Source: Nattier 2005

Nattier, Jan. “The Proto-History of the Buddhāvataṃsaka: The Pusa benye jing 菩薩本業經 and the Dousha jing 兜沙經.” ARIRIAB VIII (2005): 323-260.

Assertions

Assertion	Argument	Place in source	Search
Texts: T0280; 佛說兜沙經 ; T0282; Pusa qiu Fo ben ye jing 菩薩求佛本業經; 諸菩薩求佛本業經 ; T0283; 菩薩十住行道品 People: *Lokakṣema, 支婁迦讖 (translator 譯)	Nattier shows that T280, T282 and T283, in that order, taken together, correspond in content to Zhi Qian's T281, and in other respects too form a coherent whole. She argues that they therefore originally comprised a single text, which in the course of transmission was split into the present three "orphan texts". All three texts are ascribed to different translators in the present canon (T), but the observation that they originally formed a single whole implies that they were originally the product of a single hand, and therefore, that two of these three ascriptions are incorrect. She argues on the basis of terminology and other internal evidence that the actual translator of all three texts was Lokakṣema. Edit		Nattier shows that T280, T282 and T283, in that order, taken together, correspond in content to Zhi Qian's T281, and in other respects too form a coherent whole. She argues that they therefore originally comprised a single text, which in the course of transmission was split into the present three "orphan texts". All three texts are ascribed to different translators in the present canon (T), but the observation that they originally formed a single whole implies that they were originally the product of a single hand, and therefore, that two of these three ascriptions are incorrect. She argues on the basis of terminology and other internal evidence that the actual translator of all three texts was Lokaksema. *Lokaksema, 支婁迦讖 T0280; 佛說兜沙經 T0282; Pusa qiu Fo ben ye jing 菩薩求佛本業經; 諸菩薩求佛本業經 T0283; 菩薩十住行道品

Assertion

Argument

Place in source

Texts: T0280; 佛說兜沙經 ; T0282; Pusa qiu Fo ben ye jing 菩薩求佛本業經; 諸菩薩求佛本業經 ; T0283; 菩薩十住行道品
People: *Lokakṣema, 支婁迦讖 (translator 譯)

Nattier shows that T280, T282 and T283, in that order, taken together, correspond in content to Zhi Qian's T281, and in other respects too form a coherent whole. She argues that they therefore originally comprised a single text, which in the course of transmission was split into the present three "orphan texts". All three texts are ascribed to different translators in the present canon (T), but the observation that they originally formed a single whole implies that they were originally the product of a single hand, and therefore, that two of these three ascriptions are incorrect. She argues on the basis of terminology and other internal evidence that the actual translator of all three texts was Lokakṣema.

Edit