Source: Balkwill 2016

Balkwill, Stephanie. “The Sūtra on Transforming the Female Form: Unpacking an Early Medieval Chinese Buddhist Text.” Journal of Chinese Religions 44, no. 2 (2016): 127-148.

Assertions

Assertion	Argument	Place in source	Search
Texts: T0562; 佛說無垢賢女經; 無垢賢經 ; T0563; Tai zhong nü jing 胎中女經; 佛說腹中女聽經 ; T0564; 佛說轉女身經 ; T0565; 順權女經; 順權方便經 ; T0566; 樂瓔珞莊嚴方便品經; Zhuan nü shen pusa jing 轉女身菩薩經; Le yingluo zhuangyan nü jing 樂瓔珞莊嚴女經	Balkwill notes that in the Hôbôgirin Répértoire, the same Sanskrit title is given for T562, T563, T564, T565 and T566. She notes, however, that all five cannot possibly be a translation from the same source work, since they vary greatly in length. She suggests, rather, that they fall into three groups: T562 and T563 are variant versions of the same basic text; T565 and T566 are variant versions of the same text; and T564 is unique. [Balkwill herself goes on to show that the texts were not treated as five variant translations or versions of the same basic text in Fajing, nor in the "Buddha Names Sutra" T441, nor in the modern Taisho. Thus, it seems that for the case of T565 and T566, at least, her argument is only against HBGR, and only against what she feels is an identity between the texts implied by the application of the same reconstructed Sanskrit title to all five. However, she does note that Fajing, T441 and the Taisho all group T564 together with T562 and T563, which she shows clearly to be in error. See also separate note on T564. --- MR] Edit	133-135	Balkwill notes that in the Hobogirin Repertoire, the same Sanskrit title is given for T562, T563, T564, T565 and T566. She notes, however, that all five cannot possibly be a translation from the same source work, since they vary greatly in length. She suggests, rather, that they fall into three groups: T562 and T563 are variant versions of the same basic text; T565 and T566 are variant versions of the same text; and T564 is unique. [Balkwill herself goes on to show that the texts were not treated as five variant translations or versions of the same basic text in Fajing, nor in the "Buddha Names Sutra" T441, nor in the modern Taisho. Thus, it seems that for the case of T565 and T566, at least, her argument is only against HBGR, and only against what she feels is an identity between the texts implied by the application of the same reconstructed Sanskrit title to all five. However, she does note that Fajing, T441 and the Taisho all group T564 together with T562 and T563, which she shows clearly to be in error. See also separate note on T564. --- MR] T0562; 佛說無垢賢女經; 無垢賢經 T0563; Tai zhong nu jing 胎中女經; 佛說腹中女聽經 T0564; 佛說轉女身經 T0565; 順權女經; 順權方便經 T0566; 樂瓔珞莊嚴方便品經; Zhuan nu shen pusa jing 轉女身菩薩經; Le yingluo zhuangyan nu jing 樂瓔珞莊嚴女經
Texts: T0564; 佛說轉女身經	Balkwill argues that T564 was probably composed in China (though she also concedes that the possibility remains that it is "a Chinese translation of a now-lost Sanskrit original, which was a composite text", 138). She dates the composition of the text before Fajing, i.e. in the sixth century. She argues that it must have been composed between 515 and 594, because it does not appear in CSZJJ, but first appears in the catalogues in Fajing. She also notes that its title appears in the Fo ming jing T441, which (if the title indeed refers to the same text) would make T441 a terminus ante quem. Balkwill shows that T564 draws quite extensively on three sources probably already extant in Chinese translation at that time: the Drumakinnararājaparipṛcchā T625 大樹緊那羅王所問經 ascribed to Kumārajīva; the 腹中女聽經 T563 ascribed to *Dharmakṣema; and the 順權方便經 T565 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. She tabulates the parallels between T564 and these source texts (136-138). [Her treatment of these sources might be somewhat confusing. In some passages, she speaks as if T562/T563, taken as a pair, and T565/T566, also taken as a pair, might equally be the sources of the text. She also states that T564 does not quote verbatim from its sources (133). However, she also states that the wording of T564 is closer to T563 than to T562, and closer to T565 than to T566 (135 n. 19), without showing any examples of the kind of correspondence she has in mind. Accordingly, her table presents relations only to those two texts. --- MR] In addition, she states that she cannot find parallels or sources for some passages, and suggests that these are "apocryphal accretions". Balkwill also argues that certain turns of phrase are "Chinese" and suggest a "Chinese audience", but she only gives two examples of such phraseology, 居士婦 and 百戶虫. Edit		Balkwill argues that T564 was probably composed in China (though she also concedes that the possibility remains that it is "a Chinese translation of a now-lost Sanskrit original, which was a composite text", 138). She dates the composition of the text before Fajing, i.e. in the sixth century. She argues that it must have been composed between 515 and 594, because it does not appear in CSZJJ, but first appears in the catalogues in Fajing. She also notes that its title appears in the Fo ming jing T441, which (if the title indeed refers to the same text) would make T441 a terminus ante quem. Balkwill shows that T564 draws quite extensively on three sources probably already extant in Chinese translation at that time: the Drumakinnararajapariprccha T625 大樹緊那羅王所問經 ascribed to Kumarajiva; the 腹中女聽經 T563 ascribed to *Dharmaksema; and the 順權方便經 T565 ascribed to Dharmaraksa. She tabulates the parallels between T564 and these source texts (136-138). [Her treatment of these sources might be somewhat confusing. In some passages, she speaks as if T562/T563, taken as a pair, and T565/T566, also taken as a pair, might equally be the sources of the text. She also states that T564 does not quote verbatim from its sources (133). However, she also states that the wording of T564 is closer to T563 than to T562, and closer to T565 than to T566 (135 n. 19), without showing any examples of the kind of correspondence she has in mind. Accordingly, her table presents relations only to those two texts. --- MR] In addition, she states that she cannot find parallels or sources for some passages, and suggests that these are "apocryphal accretions". Balkwill also argues that certain turns of phrase are "Chinese" and suggest a "Chinese audience", but she only gives two examples of such phraseology, 居士婦 and 百戶虫. T0564; 佛說轉女身經

