Source: Ochiai 1994

Ochiai Toshinori 落合俊典. “Shoki yakkyō to Bira zammai kyō 初期訳経と毘羅三昧経.” In Nanatsu-dera koitsu kyōten kenkyū sōsho, daiikkan. Chūgoku senjutsu kyōten (sono ichi) 七寺古迭経典研究叢書　第一巻　中国撰述経典（その一）, edited by Ochiai Toshinori, 323-374. Tokyo: Daitō shuppan, 1994.

Assertions

Assertion	Argument	Place in source	Search
Texts: Piluo sanmei jing 毘羅三昧經	Ochiai compares the Piluo sanmei jing 毘羅三昧經 to a number of other early texts, in considerable detail, primarily in an effort to determine the likely date of its composition. The text is listed among 26 sūtras Dao'an regarded as probably of Chinese composition. Among those texts, it seems to be unique in being extant today (it was discovered by Ochiai among the Nanatsudera 七寺 manuscripts), with the exception of some fragments of a handful of the other texts which survive in quotation 佚文. For these reasons, the study of the text could reveal a lot about the beginnings of the practice of composing sūtras in China. On the basis of comparison to the translation terminology of a range of translators from the Han, through the Wu and Three Kingdoms, through to Dharmarakṣa, Ochiai concludes tentatively that it is unlikely the text was composed as late as Dharmarakṣa, because among the terminology he was able to date, it contains a greater preponderance of terms proper to earlier periods. Ochiai also remarks on the likely meaning of the word piluo 毘羅 in the title of the text. He discusses several possibilities, but following Hirakawa, he favours an interpretation that sees the word as a probably transcription of an Indic word like peḍa or piṭaka, and would link the word to a passage in *Lokakṣema’s Kāśyapaparivarta 遺日摩尼寶經 T350, which gives a fourfold list (or typology) of texts as follows: 何謂四事。但求索好經法。六波羅蜜。及菩薩毘羅經。及佛諸品, T350 (XII) 189c2-3. However, where Hirakawa saw 菩薩毘羅經 in this list as probably giving the title of a single text, Ochiai favours the hypothesis that it refers to a class of texts. Ochiai thus suggests that the Piluo sanmei jing may have been composed in China in order to fill the perceived gap in Chinese knowledge of Indic texts, based upon the mistaken understanding (as with Hirakawa) that the item in the T350 list was the title of a single text. NOTE: Ochiai Toshinori 落合俊典. “Bira zammai kyō to shoki yakkyō毘羅三昧経と初期訳経.” IKB 42, no. 2 (1994): 33-38 is largely the same as parts of the longer study summarised here. Edit		Ochiai compares the Piluo sanmei jing 毘羅三昧經 to a number of other early texts, in considerable detail, primarily in an effort to determine the likely date of its composition. The text is listed among 26 sutras Dao'an regarded as probably of Chinese composition. Among those texts, it seems to be unique in being extant today (it was discovered by Ochiai among the Nanatsudera 七寺 manuscripts), with the exception of some fragments of a handful of the other texts which survive in quotation 佚文. For these reasons, the study of the text could reveal a lot about the beginnings of the practice of composing sutras in China. On the basis of comparison to the translation terminology of a range of translators from the Han, through the Wu and Three Kingdoms, through to Dharmaraksa, Ochiai concludes tentatively that it is unlikely the text was composed as late as Dharmaraksa, because among the terminology he was able to date, it contains a greater preponderance of terms proper to earlier periods. Ochiai also remarks on the likely meaning of the word piluo 毘羅 in the title of the text. He discusses several possibilities, but following Hirakawa, he favours an interpretation that sees the word as a probably transcription of an Indic word like peda or pitaka, and would link the word to a passage in *Lokaksema’s Kasyapaparivarta 遺日摩尼寶經 T350, which gives a fourfold list (or typology) of texts as follows: 何謂四事。但求索好經法。六波羅蜜。及菩薩毘羅經。及佛諸品, T350 (XII) 189c2-3. However, where Hirakawa saw 菩薩毘羅經 in this list as probably giving the title of a single text, Ochiai favours the hypothesis that it refers to a class of texts. Ochiai thus suggests that the Piluo sanmei jing may have been composed in China in order to fill the perceived gap in Chinese knowledge of Indic texts, based upon the mistaken understanding (as with Hirakawa) that the item in the T350 list was the title of a single text. NOTE: Ochiai Toshinori 落合俊典. “Bira zammai kyo to shoki yakkyo毘羅三昧経と初期訳経.” IKB 42, no. 2 (1994): 33-38 is largely the same as parts of the longer study summarised here. Piluo sanmei jing 毘羅三昧經

