Source: Pinte 2010

Pinte, Gudrun. “On the Origin of Taishō 1462, the Alleged Translation of the Pāli Samantapāsādikā.” ZDMG 160 (2010): 435-449.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

Pinte summarises the history of scholarship on the Shanjian lü piposha 善見律毘婆沙 T1462. Takakusu (1896) was the first to assert that it was a translation of the Samantapāsādikā; followed by studies by Mizuno and Nagai; translations of the Introduction by Jayawickrama and Durt (separately); and a translation of the full text by Bapat and Hirakawa (together). Demiéville (in “A propos du Concile de Vaiśalī”) proposed that T1462 might be a translation of a prototype of the Pali text, rather than a direct translation of a version of the Pali text now extant. Lottermoser proposed that the text was from a different version of the Vinaya commentary. Bechert agreed, suggesting “an Abhayagirivihāra equivalent for the Pāli Samantapāsādikā as an alternative source for the Chinese”. Working further in the direction indicated by Bechert, Heirman has concluded that an Abhayagirivihāra influence is not unlikely, but too little is known about the Abhayagirivihārins to be sure. Bapat and Hirakawa tried to explain discrepancies between T1462 and Pāli by Dharmaguptaka influence, but Heirman argues that on other points, Sarvāstivādin influence is just as plausible.

Pinte's own study focuses on the Chinese title, aiming to explain how modern scholars came to identify it with the Pāli title.

Towards the end of her study, Pinte suggests that Shanjian 善見 might refer to the capital of Jibin 罽賓 (as it does in the Annals of the Northern Wei). She links this suggestion to possible connections between T1462 and Dharmayaśas, who was from Jibin. Pinte proposes that the source text for T1462 might be a text referred to as the 毘婆沙律, which is said in GSZ to have been recited by Dharmayaśas when he arrived in Canton in 402 at the age of 85; on the strength of his expertise in this text, he was referred to as “Mahāvibhāṣā (以晉隆安中初達廣州住白沙寺。耶舍善誦毘婆沙律。人咸號為大毘婆沙。時年已八十五; T2059:50.329b27-29). According to KYL, *Saṃghabhadra 僧伽跋陀羅 translated T1462 in 488-489 [T2154:55.535c21-23, which Pinte does not question; in fact, the ultimate source of this assertion is CSZJJ T2145 [LV] 13b20-23---MR]. Pinte concludes: “It becomes very likely that this Piposha lü might be the source from which T1462 has been translated into Chinese at the end of the fifth century in Canton” (448). This would yield a gap of eighty years or so between the time of Dharmayaśas and the actual translation of the text.

Edit

 Pinte summarises the history of scholarship on the Shanjian lu piposha 善見律毘婆沙 T1462. Takakusu (1896) was the first to assert that it was a translation of the Samantapasadika; followed by studies by Mizuno and Nagai; translations of the Introduction by Jayawickrama and Durt (separately); and a translation of the full text by Bapat and Hirakawa (together). Demieville (in “A propos du Concile de Vaisali”) proposed that T1462 might be a translation of a prototype of the Pali text, rather than a direct translation of a version of the Pali text now extant. Lottermoser proposed that the text was from a different version of the Vinaya commentary. Bechert agreed, suggesting “an Abhayagirivihara equivalent for the Pali Samantapasadika as an alternative source for the Chinese”. Working further in the direction indicated by Bechert, Heirman has concluded that an Abhayagirivihara influence is not unlikely, but too little is known about the Abhayagiriviharins to be sure. Bapat and Hirakawa tried to explain discrepancies between T1462 and Pali by Dharmaguptaka influence, but Heirman argues that on other points, Sarvastivadin influence is just as plausible. Pinte's own study focuses on the Chinese title, aiming to explain how modern scholars came to identify it with the Pali title. Towards the end of her study, Pinte suggests that Shanjian 善見 might refer to the capital of Jibin 罽賓 (as it does in the Annals of the Northern Wei). She links this suggestion to possible connections between T1462 and Dharmayasas, who was from Jibin. Pinte proposes that the source text for T1462 might be a text referred to as the 毘婆沙律, which is said in GSZ to have been recited by Dharmayasas when he arrived in Canton in 402 at the age of 85; on the strength of his expertise in this text, he was referred to as “Mahavibhasa (以晉隆安中初達廣州住白沙寺。耶舍善誦毘婆沙律。人咸號為大毘婆沙。時年已八十五; T2059:50.329b27-29). According to KYL, *Samghabhadra 僧伽跋陀羅 translated T1462 in 488-489 [T2154:55.535c21-23, which Pinte does not question; in fact, the ultimate source of this assertion is CSZJJ T2145 [LV] 13b20-23---MR]. Pinte concludes: “It becomes very likely that this Piposha lu might be the source from which T1462 has been translated into Chinese at the end of the fifth century in Canton” (448). This would yield a gap of eighty years or so between the time of Dharmayasas and the actual translation of the text. T1462; 善見律毘婆沙; 毘婆沙律; 善見毘婆沙律