| Identifier | T0330 [T] |
| Title | 佛說菩薩修行經 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Translator 譯 | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Hayashiya 1941] |
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 |
[Radich 2019] Radich, Michael. “Fei Changfang’s Treatment of Sengyou’s Anonymous Texts.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 139.4 (2019): 819-841. |
|
According to the abstract, Radich argues: "Fei Changfang/Zhangfang’s 費長房 Lidai sanbao ji 歷代三寶紀 T2034 (completed in 598) is a source of numerous problematic ascriptions and dates for texts in the received Chinese Buddhist canon. This paper presents new evidence of troubling patterns in the assignment of new ascriptions in Lidai sanbao ji, and aims thereby to shed new light on Fei’s working method. I show that Lidai sanbao ji consistently gives new attributions to the same translators for whole groups of texts clustering closely together in a long list of texts treated as anonymous in the earlier Chu sanzang ji ji 出三藏記集 T2145 of Sengyou 僧祐 (completed ca. 515). It is impossible that Sengyou grouped these texts together on the basis of attribution, since he did not know them. The most economical explanation for the assignment of each individual group to the same translator in Lidai sanbao ji, therefore, is that someone added the same attributions in batches to restricted chunks of Sengyou’s list. This and other evidence shows that Lidai sanbao ji is even more unreliable than previously thought, and urges even greater critical awareness in the use of received ascriptions for many of our texts." Radich argues that the patterns of unreliable information he has here uncovered cast doubt upon the ascriptions of all the texts affected. Extant texts affected are the following (from Radich's Appendix 1; listed in order of Taishō numbering; listing gives title, Taishō number, Taishō ascription, and locus in LDSBJ): 七佛父母姓字經 T4, Anon., former Wei 前魏, 60b19. This CBC@ entry is associated with all of affected extant texts. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
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 |
[Kamata 1982] Kamata Shigeo 鎌田茂雄. Chūgoku bukkyō shi, dai ikkan: Shodenki no bukkyō 中国仏教史 第一巻 初伝期末の仏教. Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1982. — 299 |
Kamata challenges some of the ascriptions given to Bo Yuan 帛遠 (aka Bo Fazu 白法祖) in the Taishō [Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra 佛般泥洹經 T5; *Mahāprajāpatīparinirvāṇa-sūtra 大愛道般泥洹經 T144; Pusa xiuxing jing 菩薩修行經 T330; 菩薩逝經 Pusa shi jing T528; Xianzhe wu fude jing 賢者五福德經 T777; Kamata does not specify which are incorrect/correct --- IA]. Kamata states that [according to CSZJJ] Bo translated several texts, but no details about these works are unknown [Kamata is not clear here, but most likely referring to this CSZJJ passage: 常譯惟逮弟子本五部僧等三部經。又注首楞嚴經。又言。別譯數部小經值亂零失不知其名, T2145 (LV) 107c10-12 --- IA]. Dao’an does not list any works by him. Sengyou gives only a Weidai pusa jing 惟逮菩薩經. However, LDSBJ and other catalogues ascribe more than twenty titles to Bo, 帛遠, including the five ascribed to him in the Taishō. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Iwamatsu 1976b] Iwamatsu Asao 岩松浅夫. “Nehan gyō shōhon no hon’yakusha 涅槃経小本の翻訳者.” IBK 25, no. 1 (1976): 244-247. — 245 |
According to Iwamatsu, in CSZJJ, Bo Fazu is ascribed with only one text, which is moreover said to have been lost; in LDSBJ, however, he is suddenly ascribed with 23 works. Iwamatsu believes that this means that we have no extant works that can reliably be ascribed to Bo Fazu. If this is true, it would undermine the received ascriptions of T5, T144, T330, T528 and T777. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Demiéville 1954] Demiéville, Paul. “La Yogācārabhūmi de Saṅgharakṣa.” BÉFEO 44, no. 2 (1954): 339-436. — 396 |
