Source: Shi Jiyan 1997

In the present Taishō canon, the Pusa shizhu jing 菩薩十住經 T284 is ascribed to *Gītamitra 祇多蜜 and the Pusa shizhu xing dao pin jing 菩薩十住行道品經 T283 is ascribed to Dharmarakṣa 竺法護. On the basis of an examination of Buddhist catalogues, Ven. Jiyan 釋繼彥 argues that the ascriptions and titles for these texts are in disarray

Jiyan claims that it there are strong reasons to doubt the ascription of T283 to Dharmarakṣa, because the text reveals a different transliteration style than that of Dharmarakṣa.

Jiyan further analyzes the records concerning these texts in historical Buddhist catalogues. According to CSZJJ, the Pusa shi zhu jing is categorized as Dharmarakṣa’s translation, and Sengyou saw the text. The same chapter also records another translation with the same title, the Pusa shi zhu jing, translated by Buddhabhadra 佛陀跋陀. Meanwhile, CSZJJ also includes the Shi zhu jing 十住經 T286 translated by Kumārajīva, from the same Indic text as Buddhabhadra’s. However, CSZJJ doesn’t group Dharmarakṣa’s translation together with those of Kumārajīva and Buddhabhadra. CSZJJ also includes a text called the Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin jing 菩薩十住行道品經 in the list of lost translations, and claims it is an "excerpted sūtra" 抄. Jiyan specifies, without further comment, that it was copied from the Daben jing 大本經 (??). Jiyan asserts that the Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin jing recorded by Sengyou probably has no relation to the Pusa shi zhu jing translated by Dharmarakṣa.

Fajing discusses both the Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin jing and Pusa shi zhu jing together. It not only records that Dharmarakṣa translated the Pusa shi zhu jing, but also asserts that the Shi zhu pin is the lost translation entitled Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin jing mentioned in CSZJJ, which was also translated by Dharmarakṣa. Meanwhile, Fajing claims that another scripture titled Tanmeimoti pusa shuo jing 曇昧摩提菩薩說經 is excerpted from the Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin jing. As evidenced by the first sentence of the current T283, which features a bodhisattva by the same name 曇昧摩提菩薩, the Tanmeimoti pusa shuo jing recorded by Fajing probably has some connection with the Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin jing, and the Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin jing mentioned in Fajing is most likely the same text as the current T283 translated by Dharmarakṣa. However, Fajing doesn’t explain the reason for ascribing the Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin jing to Dharmarakṣa, or whether the text of the Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin jing is the same as that of the Pusa shi zhu jing.

Jiyan finds that the ascription of the Pusa shi zhu jing to *Gītamitra is first mentioned in the LDSBJ. According to LDSBJ, the Pusa shi zhu jing is part of the second translation of an Indic text and was translated by *Gītamitra. Another translation of the same text is also mentioned in LDSBJ, which was translated by Buddhabhadra.

Jiyan argues that KYL accepts both the assertion of Fajing , which treats the Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin jing as Dharmarakṣa’s translation, and the assertion of LDSBJ, which attributes the Pusa shi zhu jing to *Gītamitra. However, it is still unknown what records of a Pusa shi zhu jing translated by Dharmarakṣa might refer to.

Edit

Ven. Jiyan 釋繼彥 argues the ascription of the Bao rulai jing 寶如來經/Bao rulai sanmei jing 寶如來三昧經 T637 to *Gītamitra 祇多蜜 is problematic. The content of T637 is very similar to that of the Wuji bao sanmei jing 無極寶三昧經 T636 translated by Dharmarakṣa 竺法護. Additionally, records regarding titles corresponding to T637 in Buddhist catalogues are inconsistent. Jiyan examines the catalogues to determine how the present T637 came into the canon, and how its ascription to *Gītamitra arose.

Jiyan finds that the title Bao rulai jing 寶如來經 may have originally referred to a "dubious scripture"疑經. This is supported by a record originally from the so-called "Dao'an lu": 道安錄, which attributes the composition of the text to a person named Hu (or with an ethnic Identity perceived as hu) from the Southern Seas (南海胡作). Sengyou 僧佑 cites this record in the CSZJJ, and therefore does not list the Bao rulai jing 寶如來經 as a variant translation of the Wu baoji jing 無極寶經.

However, Jiyan points out that starting with Fajing, other catalogues, such as Yancong, Jingtai, and DTNDL all treat the Bao rulai jing as a lost translation, and regard the Wu baoji jing and the Bao rulai jing as variant translations of the same Indic text. This is because these catalogues record Dharmarakṣa as the translator of the Wu baoji jing, but do not mention the translator of the Bao rulai jing. It should be noted that some versions of Fajing's catalogue in later printed canons attribute the translation of the Bao rulai jing to *Gītamitra, but this is a later addition.

LDSBJ records a second work under the same title as Dharmarakṣa's Wu baoji jing, and ascribes It to *Gītamitra. This is a new record, which was not previously known. LDSBJ also regards the Bao rulai jing and Wu baoji jing as a pair of variant translations, but does not list the translators for both texts. However, it is unclear which version of the Wu baoji jing is referred to here, whether it was translated by *Gītamitra or Dharmarakṣa.

Jiyan also notes that other catalogues, similar to those mentioned earlier, make similar assertions, and identifies a new problem that enters the record with DZKZM, which regards the Bao rulai jing as the same text as the Wu baoji jing translated by *Gītamitra. In this sense, the Wu baoji jing translated by *Gītamitra does not actually exist, and has been replaced by the Bao rulai jing translated by *Gītamitra. This problematic ascription is also found in the interlinear commentary of the Wu baoji jing in the KYL, which asserts that the Wu baoji jing translated by Dharmarakṣa shares the same underlying Indic text as the so-called Bao rulai sanmei jing 寶如來三昧經 translated by *Gītamitra. Jiyan argues that this problematic ascription has persisted until today because the KYL was the authoritative basis for entry of texts into subsequent editions of the canon.

Edit