| Identifier | T0361 [T] |
| Title | 佛說無量清淨平等覺經 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Translator 譯 | Zhi Qian 支謙 [Nattier 2008] |
There may be translations for this text listed in the Bibliography of Translations from the Chinese Buddhist Canon into Western Languages. If translations are listed, this link will take you directly to them. However, if no translations are listed, the link will lead only to the head of the page.
There are resources for the study of this text in the SAT Daizōkyō Text Dabatase (Saṃgaṇikīkṛtaṃ Taiśotripiṭakaṃ).
| Preferred? | Source | Pertains to | Argument | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
No |
[T] T = CBETA [Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association]. Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經. Edited by Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 and Watanabe Kaigyoku 渡邊海旭. Tokyo: Taishō shinshū daizōkyō kankōkai/Daizō shuppan, 1924-1932. CBReader v 5.0, 2014. |
Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Demiéville 1953] Demiéville, Paul. “Les sources chinoises.” In L’Inde classique: Manuel des études indiennes, Tome II, by Louis Renou and Jean Filliozat, 398-463. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale/Hanoi: École Française d’Extrême-Orient, 1953. — 414 |
Demiéville reports that scholars have disagreed about the ascription of T361, some favouring Bo Yan 白延, and some Dharmarakṣa. Mochizuki favoured the ascription to Dharmarakṣa. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
Yes |
[Nattier 2008] Nattier, Jan. A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations: Texts from the Eastern Han 東漢 and Three Kingdoms 三國 Periods. Bibliotheca Philologica et Philosophica Buddhica X. Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2008. — 86-87 |
Nattier summarises work by Paul Harrison presenting this reascription (swapping T361 and T362 between Zhi Qian and *Lokakṣema). Relevant works: Harrison, Paul. "Women in the Pure Land: Some Reflections on the Textual Sources." Journal of Indian Philosophy 26 (1998): 556-557 and n. 16-18. Harrison, Paul. "On the Authorship of the Oldest Chinese Translation of the Larger Sukhāvatī-vyūha-sūtra.” Unpublished conference paper, International Association of Buddhist Studies Conference, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1999. Harrison, Paul, Jens-Uwe Hartmann and Kazunobu Matsuda. "Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha." In Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection. III. Buddhist Manuscripts, vol. 2, edited by Jens Braarvig, 179-214. Oslo: Hermes Publishing, 2002. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 102-104 |
Sakaino maintains that all of the ascriptions to *Lokakṣema newly given by LDSBJ (or KYL) are groundless [this entry is associated with the extant scriptures ascribed newly to *Lokakṣema by Fei, viz., the Za piyu jing 雜譬喩經 [T204] and the Sukhāvatīvyūha 無量清淨平等覺經 [T361, 無量清淨經 in LDSBJ]. Sakaino adds that there should also exist other authentic translation works of *Lokakṣema, besides those ascribed to him in the Taishō, and that he will explain his view in each case of works suspected to be due to *Lokakṣema’s, as they arise in his discussions. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 182-183, 243 |
Sakaino states that in all, twelve putative translations of the Sukhāvatīvyūha are reported, of which five are extant, and seven lost (Sakaino adds that those allegedly lost seven translations were included just in LDSBJ and other unreliable catalogues, and in fact never existed). Of these, two of the extant versions are relatively new, and their ascriptions are not problematic. Ascriptions of all of the other three extant scriptures should be corrected: the 平等覺經 T361 ascribed to *Lokakṣema should be re-ascribed to Dharmarakṣa ; the 大阿彌陀經 T362 ascribed to Zhi Qian should be re-ascribed to *Lokakṣema; and the 無量壽經 T360 ascribed to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 should be re-ascribed to *Buddhabhadra = Juexian 覺賢. As for T361, Sakaino maintains that the Wuliangshou jing 無量壽經 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, which has long been regarded as lost, is actually T361. T361 is Dharmarakṣa’s revision of the Da Amituo jing 大阿彌陀經, earlier translated by *Lokakṣema. The revision was made due to the differences between the Da Amituo jing 大阿彌陀經 and the original text 原本 that Dharmarakṣa brought to China. Sakaino claims that this much is clear from textual analysis. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Ōno 1954] Ōno Hōdō 大野法道. Daijō kai kyō no kenkyū 大乗戒経の研究. Tokyo: Risōsha 理想社, 1954. — 274-276 |
