑜伽論 “by Maitreya” (cf. T1579). Especially, the section on rites for receiving precepts 受戒羯磨 section is almost identical with the corresponding section of YBh, except for the order of constituent parts and a small number of orthographic differences 僅少の文字. The preface to T1499 by Jingmai 静邁given in KYL records that it the text was translated 譯 by Xuanzang in Zhenguan 貞觀 23 (649 CE). However, Ōno maintains that, as he discussed in the section of his book on the “Bodhisatva prātimokṣa” 菩薩戒本 T1501 (see separate CBC@ note), Xuanzang probably excepted and edited his own translation of YBh T1579 in response to demands for a karma(n) 羯磨 for the Mahāyāna. Ōno states that the biography of Xuanzang by Kuiji 大慈恩寺 records that a group of people received bodhisatva precepts 菩薩戒 from Xuanzang in the year after the production of T1499. Ōno supposes that Xuanzang used the new T1499 for the occasion.

Edit

430-431

Ōno maintains that the Pusa jie ben 菩薩戒本 (*Bodhisatva prātimokṣa?)（Dichi jieben 地持戒本, *Bodhisatvabhūmi prātimokṣa?）(T1500) ascribed to *Dharmakṣema 曇無讖 was produced on the basis of the precepts chapter 戒品 of the Bodhisatvabhūmi 菩薩地持經 (T1581), a fairly long time after T1581 was translated, and that there are some pieces of evidence in T1500 indicating that, influenced by the “book of precepts” (prātimokṣa?) 戒本 in the Vinaya 律, the text was adjusted and used for the bodhisatva precepts 菩薩戒 as recited or administered at bimonthly Mahāyāna “precept assemblies” 説戒會 (that is, the equivalent of prātimokṣa recitation rituals) (415-416).

However, Ōno maintains that T1500 may well have been composed in China, for the following reasons:

CSZJJ lists a “book of bodhisatva precepts” (“bodhisatva prātimokṣa”?) 地持戒本 in the section on the works of *Dharmakṣema, with a note saying that according to the Bie lu, it was “issued” in Dunhuang [or by (the Trepiṭaka) “Dunhuang”?] 別録云燉煌出, without a date of translation. This entry is odd in three aspects:

1) CSZJJ provides the date of translation for other scriptures established as *Dharmakṣema’s work;

2) the claim that the text was “issued” in Dunhuang 燉煌出 is peculiar, as most of *Dharmakṣema’s translations were made in Guzang 姑臧 (Ōno states that although there are editions 藏經本 that record that T1500 was translated in 姑臧, they are not reliable);

3) the Yuqie jie ben 瑜伽戒本 (also called the Pusa jie bein 菩薩戒本) T1501, ascribed to Xuanzang, has added parts that were not in T1581. Ōno argues that, if the added parts had been used in India at Mahāyāna “precept assemblies” 説戒會 (? sic), Xuanzang would have included them in his Yuqie jie ben; since Xuanzang did not include them, it is likely that T1500 was produced in China, under the influence of *Dharmakṣema, who arrived in China as a holder of Mahāyāna precepts 戒 (416).

Ōno conjectures that T1500 was perhaps ascribed to *Dharmakṣema because *Dharmakṣema himself led the composition of this text, after earlier translating the Bodhisatvabhūmi 菩薩地持經 T1581, in which case the date of production should be 433 CE or earlier. However, it may also be the case that somebody else produced T1500 later, on the basis of excerpts from T1581. T1500 was recorded as missing from Yancong on, but regarded as again extant from KYL (416-417).

Edit

415-416

According to Ōno, there are three different Pusa shou zhai fa/jing 菩薩受齋法/經 in the catalogues, namely, a) Pusa shou zhai jing 菩薩受齋經 T1502, b) Posa shou zhai fa 菩薩受齋法 in one juan, an excerpt 抄出, and c) another Pusa shou zhai jing 菩薩受齋經 listed in Yancong and Jingtai. There also are three different Pusa zhai fa 菩薩齋法. Only T1502 is extant today. (b) was listed first in Fajing, but classified as missing in Yancong and Jingtai, and was excised in other catalogues. Ōno maintains that c) the Pusa shou zhai jing listed in Yancong and Jingtai is an mistaken entry 誤出.