Assertion

Argument

Place in source

Texts: T0562; 佛說無垢賢女經; 無垢賢經 ; T0563; Tai zhong nü jing 胎中女經; 佛說腹中女聽經 ; T0564; 佛說轉女身經 ; T0565; 順權女經; 順權方便經 ; T0566; 樂瓔珞莊嚴方便品經; Zhuan nü shen pusa jing 轉女身菩薩經; Le yingluo zhuangyan nü jing 樂瓔珞莊嚴女經

Balkwill notes that in the Hôbôgirin Répértoire, the same Sanskrit title is given for T562, T563, T564, T565 and T566. She notes, however, that all five cannot possibly be a translation from the same source work, since they vary greatly in length. She suggests, rather, that they fall into three groups: T562 and T563 are variant versions of the same basic text; T565 and T566 are variant versions of the same text; and T564 is unique. [Balkwill herself goes on to show that the texts were not treated as five variant translations or versions of the same basic text in Fajing, nor in the "Buddha Names Sutra" T441, nor in the modern Taisho. Thus, it seems that for the case of T565 and T566, at least, her argument is only against HBGR, and only against what she feels is an identity between the texts implied by the application of the same reconstructed Sanskrit title to all five. However, she does note that Fajing, T441 and the Taisho all group T564 together with T562 and T563, which she shows clearly to be in error. See also separate note on T564. --- MR]

Edit

133-135

Texts: T0564; 佛說轉女身經

Balkwill argues that T564 was probably composed in China (though she also concedes that the possibility remains that it is "a Chinese translation of a now-lost Sanskrit original, which was a composite text", 138). She dates the composition of the text before Fajing, i.e. in the sixth century. She argues that it must have been composed between 515 and 594, because it does not appear in CSZJJ, but first appears in the catalogues in Fajing. She also notes that its title appears in the Fo ming jing T441, which (if the title indeed refers to the same text) would make T441 a terminus ante quem.

Balkwill shows that T564 draws quite extensively on three sources probably already extant in Chinese translation at that time: the Drumakinnararājaparipṛcchā T625 大樹緊那羅王所問經 ascribed to Kumārajīva; the 腹中女聽經 T563 ascribed to *Dharmakṣema; and the 順權方便經 T565 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. She tabulates the parallels between T564 and these source texts (136-138). [Her treatment of these sources might be somewhat confusing. In some passages, she speaks as if T562/T563, taken as a pair, and T565/T566, also taken as a pair, might equally be the sources of the text. She also states that T564 does not quote verbatim from its sources (133). However, she also states that the wording of T564 is closer to T563 than to T562, and closer to T565 than to T566 (135 n. 19), without showing any examples of the kind of correspondence she has in mind. Accordingly, her table presents relations only to those two texts. --- MR] In addition, she states that she cannot find parallels or sources for some passages, and suggests that these are "apocryphal accretions".

Balkwill also argues that certain turns of phrase are "Chinese" and suggest a "Chinese audience", but she only gives two examples of such phraseology, 居士婦 and 百戶虫.

Edit