Naitō Ryūo 内藤龍雄. “Bosatsu zen kai kyō ni okeru nisan no mondai 菩薩善戒經における二三の問題.” IBK 10, no 1 (1962): 130-31.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Naitō considers a modern view that the Pusa shan jie jing 菩薩善戒經 (T1582 ascribed to *Guṇavarman 求那跋摩) was produced in China based on the Pusa dichi jing 菩薩地持經 (T1581 ascribed to *Dharmakṣema 曇無讖). He calls this view the 中国改修説 (the “Chinese Revision Hypothesis”). This view differs from the traditional assumption that the two are alternate translations of the same base text. Naitō himself inclines overall to the view that T1582 and T1581 are more likely to be alternate translations. According to Naitō, unlike T1581, T1582 has the structure of a sūtra. For instance, T1582 has an introductory portion/chapter 序品. The Chinese Revision Hypothesis claims that the introductory portion was taken from the Jueding pini jing 決定毘尼經 (T325 ascribed to Dunhuang sanzang 燉煌三藏, who is usually identified with Dharmarakṣa), an anonymous scripture of the E. Jin period, since the introductory portion of that text is very similar to that of T1582. However, Naitō points out that the 序品 of T1582 is actually different from that of T325 (and also from that of the Youpoli hui 優波離會 of the Ratnakūṭa 大寶積經 T310(24) ascribed to Bodhiruci, which is an alternate translation of T325), in several such notable respects as the number of bodhisattvas and monks present in the assembly, the names of buddhas and bodhisattvas, and the order in which elements appear. Naitō does not make a strong case here, but suggests that, with those differences, it seems a little far-fetched to assert that the 序品 of T1582 was taken from T325. Naitō mentions a few other unique features of T1582: The use of the term pusa jie 菩薩戒 (“bodhisatva precept[s]”), the additional conditions for maintaining the bodhisatva precepts, and the difference of the 戒 jie content in comparison with T1581. Naitō states that the term pusa jie was probably used in order to have a translation word that matches the content of the text better. Naitō also claims that other differences between T1582 and T1581, such as differences in terminology [for types and stages of practice] 行文用語, may suggest that the two texts are likely to be alternate translations, rather than that T1582 was composed (in China) on the basis of 1581. For example, in the description of the 階位十二行 of the bodhisatva path in the Sheng pusa di pin 生菩薩地品 (in the eighth fascicle 第八巻 of T1582), simplified terms are often used, such as 戒行 instead of 增上戒住 in T1581, and 行行 instead of 有行有開發無相住 in T1581. In addition, structure-wise, T1582 is not as well-organized as T1581. For example, in T1582, the explanation of the eleven characteristics 相 of engendering precepts in order to benefit sentient beings 爲利衆生戒 is presented so unclearly that it is difficult to see if the number of 相 is really eleven or not, and the explanation also differs in content from that in other scriptures. Further, in T1582, vocabulary is often slightly peculiar, for example, regarding groups of dharmas or dharma lists 法數, such as the thirty-two major and eighty minor marks 三十二相八十種好 [of the mahāpuruṣa/Buddha], the four saṃgraha[-vastu] 四攝, or the ten epithets of the Tathāgata 如來十號. Also, other terms used in T1582 are also uncommon, such as 流布 instead of 施設假名, and 不可思議 instead of 神力. Furthermore, the inclusion of the word Zhendan 眞丹 (China) in a list of “obscure/incomprehensible sounds/words/languages” 不了聲 would be very odd if T1582 was written in China. Naitō points out that if T1582 was written on the basis of T1581, certain issues would remain unsolved, such as why T1582 used so many different words from T1581; why it did not change the structure of T1581 while changing its vocabulary; etc. Thus, Naitō maintains that T1582 and T1581 are more likely to be alternate translations. In addition to the above, Naitō states that he also examined in detail of the chapter titles 品名 structure of T1582 and T1581. He claims that the chapter title structure of T1582 and that of T1581 are basically the same, except in the introductory portion 序品, with differences caused by the following four factors: 1. T1582 is confused; 2. T1582 uses unique terms; 3. transcription errors occur in T1582; and 4. T1582 uses abbreviated titles. Naitō maintains that those four factors should be taken into account when identifying the corresponding Sanskrit terms in the presumed underlying source text from the Chinese text of T1582. |