Assertion

Argument

Place in source

Texts: Piluo sanmei jing 毘羅三昧經

Ochiai also remarks on the likely meaning of the word piluo 毘羅 in the title of the text. He discusses several possibilities, but following Hirakawa, he favours an interpretation that sees the word as a probably transcription of an Indic word like peḍa or piṭaka, and would link the word to a passage in *Lokakṣema’s Kāśyapaparivarta 遺日摩尼寶經 T350, which gives a fourfold list (or typology) of texts as follows: 何謂四事。但求索好經法。六波羅蜜。及菩薩毘羅經。及佛諸品, T350 (XII) 189c2-3. However, where Hirakawa saw 菩薩毘羅經 in this list as probably giving the title of a single text, Ochiai favours the hypothesis that it refers to a class of texts. Ochiai thus suggests that the Piluo sanmei jing may have been composed in China in order to fill the perceived gap in Chinese knowledge of Indic texts, based upon the mistaken understanding (as with Hirakawa) that the item in the T350 list was the title of a single text.

NOTE: Ochiai Toshinori 落合俊典. “Bira zammai kyō to shoki yakkyō毘羅三昧経と初期訳経.” IKB 42, no. 2 (1994): 33-38 is largely the same as parts of the longer study summarised here.

Edit

Ochiai compares the Piluo sanmei jing 毘羅三昧經 to a number of other early texts, in considerable detail, primarily in an effort to determine the likely date of its composition. The text is listed among 26 sutras Dao'an regarded as probably of Chinese composition. Among those texts, it seems to be unique in being extant today (it was discovered by Ochiai among the Nanatsudera 七寺 manuscripts), with the exception of some fragments of a handful of the other texts which survive in quotation 佚文. For these reasons, the study of the text could reveal a lot about the beginnings of the practice of composing sutras in China. On the basis of comparison to the translation terminology of a range of translators from the Han, through the Wu and Three Kingdoms, through to Dharmaraksa, Ochiai concludes tentatively that it is unlikely the text was composed as late as Dharmaraksa, because among the terminology he was able to date, it contains a greater preponderance of terms proper to earlier periods. Ochiai also remarks on the likely meaning of the word piluo 毘羅 in the title of the text. He discusses several possibilities, but following Hirakawa, he favours an interpretation that sees the word as a probably transcription of an Indic word like peda or pitaka, and would link the word to a passage in *Lokaksema’s Kasyapaparivarta 遺日摩尼寶經 T350, which gives a fourfold list (or typology) of texts as follows: 何謂四事。但求索好經法。六波羅蜜。及菩薩毘羅經。及佛諸品, T350 (XII) 189c2-3. However, where Hirakawa saw 菩薩毘羅經 in this list as probably giving the title of a single text, Ochiai favours the hypothesis that it refers to a class of texts. Ochiai thus suggests that the Piluo sanmei jing may have been composed in China in order to fill the perceived gap in Chinese knowledge of Indic texts, based upon the mistaken understanding (as with Hirakawa) that the item in the T350 list was the title of a single text. NOTE: Ochiai Toshinori 落合俊典. “Bira zammai kyo to shoki yakkyo毘羅三昧経と初期訳経.” IKB 42, no. 2 (1994): 33-38 is largely the same as parts of the longer study summarised here. Piluo sanmei jing 毘羅三昧經