According to Ōno, Yancong divides a group of texts listed by Fajing in his section on anonymous scriptures (三曼陀颰陀羅菩薩經一卷 菩薩波羅提木叉經一卷 颰陀悔過經一卷 菩薩受齋經一卷 淨業障經, T2146 (LV) 139b25-c2) into extant and missing texts as follows:

Extant (single texts 單本部): Sanmantuobatuoluo pusa jing 三曼陀跋陀羅菩薩經 (*Samantabhadrabodhisatva-sūtra), Pusa zhai jing 菩薩齋經, and Jing ye zhang jing 淨業障經;

Missing 缺本部: Pusa boluotimucha 菩薩波羅提木叉 (*Bodhisatvaprātimokṣa), Pusa shou zhai jing 菩薩受齋經, and Batuo hui guo jing 颰陀悔過經.

Ōno claims that the extant Pusa zhai jing 菩薩齋經 in this classification of Yancong is T1502, and the missing Pusa shou zhai jing is probably just an error, and such text does not exist 無體. Ōno adds that the Song edition of Yancong’s catalogue is correct on this matter, as it does not have the missing Pusa shou zhai jing 菩薩受齋經 in the above binary classification.

Edit

30

Ōno states that the Pusa shou jie fa 菩薩受戒法 listed in catalogues with various attributions is actually the 菩薩善戒經 T1582 (the Pusa shou jie fa is regarded in different catalogues as: an extant anonymous scripture in CSZJJ; a Mahāyāna Vinaya offshoot scripture in Fajing; a missing scripture in Yancong and Jingtai; and [incorrectly] as an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han period in LDSBJ, KYL and 貞元錄).

Ōno also points out that Pusa shan jie shou jie fa 菩薩善戒受戒經 is also an alternate name of T1502. This title was listed in Yancong as a missing scripture, but rediscovered by Jingtai. Jingtai uses different titles in recording his rediscovery of the text in his catalogue of [formerly?] missing scriptures (菩薩善戒受戒経一巻貞観九年入正目誌) and in his list of the titles admitted to the canon 入蔵錄 (菩薩善戒経一巻十五紙缺本訪得).

Meanwhile, Jingtai carried over from Yancong a distinction between the Pusa shou jie fa and Pusa shan jie shou jie fa, which resulted in the Pusa shou jie fa being regarded as missing even after the text was rediscovered. KYL and the Zhenyuan lu 貞元錄 give redundant double entries using all three titles (菩薩善戒経 as an extant scripture, 菩薩受戒法經 as a missing scripture, and 菩薩善戒受戒經 as an offshoot 別生 scripture).

Edit

28-29

The Pusa jie yaoyi jing 菩薩戒要義經 in one juan was first listed in the section of extant anonymous scriptures of CSZJJ, but then classified as missing 缺本 from Fajing onward. However, Ōno points out that the text actually survived as the first part of the Youpusai wu jie weiyi jing 優婆塞五戒威儀經 T1503. He adds that he discusses, in another section of this same book on lost Mahāyāna Vinaya texts 大乘律, the reason why this text was “buried” in such a manner, and the fact that it is in fact a compilation produced in China.

