Text: T1582; 菩薩善戒經

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.

• T1582; 菩薩善戒經

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

• Title: 菩薩善戒經
• People: Guṇavarman, 求那跋摩 (translator 譯)
• Identifier: T1582

No

[Funayama 2004]  Funayama Tōru. "The Acceptance of Buddhist Precepts by the Chinese in the Fifth Century." Journal of Asian History 38, no. 2 (2004): 97-120. — 112-113 n. 47

• T1582; 菩薩善戒經
• T1583; 菩薩善戒經

"In India, the notion of the bodhisattva precepts [was] known mainly through [BBh, SdhN]....the view of eight pārājikas in Guṇavarman’s translation is rather exceptional....the Youpose jie jing 優婆塞戒經 [T1488] (tr. by Tanwuchen [= *Dharmakṣema]), which prescribes six pārājikas for laymen, refers to eight pārājikas for monks as well (T24, 1035b3-6). That is to say, we can recognize two different views on the number of pārājikas for monks in Tanwuchen's translations: the four pārājikas prescribed in the Pusa dichi jing [菩薩地持經 T1581] and the eight pārājikas mentioned in [T1488]. This fact might have something to do with the origin of the Youpose jie jing."

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

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. 9, pp. 404-405

• T1581; 菩薩地持經; Pusa jie jing 菩薩戒經
• T1582; 菩薩善戒經

According to Hayashi Taiun 林岱雲, there is a disagreement about the relation between the Bodhisattvabhūmi 菩薩善戒經 T1582 ascribed to *Guṇavarman 求那跋摩 and the Bodhisattvabhūmi 菩薩地持經 T1581 ascribed to *Dharmakṣema 曇無讖. Hayashi quotes and supports Zhisheng’s view that the contents of T1582 are largely identical to those of T1581, and asserts that T1582 is an extensive excerpt from T1581, with an opening 序文 and ending 流通分 added later.

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit

• People: Guṇavarman, 求那跋摩 (translator 譯)

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. 9, p. 405

• T1582; 菩薩善戒經
• T1583; 菩薩善戒經

Hayashi Taiun 林岱雲 states that the 菩薩善戒經 T1583 in one fascicle and the 菩薩善戒經 T1582 in nine fascicles were originally one text, but became separated as the part that now appears as T1583 was used so often in North China.

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit

No

[Naitō 1962]  Naitō Ryūo 内藤龍雄. “Bosatsu zen kai kyō ni okeru nisan no mondai 菩薩善戒經における二三の問題.” IBK 10, no 1 (1962): 130-31.

• T1582; 菩薩善戒經

Naitō considers a modern view that the Pusa shan jie jing 菩薩善戒經 (T1582 ascribed to *Guṇavarman 求那跋摩) was produced in China based on the Pusa dichi jing 菩薩地持經 (T1581 ascribed to *Dharmakṣema 曇無讖). He calls this view the 中国改修説 (the “Chinese Revision Hypothesis”). This view differs from the traditional assumption that the two are alternate translations of the same base text. Naitō himself inclines overall to the view that T1582 and T1581 are more likely to be alternate translations.

According to Naitō, unlike T1581, T1582 has the structure of a sūtra. For instance, T1582 has an introductory portion/chapter 序品. The Chinese Revision Hypothesis claims that the introductory portion was taken from the Jueding pini jing 決定毘尼經 (T325 ascribed to Dunhuang sanzang 燉煌三藏, who is usually identified with Dharmarakṣa), an anonymous scripture of the E. Jin period, since the introductory portion of that text is very similar to that of T1582. However, Naitō points out that the 序品 of T1582 is actually different from that of T325 (and also from that of the Youpoli hui 優波離會 of the Ratnakūṭa 大寶積經 T310(24) ascribed to Bodhiruci, which is an alternate translation of T325), in several such notable respects as the number of bodhisattvas and monks present in the assembly, the names of buddhas and bodhisattvas, and the order in which elements appear. Naitō does not make a strong case here, but suggests that, with those differences, it seems a little far-fetched to assert that the 序品 of T1582 was taken from T325.

Naitō mentions a few other unique features of T1582: The use of the term pusa jie 菩薩戒 (“bodhisatva precept[s]”), the additional conditions for maintaining the bodhisatva precepts, and the difference of the 戒 jie content in comparison with T1581. Naitō states that the term pusa jie was probably used in order to have a translation word that matches the content of the text better.

