Source: Birnbaum 1989

Birnbaum, Raoul. The Healing Buddha. Boston: Shambhala, 1989.

Assertions

Assertion	Argument	Place in source	Search
Texts: T1331(12); Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra; Guanding bachu guozui shengsi de du jing 灌頂拔除過罪生死得度經	Birnbaum claims that the origins of the Bhaiṣyaguru-sūtra are most likely Central Asian, rather than Indian. He writes that the Sanskrit version of the Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra is “written in such a manner as to indicate Central Asian or Northwest Indian authorship.” Along with this textual evidence, Birnbaum notes the absence of any early Indian images of Bhaiṣya-guru. Further, none of the Chinese pilgrims mention Bhaiṣya-guru worship in the records of their travel in India. According to Birnbaum, the only mention of the Baiṣajyaguru-sūtra in an extant text of known Indian authorship is in Śāntideva’s Śikṣā-samuccaya. Here Śāntideva includes a number of quotes from the Hsüan-tsang/Gilgit version of the sūtra, “thus indicating that the sūtra achieved some popularity in India ca. the seventh century.” Though it is possible that the text was circulated in India during the preceding centuries, Birnbaum hypothesised that the text was transmitted to India from Kashmir or Central Asia, “thereby coming to Śānti-deva’s attention.” The Bhaiṣyaguru-sūtra was translated in several versions to China (T449, T450, T451, cf. T1331[12]). The most popular version is Hsüan-Tsang’s. Birnbaum presumes Xuanzang brought the Sanskrit manuscript to China himself. The sūtra constitutes the twelfth and final chapter of Guanding bachu zui'e shengsi de du jing 灌頂拔除過罪生死得度經; Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra T1331. Birnbaum writes of T1331 that there are “many intrusions of a Chinese nature in the first eleven chapters of the text, indicating that if the origin of the text is indeed Indian or Central Asian, it was adapted by the translator to fit the circumstances he found in the Eastern Chin period in China.” Edit	55-60	Birnbaum claims that the origins of the Bhaisyaguru-sutra are most likely Central Asian, rather than Indian. He writes that the Sanskrit version of the Bhaisajyaguru-sutra is “written in such a manner as to indicate Central Asian or Northwest Indian authorship.” Along with this textual evidence, Birnbaum notes the absence of any early Indian images of Bhaisya-guru. Further, none of the Chinese pilgrims mention Bhaisya-guru worship in the records of their travel in India. According to Birnbaum, the only mention of the Baisajyaguru-sutra in an extant text of known Indian authorship is in Santideva’s Siksa-samuccaya. Here Santideva includes a number of quotes from the Hsuan-tsang/Gilgit version of the sutra, “thus indicating that the sutra achieved some popularity in India ca. the seventh century.” Though it is possible that the text was circulated in India during the preceding centuries, Birnbaum hypothesised that the text was transmitted to India from Kashmir or Central Asia, “thereby coming to Santi-deva’s attention.” The Bhaisyaguru-sutra was translated in several versions to China (T449, T450, T451, cf. T1331[12]). The most popular version is Hsuan-Tsang’s. Birnbaum presumes Xuanzang brought the Sanskrit manuscript to China himself. The sutra constitutes the twelfth and final chapter of Guanding bachu zui'e shengsi de du jing 灌頂拔除過罪生死得度經; Bhaisajyaguru-sutra T1331. Birnbaum writes of T1331 that there are “many intrusions of a Chinese nature in the first eleven chapters of the text, indicating that if the origin of the text is indeed Indian or Central Asian, it was adapted by the translator to fit the circumstances he found in the Eastern Chin period in China.” T1331(12); Bhaisajyaguru-sutra; Guanding bachu guozui shengsi de du jing 灌頂拔除過罪生死得度經

Assertion

Argument

Place in source

Texts: T1331(12); Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra; Guanding bachu guozui shengsi de du jing 灌頂拔除過罪生死得度經

Birnbaum claims that the origins of the Bhaiṣyaguru-sūtra are most likely Central Asian, rather than Indian. He writes that the Sanskrit version of the Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra is “written in such a manner as to indicate Central Asian or Northwest Indian authorship.” Along with this textual evidence, Birnbaum notes the absence of any early Indian images of Bhaiṣya-guru. Further, none of the Chinese pilgrims mention Bhaiṣya-guru worship in the records of their travel in India.

According to Birnbaum, the only mention of the Baiṣajyaguru-sūtra in an extant text of known Indian authorship is in Śāntideva’s Śikṣā-samuccaya. Here Śāntideva includes a number of quotes from the Hsüan-tsang/Gilgit version of the sūtra, “thus indicating that the sūtra achieved some popularity in India ca. the seventh century.” Though it is possible that the text was circulated in India during the preceding centuries, Birnbaum hypothesised that the text was transmitted to India from Kashmir or Central Asia, “thereby coming to Śānti-deva’s attention.”

The Bhaiṣyaguru-sūtra was translated in several versions to China (T449, T450, T451, cf. T1331[12]). The most popular version is Hsüan-Tsang’s. Birnbaum presumes Xuanzang brought the Sanskrit manuscript to China himself. The sūtra constitutes the twelfth and final chapter of Guanding bachu zui'e shengsi de du jing 灌頂拔除過罪生死得度經; Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra T1331. Birnbaum writes of T1331 that there are “many intrusions of a Chinese nature in the first eleven chapters of the text, indicating that if the origin of the text is indeed Indian or Central Asian, it was adapted by the translator to fit the circumstances he found in the Eastern Chin period in China.”

Edit

55-60