Ōno states that, in keeping with the fact that catalogues record the Pusa jie yaoyi jing as an excerpt from the Pusa jie jing, the main part of the Pusa jie yaoyi jing is indeed based upon the Pusa jie jng 菩薩戒經/Bodhisatvabhūmi 菩薩地持經 T1581. However, Ōno adds, the Pusa jie yaoyi jing is an epitome of T1581, not a verbatim excerpt from it, as the word yaoyi 要義 in the title suggests. As such, the Pusa jie yaoyi jing contains terms that do not appear in T1581. For example, zhonggouzui 重垢罪 and qinggouzui 輕垢罪 in the Pusa jie yaoyi jing correspond to wuranqi 染汚起 and feiwuranqi 非染汚起 in T1581, indicating that the text was reworked in China 中國改作. The term qinggouzui 輕垢罪 as it appears in the “Brahma Net sūtra” 梵網經 is likely to be derived from the Pusa jie yaoyi jing.

Ōno also points out that, in comparison with the “Bodhisatvabhūmi prātimokṣa(?)” 地持戒本 T1500, the Pusa jie yaoyi jing is written in a distinctly more Chinese manner, although the two texts share roughly the same content. Ōno adds that the Pusa jie yaoyi jing was developed in China independently of T1500, as the verse at the beginning of the Pusa jie yaoyi jing is totally different from that of T1500, and the wu shi gongde 五事功德 at the end of the text is not found in T1500.

As mentioned above, Ōno discusses issues surrounding the Pusa jie yaoyi jing in another section of this same book on lost Mahāyāna Vinaya texts 大乘律. There, he argues that LDSBJ, followed by DTNDL and DZKZM, ascribes the Pusa jie yaoyi jing incorrectly to Nie Daozhen 聶道眞. Ōno states that the Pusa jie yaoyi jing 菩薩戒要義經 is a precis of the “ten gates” section from the chapter on precepts in the Bodhisatvabhūmi 地持經戒品九門, which makes sense of the title Pusa jie yaoyi jing. As the entry on this text in CSZJJ indicates, the Pusa jie yaoyi jing circulated as an independent scripture in the Liang period, but later was put together with other precepts scriptures. The later parts of the Youpusai wu jie weiyi jing are quite different from the Pusa jie yaoyi jing, consisting of rules on such matters as receiving donations of hammocks and walking-staves 受縄床法, 受錫杖法, etc. Ōno maintains that those parts were also compiled in China.

Edit

26, 417-418

Ōno states that the Ugraparipṛcchā 郁伽長者所問經 [referring to the version preserved in the Ratnakūṭa, 郁伽長者會 T310(19)?] is often quoted in the *Daśabhūmikavibhāṣā 十住毘婆沙論 (T1521). Further, he states that various chapters of T1521 (歸命相品, 五戒品, 知家過患品, and 入寺品) of T1521 were even written on the basis of the Ugraparipṛcchā. The explanations about the dhūtaṅga 頭陀行 show some connection with the Baoliang jing 寶梁經 [probably referring to the Baoliang ju hui 寶梁聚會 Ratnarāsi in the Ratnakūṭa T310(44) --- MR], and the medicines 醫方 section was used by the Dāna chapter 施品 of the Youposai jie jing 優婆塞戒經 T1488.

Edit

213

Since the Liang 梁 period, the [Pusa] Shan jie jing [菩薩]善戒經 T1582/T1583 has been considered an alternate translation of the [Pusa] Di chi jing [菩薩]地持經 (Bodhisatvabhūmi) T1581. Ōno states that this view is mistaken. The one juan version of the text, T1583, with the alternate title Youpoli wen pusa shou jie jing 優波離問菩薩受戒法 corresponds to juan 5 of T1581. These two texts are almost identical in structure.

Ōno points out that it is odd that T1583 came to be treated as an independent text from T1582. In fact, it should have been included in T1582 as juan 5. [However, note that Ōno also considers another one-juan text with a similar title, which he conjectures was an excerpt of the chapters related to precepts from the full ten-juan text, used as a manual for the actual practice of precepts.] According to Ōno, this oddity started when Jingtai 靜泰 found the one-juan text [T1583], which had long been lost, and listed it as the Pusa jie jing 菩薩戒經 in one juan, fifteen sheets, treating the text as a rediscovered lost scripture. On this basis, KYL listed the nine-juan version T1582 and T1583 separately, the former as the alternate translation of T1581, and the latter as an independent scripture.

