| Identifier | T0189 [T] |
| Title | 過去現在因果經 [T] |
| Date | 450 [CSZJJ] |
| Unspecified | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Radich 2019b] |
| Translator 譯 | Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅 [T] |
| 傅譯出 | Baoyun, 寶雲; Bodhi 菩提; Fayong 法勇, Tanwujie 曇無竭, *Dharmodgata [Bie lu (DH mss)] |
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 |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145:55.12c19-13a8 |
Fayong and Puti are said to have assisted Baoyun 寶雲 in the actual translation work of a group of texts ascribed to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅 during the reign of 文帝 of the Liu Song dynasty (424-453). Extant texts in that list (as named by Sengyou): Guoqu xianzai yinguo jing 過去現在因果 T189; the (Mahāyāna) Aṅgulimālīya-sūtra 央掘魔 T120; the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra 相續解脫波羅蜜了義 T679; the Saṃyuktāgama 雜阿鋡 T99; the *Mahābherīhāraka-sūtra 大法鼓經 T270; the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanāda 勝鬘經 T353; and the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra 楞伽阿跋多羅寶經 T670. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Kawano 2006] Kawano Satoshi 河野訓. Shoki kan'yaku butten no kenkyū: Jiku Hōgo o chūshin to shite 初期漢訳仏典の研究 : 竺法護を中心として. Ise: Kōgakkan Daigaku Shuppanbu, 2006. — 83, 91 n. 17, referring to CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 12c19-13a8 |
Kawano points out that in CSZJJ, dates of translation are given for T99 and T189, ascribed to Guṇabhadra, corpus in the Song(-Yuan-Ming) line of transmission only (as witnessed by the Taishō apparatus), but not in the Korean, which forms the base edition for the Taishō. This pattern is similar to that observed, but on a much larger scale, for works ascribed to Dharmarakṣa; and for eight works ascribed to *Dharmakṣema . Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936] Ono Genmyō 小野玄妙, Maruyama Takao 丸山孝雄, eds. Bussho kaisetsu daijiten 佛書解說大辭典. Tokyo: Daitō shuppan, 1933-1936 [縮刷版 1999]. — vol. 2, pp. 18-19 |
Tokiwa Daijō's 常盤大定 decription of T189 includes the following pieces of information: T189 shares a number of core elements with the Buddhacarita 佛所行讃 T192 written by Aśvaghoṣa 馬鳴. Probably the text of T189 was written before that of T192, because T192 has an extra 本生 portion, prior to the birth of the Buddha. T189 has certain similarities to some other scriptures as well, such as: Shanhui 善慧, the name of buddha's past incarnation in T189, probably came from Shansi 善思 in the 佛本行經 T193; Shengshanbai 聖善白 in T189 should correspond to an incarnation who appears in the Lalitavistara 普曜經 T186 and the Kalpanāmaṇḍitikā 大莊嚴經 T201, named Jingchuang 淨幢 in the latter. The 34 auspicious signs 瑞應 that attend the Buddha’s birth are similar to the 32 such signs T186 and T201; the notion of the three fruits from the three continents 三洲三果 as a means of converting Uruvilvā-Kāśyapa 優樓頻螺迦葉 is seen exclusively in T189, T186, T201 and the 中本起經 T196. The similarities between T189, T192 and T186 suggest that T189 was influenced by both of the others, adding a Māhāyāna-oriented portion, influenced by T186, to an older core part something like T192. T189 is very well written and became highly popular among the biographies of the Buddha. There is even a similarly-titled apocryphal text, the Shan'e yinguo jing 善惡因果經 T2881. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Radich 2019b] Radich, Michael. “Was the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra 大般涅槃經 T7 Translated by ‘Faxian’? An Exercise in the Computer-Assisted Assessment of Attributions in the Chinese Buddhist Canon.” Hualin International Journal of Buddhist Studies: E-journal 2, no. 1 (2019): 229-279. |
Abstract: "In the Taishō canon, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra 大般涅槃經 T no. 7 is attributed to Faxian 法顯. However, on the basis of an examination of reports in the catalogues about various Chinese versions of the ‘mainstream’ Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, Iwamatsu Asao 岩松浅夫 once questioned whether Faxian ever translated any such text. Iwamatsu argued further, on the basis of unspecified features of translation terminology and phraseology, that T no. 7 should instead be reascribed to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅. This paper will examine the problem of the attribution of T no. 7 on the basis of a detailed examination of its language." Radich concludes (266-267): "The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra T no. 7 is much closer to the style of certain texts ascribed to ‘Guṇabhadra’ than it is to ‘Faxian’ .... We should, therefore, overturn the ascription to Faxian carried by ‘FX’-MPNS in the Taishō. At the same time, however, it is not safe to follow Iwamatsu and simply re-ascribe the text to ‘Guṇabhadra’. In fact, markers distinguishing ‘FX’-MPNS from the ‘Faxian’ corpus are found much more densely in the Guoqu xianzai yinguo jing [T189] than in any other ‘Guṇabhadra’ text. Further, a range of highly specific markers associate ‘FX’-MPNS [T7] and Guoqu [T189] very closely with two further bodies of material, the *Mahāmāyā-sūtra [T383], and the Buddhacarita T no. 192 and/or the Fo benxing jing T no. 193. Stylistically speaking, these four (or five) texts comprise a tightly interrelated group, which are also connected by common themes and content." Radich followed this work up with a further examination of internal evidence for close intertextual relations between T7, T189, and T383 [publication actually appeared chronologically earlier], Radich 2018a (see separate CB@ entry). