Source: Hirakawa 1960/1999

Hirakawa Akira 平川彰. Ritsuzō no kenkyū 律蔵の研究 1. Hirakawa Akira chosakushū 平川彰著作集, vol. 9. Shunjūsha, 1999 [1960].

Assertions

Assertion	Argument	Place in source	Search
Texts: T1478; 大愛道比丘尼經; 大愛道受誠經; 大愛道經 People: Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 (translator 譯) Dates: before 400	Hirakawa notes that T1478 contains many Mahāyāna concepts. In part following the observations of Ōno Hōdō 大野法道 (Daijō kaikyō no kenkyū 大乗戒経の研究), he also notes that the ten precepts for śrāmaṇerīs 沙彌尼 appearing in the text appear irregular when compared with the same items as they are presented in Vinaya texts. Various technical terms are also used in the text in senses that do not correspond to that seen in the Vinaya. In short, there are many respects in which the text does not match Vinaya sources, and the text cannot plausibly be regarded as a Vinaya document of the nikāyas. Hirakawa states that it is difficult to determine whether the text is a translation, or a Chinese composition. The current byline in the Taishō, stating that T1478 appears in the "Northern Liang catalogue" 附北涼錄, goes back to Zhisheng's KYL. However, prior to Zhisheng, the text was always treated as anonymous. In CSZJJ, it is listed as anonymous, and a text with a similar title appears in the "Reconstruction of Dao'an's Catalogue of Alternate Translations of Scripture from the Liang Territories" 新集安公涼土異經錄. Hirakawa notes that certain terms seem archaic (裘曇彌, 阿祇梨, 六度無極, 飛行皇帝), and suggests that it is therefore safe to regard the text as dating before Kumārajīva. However, he argues further that this would probably imply that the text is indeed a translation, since few Vinaya materials had been translated into Chinese in that period, and it is therefore difficult to imagine where any possible Chinese compilers of such a text would have got their information and raw materials. Edit	281-282	Hirakawa notes that T1478 contains many Mahayana concepts. In part following the observations of Ono Hodo 大野法道 (Daijo kaikyo no kenkyu 大乗戒経の研究), he also notes that the ten precepts for sramaneris 沙彌尼 appearing in the text appear irregular when compared with the same items as they are presented in Vinaya texts. Various technical terms are also used in the text in senses that do not correspond to that seen in the Vinaya. In short, there are many respects in which the text does not match Vinaya sources, and the text cannot plausibly be regarded as a Vinaya document of the nikayas. Hirakawa states that it is difficult to determine whether the text is a translation, or a Chinese composition. The current byline in the Taisho, stating that T1478 appears in the "Northern Liang catalogue" 附北涼錄, goes back to Zhisheng's KYL. However, prior to Zhisheng, the text was always treated as anonymous. In CSZJJ, it is listed as anonymous, and a text with a similar title appears in the "Reconstruction of Dao'an's Catalogue of Alternate Translations of Scripture from the Liang Territories" 新集安公涼土異經錄. Hirakawa notes that certain terms seem archaic (裘曇彌, 阿祇梨, 六度無極, 飛行皇帝), and suggests that it is therefore safe to regard the text as dating before Kumarajiva. However, he argues further that this would probably imply that the text is indeed a translation, since few Vinaya materials had been translated into Chinese in that period, and it is therefore difficult to imagine where any possible Chinese compilers of such a text would have got their information and raw materials. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T1478; 大愛道比丘尼經; 大愛道受誠經; 大愛道經

Assertion

Argument

Place in source

Texts: T1478; 大愛道比丘尼經; 大愛道受誠經; 大愛道經
People: Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 (translator 譯)
Dates: before 400

Hirakawa notes that T1478 contains many Mahāyāna concepts. In part following the observations of Ōno Hōdō 大野法道 (Daijō kaikyō no kenkyū 大乗戒経の研究), he also notes that the ten precepts for śrāmaṇerīs 沙彌尼 appearing in the text appear irregular when compared with the same items as they are presented in Vinaya texts. Various technical terms are also used in the text in senses that do not correspond to that seen in the Vinaya. In short, there are many respects in which the text does not match Vinaya sources, and the text cannot plausibly be regarded as a Vinaya document of the nikāyas.

Hirakawa states that it is difficult to determine whether the text is a translation, or a Chinese composition. The current byline in the Taishō, stating that T1478 appears in the "Northern Liang catalogue" 附北涼錄, goes back to Zhisheng's KYL. However, prior to Zhisheng, the text was always treated as anonymous. In CSZJJ, it is listed as anonymous, and a text with a similar title appears in the "Reconstruction of Dao'an's Catalogue of Alternate Translations of Scripture from the Liang Territories" 新集安公涼土異經錄. Hirakawa notes that certain terms seem archaic (裘曇彌, 阿祇梨, 六度無極, 飛行皇帝), and suggests that it is therefore safe to regard the text as dating before Kumārajīva. However, he argues further that this would probably imply that the text is indeed a translation, since few Vinaya materials had been translated into Chinese in that period, and it is therefore difficult to imagine where any possible Chinese compilers of such a text would have got their information and raw materials.

Edit

281-282