Catalogues including CSZJJ, GSZ, and other materials ascribe the Shan jie jing 善戒經 [i.e. the totality comprising T1582 and T1583] to *Guṇavarman 求那跋摩, and say that it was translated in Yuanjia 元嘉 8 (431).

Ōno introduces traditions about the process of translation of this scripture, though he warns that this information may well be unreliable. According to GSZ, the translation process did not go smoothly, and *Guṇavarman translated only 28 chapters in eight juan (of 30 chapters in ten juan). The remaining two chapters in two juan (序品 and 戒品) were translated by his disciple(s). These two chapters were lost for a time, but later refound, and added back to the text. The resulting ten juan text was titled Pusa jie jing 菩薩戒經. The chapter structure was subsequently set by Baochang 寶唱 at imperial behest.

Ōno points out that the Shan jie jing comprising T1582 and T1583 was produced by revision of T1581, to meet a demand for an independent a scripture featuring the precepts. The major points of this revision are: 1) The inclusion of the *Vinayaviniścaya-sūtra(?) 決定毘尼經 T325, ascribed to “the Dunhuang Trepiṭaka” 燉煌三藏 [who is usually identified with Dharmarakṣa] (with modifications) as the introduction 序品; 2) The addition of expressions related to precepts; 3) the addition of conditions to the observance of bodhisatva precepts 菩薩戒; and 4) modifications of the precept clauses. Among these, 3) and 4) appear in T1583. Ōno quotes some of the major additions of precept-related expressions (196-197) and claims that, in light of such significant additions, it is not appropriate to regard the Shan jie jing as an alternate translation of T1581. He adds that the Shan jie jing is a unique case, in which a certain scripture has been transformed into a new one, while preserving the basic structure, and that this unique situation is a reflection of the enthusiastic demand for Māhāyāna precepts.

Sengyou comments, after comparing the Shan jie jing (presumably T1582) and the Pusa di chi jing, that the two texts are largely identical in wording, with minor variations in titles and chapter divisions in a couple of chapters, so that the differences between the two are not sufficient to regard the two texts as alternate translations by different translators, but rather, the two should represent basically the same text; but that the order of the texts differs widely between the two, so that T1582 is actually something of a chaotic shambles (檢此兩本。文句悉同。唯一兩品分品品名小小有異。義亦不殊。既更不見有異人重出。推之應是一經。而諸品亂雜前後參差; T2145 [LV] 63a1-4). Ōno conjectures that this disorder is an indication that T1582/T1583 is a revised version of T1581. He also points out that the story that the 序品 and 戒品 were once lost probably reflects the fact that the *Vinayaviniścaya was not originally included in the 序品, and that the one-juan “version” of the text came free and circulated independently.

Edit

194-204

The Ugraparipṛcchā 郁伽長者所問經 is now included in the Ratnakūṭa 大寶積經 as the 郁伽長者會 (T310 [19]). The ascription of the text to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 must be incorrect, as the vocabulary used belongs to the (Liu) Song period. It was GSZ that first recorded a translation of the Ugraparipṛcchā by Kang Sengkai. The first catalogue that reportedly recorded the same was the Zhu Fazu catalogue 竺道祖錄 (as cited in LDSBJ), followed by Fajing and all the other catalogues. KYL then included the scripture in T310.

LDSBJ lists an Ugraparipṛcchā 郁伽長者所問經 in two juan ascribed to *Dharmamitra 曇摩蜜多, citing the Li Kuo catalogue 李廓錄. Ōno states that given the vocabulary used in the text, this ascription might be correct for T310(19).

Edit

213

The Upāyakauśulyajñānottarabodhisatva-paripṛcchā 大乗方便經 T310(38 ) is recorded in the Shixing catalogue 始興錄 (as reported in LDSBJ) and other catalogues including Fajing as translated by *Nandin 竺難提 in Yuanxi 元熙 2 of the E. Jin (420 CE). Ōno points out that this title is listed as an anonymous scripture in CSZJJ, and that it is difficult to determine which view is correct. He tentatively accept the ascription to *Nandin (335).