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Radich 2018a] Radich, Michael. “A Triad of Texts from Fifth-Century Southern China: The *Mahāmāyā-sūtra, the Guoqu xianzai yinguo jing, and a Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra ascribed to Faxian.” Journal of Chinese Religions 46, no. 1 (2018): 1-41. DOI: 10.1080/0737769X.2018.1435370. |
Abstract: "In previous work [Radich 2019b; see separate CBC@ entry], I have shown that the (Mainstream, “smaller”) Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra ascribed to Faxian is in fact almost certainly not his work, and that internal evidence closely associates it with two other texts: the Guoqu xianzai yinguo jing [T189] ascribed to Guṇabhadra and the *Mahāmāyā-sūtra [T383] ascribed to Tanjing. This paper analyzes the content of these texts, in order to ascertain (as much as possible) their likely relation to one another; the context in which they were composed; and their relations to that context. In addressing questions of context, the analysis applies innovative computer-assisted methods, which allow us to pinpoint detailed clues of highly specific intertextual relationships among a broad range of texts. This enables us to discover in the present triad of texts internal evidence pointing to close relations to a very specific body of literature in the fifth century." Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Lettere 2019] Lettere, Laura. "The Guoqu xianzai yinguo jing as an Adaptation of the Chinese Translation of the Buddhacarita." Journal of Chinese Religions 47, no. 2 (2019): 117-152. |
Abstract: "The Guoqu xianzai yinguo jing 過去現在因果經 (T189) is an account of the life of the Buddha and is considered the source of numerous pictorial representations in China and Japan. It is usually also considered to be a translation by the Indian monk Guṇabhadra who resided in Southern China during the Liu Song 劉宋 dynasty (420–479). The original Indian text on which this translation is based was thought to be lost. In a recent study, Michael Radich [2018a; see separate CBC@ entry] pointed out the Guoqu xianzai yinguo jing’s composite nature along with its evident similarities with the Buddhacarita, and advanced the hypothesis that the text is based on other Chinese translations as well as on Indian sources. This study will prove that the Buddhacarita parts of the Guoqu xianzai yinguo jing (T189) are consistently derived from the Fo suoxing zan 佛所行贊 (T192), the only Chinese translation of the Buddhacarita in the Chinese Buddhist Canon. The case of the demon Māra’s sisters will show how a misunderstanding of Aśvaghoṣa’s poem spread from the Buddhacarita to its translation (T192) to the re-elaboration of the translation (T189) and to pictorial representations. "The present work will link the Guoqu xianzai yinguo jing (T189) to the biography of its presumed author, showing how the name of Guṇabhadra was associated to a text composed under a demanding patronage and probably without the support of skilled interpreters." Lettere's principal contention about T189 is that it was based on a Chinese Vorlage, T192, rather than directly upon an Indic source text. Lettere further argues that hapax legomena transcriptions of Indic proper names may be a tell-tale indication that Guṇabhadra himself did indeed have a role in the production of T189. Lettere maintains (134) that the narrative in T192 is often blurred by the absence of deictic expressions; T189 was [thus] probably intended as a kind of commentary on T192, as in several cases, it adjusts the text for the sake of clarity and coherence. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
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 title appears: 過去見在因[囙]果經四卷 (title #67 in the numbering given to the Bie lu manuscript in the transcription of Tan 1991). This title corresponds to T189. The title is followed by an interlinear note: 宋文帝時天竺摩訶乘法師求那跋陀羅以元 In CSZJJ, wording very close to this is part of a note used to cover a list of 13 titles: 宋文帝時。天竺摩訶乘法師求那跋陀羅。以元嘉中及孝武時。宣出諸經。沙門釋寶雲及弟子菩提法勇傳譯, T2145 (LV) 13a5-8. It is noteworthy that the Guoqu xianzai yinguo is not the last title in the CSZJJ list. The verbatim correspondence of wording between these two sources raises interesting but difficult questions about the chronological priority between the Bie lu and CSZJJ. A further difficult question is whether one of the two directly borrowed from the other, or whether they drew on a common third source. Consideration of these questions must take into consideration the fact that the Bie lu, as witnessed in two Dunhuang fragments, contains a number of notes displaying such correspondences to the wording of CSZJJ. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|