According to Ōno, the ascription of the Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra 無量清淨平等覺經 T361 to *Lokakṣema in the Taishō The scholars before KYL who actually saw T361 gave two different ascriptions other than that to *Lokakṣema: CSZJJ (like LDSBJ juan 6) ascribes it to Dharmarakṣa; and Yancong, Jingtai, DTNDL, DZKZM, Fajing and GSZ (like LDSBJ juan 5) ascribe it to Bo Yan 帛延 of the Cao Wei 曹魏 period (174). Ōno himself supports the ascription to Bo Yan. Still, Ōno admits that it may appear that the ascription to Dharmarakṣa is more plausible because it was given by Sengyou, LDSBJ provides a specific date of translation for it, and the vocabulary of T361 has a lot in common with that of the Guangzan jing 光讃經 T222 and Dharmarakṣa’s Lotus 正法華經 T263. Ōno supports the ascription to Bo Yan for the following reasons: CSZJJ used the title 無量清淨平等覺經 as an alternate title for the Wuliiangshou jing 無量壽經 in two juan ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. This Wuliangshou jing was first listed in Dao’an’s catalogue. Ōno argues that the scripture that Dao’an saw was not T361, because ) if he had seen it (and ascribed it to Dharmarakṣa), he would not have used in the title the name Wuliangshou , which does not appear in the text even once, 2) if he had seen T361 as well as the Dharmarakṣa’s Wuliangshou jing (assuming that it existed), Dao’an would have listed T361 independently of the Wuliangshou jing, and 3) if Dharmarakṣa’s Wuliangshou jing was missing, and Dao’an identified T361 with that title, it would be difficult to see the reason for that identification. Ōno goes on to consider in further detail the likely circumstances that led to the misascription of T361 on page 174 and 175. The vocabulary of T361 contains both words typical of Dharmarakṣa, and words that he did not use. For example, while Dharmarakṣa uses terms such as 我等, 汝等, 無量壽佛, 光世音, 大勢至 (o r 得大勢), and 江河沙, T361 uses 我曹, 若曹, 無量清淨佛, 廅樓亘, 摩訶那鉢, 恒水邊流沙. Ōno thinks that such differences indicate that the T361 is not Dharmarakṣa’s work. Ōno admits, however, that there is no decisive evidence that endorses the ascription of T361 to Bo Yan. The oldest material that ascribes the text to him is GSZ, and the [supposed] Jin catalogue 晋世雜錄 by Zhu Daozu 竺道祖. Ōno assumes that there were more material that supported this ascription, since Fajing, who was influenced by various catalogues in the Northern and Southern Dynasties 南北朝 period, accepts the ascription. The Xulai jing 須賴經 T328 is the only extant work of Bo Yan. T361 has only words such as 我曹 and 若曹 in common with T328, while also using different terms from the ones used in T361, such as 布施持戒忍辱精進禪衆智慧 for the six perfections. Thus, Ōno states that the main reason to suspect that T361 should be reascribed to Bo Yan is a negative one, that the ascription to Dharmarakṣa is too hard to buy. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Yinshun 1984] Yinshun 印順. Chuqi dasheng Fojiao zhi qiyuan yu fazhan 初期大乘佛教之起源與開展. Yinshun fashi Foxue zhuzuoji 印順法師佛學著作集 37. Taipei: Zhengwen chubanshe, 1984. — 762 |
Yinshun argues for a reversal of attributions for T361 and T362, so that T362 would be ascribed to *Lokakṣema, and T361 to Zhi Qian. He writes: "我以為，如否定古代一致的傳說，以《阿彌陀（三耶三佛薩樓佛檀過度人道）經》為支婁迦讖譯，《無量清淨平等覺經》為支謙譯；支謙是傳承支讖所學的，譯文少用音譯，也許是最合理的推定！" Entry author: Matt Orsborn |
|
|
|
No |
[Bie lu (DH mss)] "Liu Song" Zhongjing bie lu 劉宋眾經別錄, S.2872, P.3747. Dating complex and unclear. |
|