Edit

335

Ōno discusses a “colophon to the Mahāsaṃnipāta [compiled] after critically scrutinising [the text]” 大集經校正後序 (originally found in K but missing from SYM, today carried at the end of the first fascile of the text in T, T397 [XIII] 8b3-c28), which criticises “six faults 六失” in the structure of the Mahāsaṃnipāta 大集經, based on the views of Zhisheng. The first of these supposed faults is that the text presents the Yingluo pin 瓔珞品 T397(1) as a separate text from the Tuoluoni zizaiwang pusa pin 陀羅尼自在王菩薩品 T397(2) [both texts are listed with the title Tathāgatamahākarunā-nirdeśa in HBGR --- MR]. However, Ōno argues that the form in which the “two” texts are separated is older, and a version of the Mahāsaṃnipāta without the separate Yinluo pin, which Zhisheng saw, was a later variation.

Edit

297-298

Ōno deals with issues surrounding the Sūryagarbha 日密分 T397(13) in two places of his Daijō kai kyō no kenkyū 大乗戒経の研究.

Ōno states that the Sūryagarbha 日密分 T397(13) was added to Mahāsaṃnipāta after the time of Sengyou. Ōno agrees that, as pointed out by Matsumoto Bunzaburō and others, T397(13) is not the work of *Dharmakṣema. However, no alternate ascription is given by the catalogues. Different parts are missing in different editions, which probably indicates that the translation is incomplete (292-293).

Ōno argues that T397(13) is the first text deliberately composed to form part of the Mahāsaṃnipāta; earlier parts of the collection (T397(1-12)) were originally independent texts. Following T397(13), quite a few new texts were produced to be parts of the Mahāsaṃnipāta. Ōno calls the addition of those texts the second phase of development 第二系. Those new texts take Mt *Kharādīya(?) 佉羅坻山 as the location of the sermon 説處. This location appears for the first time in T397(13). Ōno suggests that this reference to Mt *Kharādīya may indicate where those second-phase texts were produced, as it is located in Khotan 于闐 (citing Hatani Ryōtai羽溪 了諦. “イラン語族民衆と大乗仏教.” 日本宗教学会第３回大会紀要（*９１号）(1935): 296-309) (293-294).

According to Ōno, the Sūryagarbha 日密分 T397(13) is included in the Mahasaṃnipāta as section 13 in the Korean edition of the canon, but is located at the very end of the Mahāsaṃnipāta in SYM. Ōno points out that the T397(13) is actually the same text as the Sūryagarbha 日藏分 T397(14), but the latter is substantially extended. T397(13) is incomplete, with the last part missing. It ends at the middle of Ch. 5 第五不思議大通品 in K, and at the middle of Ch. 6 第六救龍品 in the Three Editions. Ōno states that T397(13) did not exist in the Mahāsaṃnipāta as translated by *Dharmakṣema, and infers that it is an anonymous scripture translated in or after the Liang period , which was added to the Mahāsaṃnipāta later (313-314).

Edit

293-294, 313-314

According to Ōno, LDSBJ records that the Candragarbha-vaipulyasūtra 大方等大集月藏經 (月藏經, T397(15)) was included in the Mahāsaṃnipāta by Sengjiu 僧就. In the “three editions” SYM, this text also included as a separate scripture, the Dafangdeng daji Yuezang jing 大方等大集月藏經 in ten juan. Ōno states that the merits 功徳 of the ten good acts 十善 as presented in T397(15) are largely the same as in the Shi de liu du pin 十德六度品 of the Sāgaranāgarāja-paripṛcchā 海龍王經 (T598), although the basic characterization of the ten good acts 十善 is slightly different in the two scriptures.