Demiéville gives the Skt. (alternate) title as Vīradatta-paripṛcchā. Another version of the same text was later translated by Bodhiruci as T310(28). In that text, the title *Bodhisattvayogācārabhūmi appears in the body of the text, 菩薩瑜伽師地; T310(28):11.543a17-18 [as is the title 勇猛授長者所問---MR]. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 493-496 |
Hayashiya argues that the ascription of this text [meaning T330] to Bo Fazu is incorrect, because based upon a baseless ascription first found in LDSBJ and KYL. T330 should in fact be identical with the Zhangzhe weishi jing 長者威勢經, which is included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯經録, but not in Fajing 法經録 and the Renshou lu 仁壽録. The two did not include it probably because the Zhangzhe weishi jing 長者威勢經 was rightly regarded as the same as the present title, the Pusa xiuxing jing 菩薩修行經. This identification was initially made by Sengyou 僧祐, who includes the Zhangzhe weishi suowen pusa xiuxing jing 長者威施所問菩薩修行經 in his list of anonymous and miscellaneous scriptures 失譯雑經録, stating that it is also called Zhangzhe xiuxing jing 長者修行經 or Pusa xiuxing jing 菩薩修行經. Thus, LDSBJ and KYL created a ghost text by adding back in the alternate title (Hayashiya does not state why they ascribed T330 to Bo Fazu). 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. — 273-275 |
Sakaino states the following (273): CSZJJ lists only the Weidai pusa jing 惟逮菩薩經 (not extant) as the work of Bo Fazu 白法祖. LDSBJ ascribes 23 titles in 25 juan to him, which KYL reduced to 16 titles 18 juan by excising offshoot or byproduct scriptures 別生. The titles Dizi ben 弟子本 and Wu bu seng 五部僧 are mentioned in GSZ, but it is not known exactly which texts they referred to. Sakaino quotes a passage in LDSBJ, 高僧傳(止)云祖出一經。然其所出諸經遭世擾攘名録罕存。莫紀其實 [T2034 (XLIX) 66b18-b19], and criticizes this statement, pointing out that GSZ says three scriptures 三部經, not just one scripture 一經, and that the issue is rather the odd names given for two of those three scriptures. 1) 8 titles, all of which are also ascribed to Dharmarakṣa (listed, 274). The number of juan often differs between the ascription to Bo Fazu and that to Dharmarakṣa, but Sakaino asserts that it is plain that Fei reused those titles of works of Dharmarakṣa as works of Bo Fazu as well. (This is therefore part of a wider pattern, which Sakaino also observes elsewhere for the corpora ascribed to other translators, where contiguous chunks of CSZJJ lists are re-used in LDSBJ as the basis for arbitrary new ascriptions to a single figure.) Especially, the word fanzhi 梵志 in the title Chixin fanzhi jing 持心梵志經 is clearly a copyist’s error for fantian 梵天 in the Chixin fantian jing 持心梵天經 (Chixin fantian suowen jing 持心梵天所問經), and such an error makes it even more plausible that those titles were just taken from somewhere and arbitrarily attributed to Bo Fazu. 2) 10 titles found elsewhere in CSZJJ (presented on p. 274). 8 titles out of the 10 are listed in Sengyou’s new catalogue of anonymous scriptures 續失譯經錄, the majority of which are related to tongzi/māṇava 童子 (童子經類). [Sakaino seems to overlook the 佛問四童子經 in this group, thus the above numbers should be “9 titles out of 11”, not “8 titles out of 10” -- AI ]. Fei apparently took them from the group of tongzi scriptures 童子經 and allocated them to Bo Fazu, creating the impression that Bo Fazu translated many scriptures related to tongzi. Sakaino also claims that it is not a coincidence that both the Dai’aidao [jing] 大愛道 (cf. T144) and the Shouda jing 首達經 are included in Dao’an’s catalogue of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯錄. 3) 3 titles, viz., the Da fangdeng rulai jing 大方等如来經, the Wuliang po mo tuoluoni jing 無量破魔陀羅尼經, and