| Identifier | T0188 [T] |
| Title | 異出菩薩本起經 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Translator 譯 | Nie Daozhen, 聶道真 [T] |
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 |
[Zürcher 1959/2007] Zürcher, Erik. The Buddhist Conquest of China: The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China. Third Edition. Leiden: Brill, 1959 (2007 reprint). — 68 |
No catalogue earlier than LDSBJ (i.e. neither Dao'an nor Sengyou's CSZJJ) ascribe any texts to Nei Daozhen 聶道真. This weakens the ascription of all texts ascribed to Nie Daozhen in the present Taishō. This record lists all those texts. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 22c20 |
In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, T188 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): 異出菩薩本起經一卷. 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. — 329-331 |
Sakaino argues that the so-called Nie Daozhen catalogue 聶道眞錄 reported by Fei Changfang was actually a catalogue of the works of Dharmarakṣa 竺法護錄 compiled by Nie Daozhen. Fei Changfang mistakenly understood that a “Nie Daozhen catalogue” separate from the “Dharmarakṣa catalogue” existed, and then fabricated fifty-four entries for which he cited the authority of this supposed “Nie Daozhen catalogue”, assuming that Nie Daozhen must have translated scriptures if there was a catalogue of his works. However, Sakaino claims that in fact, Nie probably did not translate any scriptures at all, as neither Dao’an or Sengyou recorded any of his works. Perversely enough, further, the source that Fei actually cites as the source for these fifty-four fabricated entries is the Bie lu 別錄, not the supposed “Nie Daozhen catalogue”, a fact which Sakaino claims shows that neither the Nie Daozhen catalogue n or the Bie lu as cited by Fei are at all reliable. Sakaino states that the “Dharmarakṣa catalogue” was probably, in fact, a simple list made by Nie Daozhen to record the works of his master Dharmarakṣa. [This suggestion might affect our view of the reliability not only of LDSBJ itself, and these various catalogues upon which it in these cases claims to base its ascriptions, but also the reliability of all ascriptions to Nie Daozhen still carried in T, viz., T188, T282, T463, T483 and T1502, and this record therefore lists all of those texts --- MR.] Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Matsuda 1988] Matsuda Yūko 松田裕子. “Chinese Versions of the Buddha’s Biography.” IBK 37, no. 1 (1988): 24-33. |
Matsuda studies the interrelations between various version of the Buddha’s biography, especially in Chinese: the 修行本起經 T184 (ascribed in the Taishō to Zhu Dali 竺大力 and Kang Mengxiang 康孟詳, 太子瑞應本起經 T185 (ascribed in the Taishō to Zhi Qian), Pu yao jing 普曜經 T186 (ascribed in the Taishō to Dharmarakṣa), 方廣大莊嚴經 T187 (ascribed in the Taishō to*Divākara 地婆訶羅), 異出菩薩本起經 T188 (ascribed in the Taishō to Nie Daozhen聶道真), and the Sanskrit Lalitavistara. While it is a cornerstone of Matsuda’s own methodology to accept the canonical ascriptions for most of these texts (27), several of her observations could have important implications for consideration of ascription. 1) T186 and T187 incorporate similar material which is not found elsewhere. In T186:十八變品 Ch. 25, 佛至摩竭國品 Ch. 26, 化舍利弗目連品 Ch. 27, 優陀耶品 Ch. 28第二十五, i.e. T186 (III) 530c21-536c24. In T187, these portions are included in the “*Dharmacakrapravartana” chapter轉法輪品: T187 (III) 611b18-616a17 (the chapter itself begins at 605b9). Matsuda also states that T185 and T186 resemble one another more closely in these passages than elsewhere. 2) As Tokiwa Daijō had already observed, T186 contains some passages that are identical with passages in T184 and T185. Matsuda tabulates these correspondences between T185 and T186 (33). Matsuda’s views on the interrelations between some of these texts are conveniently summarised in diagrammatic form (32), as follows (assuming traditional ascriptions of Chinese texts and attendant dating): 3) T185 has its sources in T184 and two hypothetical texts that Matsuda finds it necessary to posit to account for all the materials, “X” and “Y”. 4) T186 has its sources in T185, “Y”, and the older Indic Lalitavistara. 5) T188 has among its sources “X” (which means that T188 can be used to explain material in T185, for which sources otherwise cannot be found; and the combination of T185 and T188, in turn, warrants the posit of the onetime existence of “X”). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 66a20 |
The ascription of T188 to Nie Daozhen in the present canon (the Taishō) probably dates back to LDSBJ, which cites no particular source. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Palumbo 2003] Palumbo, Antonello. “Dharmarakṣa and Kaṇṭhaka: White Horse Monasteries in Early Medieval China.” In Buddhist Asia: Papers from the First Conference of Buddhist Studies Held in Naples in May 2001, 168-216. Kyoto: Italian School of East Asian, Studies, 2003. — 205-207 |
In the present canon, the 異出菩薩本起經 T188 is ascribed to Nie Daozhen 聶道真, but Palumbo notes that this ascription is first found only in Fei Changfang (LDSBJ). CSZJJ lists it as anonymous. Scholars have generally assumed that T185 has T188 among its sources, which would argue for an early date for T188. Palumbo challenges the idea that T185 is a Chinese compilation without any basis in a foreign source text, but also concludes that it is likely that T188 predates T185, on the basis of “a certain coarseness in style, and the occurrence of archaic transcriptions of foreign words...strongly reminiscent of *Lokakṣema’s...translations”. He cites a transcription of Dīpaṃkara which also appears in *Lokakṣema. 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. — 200-206 |
Sakaino argues that none of the extant ascriptions to Nie Daozhen are correct. He shows that the ascriptions for these extant texts are part of a broader pattern whereby Fei Changfang, in LDSBJ, takes titles in groups from lists of anonymous scriptures in Sengyou's "continued catalogue of anonymous scriptures" in CSZJJ, and assigns a group holus-bolus to a single translator. This procedure leads to a sudden ballooning of a given translator's corpus (if not its creation ex nihilo), and other absurd consequences, like the appearance that a certain translator specialised in texts on a particular topic (because Sengyou grouped titles in his lists by topic). Sakaino also studies this pattern in application to other supposed translators elsewhere in his work; see esp. 80-86 for a general analysis of the pattern. Nie Daozhen is one of the purported "translators" to whom Fei applies this procedure; Fei's work makes it appear as if he was a specialist in translating texts that happen to have the word bodhisattva in the title. This entry lists all the extant texts ascribed to Nie Daozhen, to which Sakaino's criticism here applies. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
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 |
|