Edit

314

Ōno states that the ten-chapter version of the *Mahāsaṃnipāta 大方等大集經 T397 in twenty-four juan seen by Sengyou (eleven chapters, with the sixth missing) should have been the version translated by *Dharmakṣema (290). The Ākāśagarbha-sūtra 虛空藏品 and Akṣayamati-nirdeśa 無盡意品 were therefore added before the Liang 梁 period. The Ākāśagarbha-nirdeśa 虛空藏品 T379(8) is therefore actually the Fangdengwang Xu[kong]zang jing 方等王虛藏經 [sic, presumably方等王虛空藏經] in five juan ascribed to Shengjian 聖堅 of the W. Qin. This text was probably included in the Mahāsaṃipāta probably because it calls itself Dabao ji jing 大寶集經:此大寶[v.l. 普]集經 (T397 [XIII] 94b29). In different versions of the Mahāsaṃnipāta, this scripture is variously placed: in SYM, it substitutes for the missing sixth chapter in *Dharmakṣema; in the twelve-chapter version, it comes ninth, after Ch. 7 無言品 and Ch. 8 不可脱品; and in the Korean edition, it comes eighth, so that the usual Ch. 7 無言品 becomes Ch. 6, Ch. 8 becomes Ch. 7, and so on.

Ōno points out that T397(8) differs in style from T397(1-7) and T397(8-11). It also starts with 如是我聞, as though it is an independent scripture. In addition, as Matsumoto Bunzaburō points out, its phraseology is not that of *Dharmakṣema (291).

Ōno supposes that T397(8) was translated under Emperor Wu 武 of the (Liu) Song (420-422 CE). However, CSZJJ is not quite consistent in its reports about the title Fangdengwang Xukongzang jing 方等王虛空藏經, as it includes the title in the group of *Dharmakṣema’s translations, while at the same time giving a note stating that the Bie lu 別錄 ascribed it to Shengjian 聖堅 (方等王虛空藏經五卷(或云大虛空藏經檢經文與大集經第八虛空藏品同未詳是別出者不別錄云河南國乞佛時沙門釋聖堅譯出), T2145 [LV] 11b13-14). Ōno asserts that there is no evidence that *Dharmakṣema translated a version of this text (291-292).

Edit

290-292

Ōno points out that the title Zuishang shengjiao shou putixin jie chanhui wen 最上乘教受發菩提心戒懺悔文 (T915 [XVIII] 941a19), which is included as part of the Shou putixin jie yi 受菩提心戒儀 T915 in the present canon (T), should be treated as a separate text. Ōno states that, like T915, the Zuishang shengjiao shou putixin jie chanhui wen uses the first five “gates” 門 of the Shou jie fa shiyi men 受戒法十一門 of the Wuwei sanzang chan yao T917. Unlike T915, however, the Zuishang shengjiao shou putixin jie chanhui wen uses the text of T917 mostly as it was; the names of the five Buddhas 五佛 are added at the end; and there is no mantra added at the end of each “gate” 門. Ōno claims that the Zuishang shengjiao shou putixin jie chanhui wen is clearly a Chinese composition, although the author is not known. In support of the claim that this is a separate text from T915, Ono cites as evidence:

the Nittō shingu shōgyō mokuroku 入唐新求聖教目錄 T2167 and the Shin shosha shōrai hōmon tō mokuroku 新書寫請來法門等目錄 (T2174A) list T915 and the Zuishang shengjiao shou putixin jie chanhui wen separately;

the Eun risshi sho mokuroku 惠運律師書目録 (T2168B) records that the Zuishang shengjiao shou putixin jie chanhui wen was brought to Japan as an independent text, and;

according to Jōgon 淨嚴, the version of T915 brought to Japan by Kūkai 空海將來本 did not include the Zuishang shengjiao shou putixin jie chanhui wen.

The end-title 尾題 Zuishang shengjiao shou jie chanhui wen 最上乘教受戒懺悔文 is used in a variety of scripture inventories 諸家將來錄 (434).

Edit

434