the Tan chi tuoluoni jing 檀持陀羅尼經. The sources from which these ascriptions were taken are not known (275). Sakaino concludes: All of Fei’s new ascriptions of 22 titles to Bo Fazu in LDSBJ must be fabrications, or based on unreliable sources. It is still plausible that Bo Fazu was taught by Bo Yan 白延, because they were near contemporaries and Bo Yan was the only person named 白 who brought the Buddhism of Kutsi/Kuci(na)/Küsen 龜玆 to China (275). However, this implies that no ascriptions carried to Bo Fazu carried today in T are accurate. This entry is associated with all ascriptions to Bo Fazu in T. 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. — 270-272 |
Sakaino thinks that Fei Changfang (in LDSBJ) tried to ascribe six titles to Bo Yan simply because GSZ wrote that Bo Yan produced six texts. The six titles Fei listed are: a *Sukhāvatīvzūha 無量清淨平等覺經, a second title also apparently corresponding to a Sukhāvatīvyūha 平等覺經, the Pusa xiuxing jing 菩薩修行經 (cf. T330), a Śūraṃgamasamadhi 首楞嚴經, the Xulai jing 須賴 (cf. T328, still ascribed to Bo Yan in T), and the Chu zai jing 除災患. Sakaino claims that even the ascriptions of the three titles (the Śūraṃgamasamadhi, the Xulai jing, and the Chu zai jing) given to Boyan already in CSZJJ are not reliable, as the Śūraṃgamasamādhi is double-listed, and none of the three were recorded by Dao’an. The first Sukhāvatīvyūha 無量清淨平等覺經 was first ascribed to Bo Yan in GSZ, and Fei added the 平等覺經 without any evidential basis , just in order to make the total number of Bo Yan’s translations six as GSZ says. Furthermore, Fei cites Zhu Daozu’s catalogue 竺道祖錄 for both of these supposed Sukhāvatīvyūha-sutras 無量清淨平等覺經 and the 平等覺經, which Sakaino describes as incredibly irresponsible (實に杜撰もまた極まれりと言ふの外はない). KYL was right in excising the 平等覺經, but still plainly wrong in putting a note to the 無量清淨平等覺經 stating that the text was recorded in CSZJJ as well. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 55a9, 56c14-15, 66b4 |
In LDSBJ, a title matching T330 is listed as an alternate title for a text included in the anonymous E. Han catalogue, for which Fei cites CSZJJ 僧祐律師出三藏記, Gu lu and Jiu lu 古舊二錄, and Dao'an: 菩薩修行經一卷(一名長者威施所問菩薩修行經。或直云長者修行經). The same title is also ascribed to Bo Yan, citing the Shixing lu and Baochang. A third notice also ascribed the same title to Bo Fazu. This means that the ascription to Bo Fazu for T330 found in the present canon probably derives from LDSBJ. A title probably to be identified with the same text, 菩薩修行經一卷(亦名威勢長者問觀身行經), is anomalously treated as anonymous in Fascicle 13, 112c7. Regarding the alternation of some of these titles, note that the head of T330 itself gives a similar alternate title: 亦名威施長者問觀身行經, T330 (XII) 63c16. The tail end of the text gives the alternate title 大士威施所問觀身行經, 66a12-13. The text expounds centrally upon a “contemplation of the body”, 64a25-b29. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fajing 594] Fajing 法經. Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. — T2146 (LV) 120c17 |
A title almost certainly to be identified with T330 is still regarded as anonymous in Fajing: 菩薩修行經一卷(一名威[v.l. 戚 M]勢長者問觀身行經). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 25c11-12 |
In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, T330 is regarded as an anonymous translation, that is to say, it is listed in the "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄 (juan 4): 長者威施所問菩薩修行經一卷(或云菩薩修行經或云長者修行經). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. |
Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Zhangzhe weishi jing 長者威勢經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as “missing” 闕; 18b5. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon. (Cf. however also T330.) Entry author: Merijn ter Haar |
|