In the "Liu Song" Zhongjing bie lu 劉宋眾經別錄, as represented by a Dunhuang manuscript fragment, P.3747, the following titles are listed, which may correspond to extant texts (in some cases, identification is rather tentative). In contrast to some other titles, which are treated in separate CBC@ entries, these titles are listed in the Bie lu without any further accompanying information (e.g. about ascription or date). Note that the Bie lu includes interlinear notes giving such information, and the scope of application of those interlinear notes is sometimes uncertain: it can be hard to tell whether they apply only to the single title preceding the note, or to a group of titles leading up to the note; and if they apply to a group of titles, how many. Titles in the DH ms. Bie lu are identified by the numbering in Tan (1991), given at the beginning of each line. S.2872 P.3747 Many of these same titles are treated as anonymous and extant in CSZJJ fascicle 4. The same is also true of a number of titles not listed here, because the texts in question appear not to be extant. Texts presently ascribed to Dharmarakṣa and to Zhi Qian (excepting T361) are excluded from this entry, because they are treated in other CBC@ entries. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Fang and Lu 2023] Fang Yixin 方一新 and Lu Lu 盧鹭. “Jin shiyu nian cong yuyan jiaodu kaobian keyi Fojing chengguo de huigu yu zhanwang” 近十余年從語言角度考辨可疑佛經成果的回顧與展望.” Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences Online Edition), Jan. 2023: 1–24. — 6 |
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Li Zhouyuan argues that in comparison to the Amituo jing 阿彌陀經 (Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra) T362, the Wuliang qingjing pingdengjue jing 無量清淨平等覺經 (Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra) T361 is closer to Zhi Qian’s usual translation style, but the two versions do not differ greatly from one another. They refer to Li Zhouyuan 李周淵. “Sanguo Zhi Qian yijing yanjiu” 三國支謙譯經研究. PhD diss., Fagu wenli xueyuan 法鼓文理學院 (2020): 79–82. Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|
|
|
No |
[Fang and Lu 2023] Fang Yixin 方一新 and Lu Lu 盧鹭. “Jin shiyu nian cong yuyan jiaodu kaobian keyi Fojing chengguo de huigu yu zhanwang” 近十余年從語言角度考辨可疑佛經成果的回顧與展望.” Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences Online Edition), Jan. 2023: 1–24. — 6 |
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Zhang Yuwei argues that the differences in vocabulary between the Wuliang qingjing pingdengjue jing 無量清淨平等覺經 (Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra) T361 and the Amituo jing 阿彌陀經 (Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra) T362 can be traced back to the translations from the Western Jin Dynasty, especially those done by Dharmarakṣa. They refer to Zhang Yuwei 張雨薇. “Wuliangshou jing tongjing yiyi yuyan yu wenxian yanjiu” 《無量壽經》同經異譯語言與文獻研究. PhD diss., Zhejiang daxue (2019). Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|
|
|
No |
[Fang and Lu 2023] Fang Yixin 方一新 and Lu Lu 盧鹭. “Jin shiyu nian cong yuyan jiaodu kaobian keyi Fojing chengguo de huigu yu zhanwang” 近十余年從語言角度考辨可疑佛經成果的回顧與展望.” Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences Online Edition), Jan. 2023: 1–24. — 9 |
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Li Zhouyuan argues that it is impossible to ascertain the translators of the Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra 無量清淨平等覺經 T361 and the Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra 阿彌陀三耶三佛薩樓佛檀過度人道經 T362. They refer to Li Zhouyuan 李周淵. “Sanguo Zhi Qian yijing yanjiu” 三國支謙譯經研究. PhD diss., Fagu wenli xueyuan 法鼓文理學院, 2020: 79–82. Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|
|
|
No |
[Lu 1989] Lu, Cheng. “Dharmarakṣa.” In Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, Volume 4, edited by W. G. Weeraratne, 552–54. Sri Lanka: Department of Buddhist Affairs, 1989. — 553 |
Lu writes that ten texts ascribed to other translators in T have been "found" to be "translated by Dharmarakṣa". Lu gives no references or arguments in support of this assertion. The texts in question are: *Sigālovāda-sūtra 尸迦羅越六方禮經 T16 Entry author: Michael Radich |
|