Naito considers a modern view that the Pusa shan jie jing 菩薩善戒經 (T1582 ascribed to *Gunavarman 求那跋摩) was produced in China based on the Pusa dichi jing 菩薩地持經 (T1581 ascribed to *Dharmaksema 曇無讖). He calls this view the 中国改修説 (the “Chinese Revision Hypothesis”). This view differs from the traditional assumption that the two are alternate translations of the same base text. Naito himself inclines overall to the view that T1582 and T1581 are more likely to be alternate translations. According to Naito, unlike T1581, T1582 has the structure of a sutra. For instance, T1582 has an introductory portion/chapter 序品. The Chinese Revision Hypothesis claims that the introductory portion was taken from the Jueding pini jing 決定毘尼經 (T325 ascribed to Dunhuang sanzang 燉煌三藏, who is usually identified with Dharmaraksa), an anonymous scripture of the E. Jin period, since the introductory portion of that text is very similar to that of T1582. However, Naito points out that the 序品 of T1582 is actually different from that of T325 (and also from that of the Youpoli hui 優波離會 of the Ratnakuta 大寶積經 T310(24) ascribed to Bodhiruci, which is an alternate translation of T325), in several such notable respects as the number of bodhisattvas and monks present in the assembly, the names of buddhas and bodhisattvas, and the order in which elements appear. Naito does not make a strong case here, but suggests that, with those differences, it seems a little far-fetched to assert that the 序品 of T1582 was taken from T325. Naito mentions a few other unique features of T1582: The use of the term pusa jie 菩薩戒 (“bodhisatva precept[s]”), the additional conditions for maintaining the bodhisatva precepts, and the difference of the 戒 jie content in comparison with T1581. Naito states that the term pusa jie was probably used in order to have a translation word that matches the content of the text better. Naito also claims that other differences between T1582 and T1581, such as differences in terminology [for types and stages of practice] 行文用語, may suggest that the two texts are likely to be alternate translations, rather than that T1582 was composed (in China) on the basis of 1581. For example, in the description of the 階位十二行 of the bodhisatva path in the Sheng pusa di pin 生菩薩地品 (in the eighth fascicle 第八巻 of T1582), simplified terms are often used, such as 戒行 instead of 增上戒住 in T1581, and 行行 instead of 有行有開發無相住 in T1581. In addition, structure-wise, T1582 is not as well-organized as T1581. For example, in T1582, the explanation of the eleven characteristics 相 of engendering precepts in order to benefit sentient beings 爲利衆生戒 is presented so unclearly that it is difficult to see if the number of 相 is really eleven or not, and the explanation also differs in content from that in other scriptures. Further, in T1582, vocabulary is often slightly peculiar, for example, regarding groups of dharmas or dharma lists 法數, such as the thirty-two major and eighty minor marks 三十二相八十種好 [of the mahapurusa/Buddha], the four samgraha[-vastu] 四攝, or the ten epithets of the Tathagata 如來十號. Also, other terms used in T1582 are also uncommon, such as 流布 instead of 施設假名, and 不可思議 instead of 神力. Furthermore, the inclusion of the word Zhendan 眞丹 (China) in a list of “obscure/incomprehensible sounds/words/languages” 不了聲 would be very odd if T1582 was written in China. Naito points out that if T1582 was written on the basis of T1581, certain issues would remain unsolved, such as why T1582 used so many different words from T1581; why it did not change the structure of T1581 while changing its vocabulary; etc. Thus, Naito maintains that T1582 and T1581 are more likely to be alternate translations. In addition to the above, Naito states that he also examined in detail of the chapter titles 品名 structure of T1582 and T1581. He claims that the chapter title structure of T1582 and that of T1581 are basically the same, except in the introductory portion 序品, with differences caused by the following four factors: 1. T1582 is confused; 2. T1582 uses unique terms; 3. transcription errors occur in T1582; and 4. T1582 uses abbreviated titles. Naito maintains that those four factors should be taken into account when identifying the corresponding Sanskrit terms in the presumed underlying source text from the Chinese text of T1582. T1582; 菩薩善戒經 |