Naitō also claims that other differences between T1582 and T1581, such as differences in terminology [for types and stages of practice] 行文用語, may suggest that the two texts are likely to be alternate translations, rather than that T1582 was composed (in China) on the basis of 1581. For example, in the description of the 階位十二行 of the bodhisatva path in the Sheng pusa di pin 生菩薩地品 (in the eighth fascicle 第八巻 of T1582), simplified terms are often used, such as 戒行 instead of 增上戒住 in T1581, and 行行 instead of 有行有開發無相住 in T1581. In addition, structure-wise, T1582 is not as well-organized as T1581. For example, in T1582, the explanation of the eleven characteristics 相 of engendering precepts in order to benefit sentient beings 爲利衆生戒 is presented so unclearly that it is difficult to see if the number of 相 is really eleven or not, and the explanation also differs in content from that in other scriptures. Further, in T1582, vocabulary is often slightly peculiar, for example, regarding groups of dharmas or dharma lists 法數, such as the thirty-two major and eighty minor marks 三十二相八十種好 [of the mahāpuruṣa/Buddha], the four saṃgraha[-vastu] 四攝, or the ten epithets of the Tathāgata 如來十號. Also, other terms used in T1582 are also uncommon, such as 流布 instead of 施設假名, and 不可思議 instead of 神力. Furthermore, the inclusion of the word Zhendan 眞丹 (China) in a list of “obscure/incomprehensible sounds/words/languages” 不了聲 would be very odd if T1582 was written in China. Naitō points out that if T1582 was written on the basis of T1581, certain issues would remain unsolved, such as why T1582 used so many different words from T1581; why it did not change the structure of T1581 while changing its vocabulary; etc. Thus, Naitō maintains that T1582 and T1581 are more likely to be alternate translations.

In addition to the above, Naitō states that he also examined in detail of the chapter titles 品名 structure of T1582 and T1581. He claims that the chapter title structure of T1582 and that of T1581 are basically the same, except in the introductory portion 序品, with differences caused by the following four factors: 1. T1582 is confused; 2. T1582 uses unique terms; 3. transcription errors occur in T1582; and 4. T1582 uses abbreviated titles. Naitō maintains that those four factors should be taken into account when identifying the corresponding Sanskrit terms in the presumed underlying source text from the Chinese text of T1582.

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit

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. — 194-204

• T1582; 菩薩善戒經
• T1583; 菩薩善戒經

Since the Liang 梁 period, the [Pusa] Shan jie jing [菩薩]善戒經 T1582/T1583 has been considered an alternate translation of the [Pusa] Di chi jing [菩薩]地持經 (Bodhisatvabhūmi) T1581. Ōno states that this view is mistaken. The one juan version of the text, T1583, with the alternate title Youpoli wen pusa shou jie jing 優波離問菩薩受戒法 corresponds to juan 5 of T1581. These two texts are almost identical in structure.

Ōno points out that it is odd that T1583 came to be treated as an independent text from T1582. In fact, it should have been included in T1582 as juan 5. [However, note that Ōno also considers another one-juan text with a similar title, which he conjectures was an excerpt of the chapters related to precepts from the full ten-juan text, used as a manual for the actual practice of precepts.] According to Ōno, this oddity started when Jingtai 靜泰 found the one-juan text [T1583], which had long been lost, and listed it as the Pusa jie jing 菩薩戒經 in one juan, fifteen sheets, treating the text as a rediscovered lost scripture. On this basis, KYL listed the nine-juan version T1582 and T1583 separately, the former as the alternate translation of T1581, and the latter as an independent scripture.

Catalogues including CSZJJ, GSZ, and other materials ascribe the Shan jie jing 善戒經 [i.e. the totality comprising T1582 and T1583] to *Guṇavarman 求那跋摩, and say that it was translated in Yuanjia 元嘉 8 (431).

Ōno introduces traditions about the process of translation of this scripture, though he warns that this information may well be unreliable. According to GSZ, the translation process did not go smoothly, and *Guṇavarman translated only 28 chapters in eight juan (of 30 chapters in ten juan). The remaining two chapters in two juan (序品 and 戒品) were translated by his disciple(s). These two chapters were lost for a time, but later refound, and added back to the text. The resulting ten juan text was titled Pusa jie jing 菩薩戒經. The chapter structure was subsequently set by Baochang 寶唱 at imperial behest.

Ōno points out that the Shan jie jing comprising T1582 and T1583 was produced by revision of T1581, to meet a demand for an independent a scripture featuring the precepts. The major points of this revision are: 1) The inclusion of the *Vinayaviniścaya-sūtra(?) 決定毘尼經 T325, ascribed to “the Dunhuang Trepiṭaka” 燉煌三藏 [who is usually identified with Dharmarakṣa] (with modifications) as the introduction 序品; 2) The addition of expressions related to precepts; 3) the addition of conditions to the observance of bodhisatva precepts 菩薩戒; and 4) modifications of the precept clauses. Among these, 3) and 4) appear in T1583. Ōno quotes some of the major additions of precept-related expressions (196-197) and claims that, in light of such significant additions, it is not appropriate to regard the Shan jie jing as an alternate translation of T1581. He adds that the Shan jie jing is a unique case, in which a certain scripture has been transformed into a new one, while preserving the basic structure, and that this unique situation is a reflection of the enthusiastic demand for Māhāyāna precepts.

Sengyou comments, after comparing the Shan jie jing (presumably T1582) and the Pusa di chi jing, that the two texts are largely identical in wording, with minor variations in titles and chapter divisions in a couple of chapters, so that the differences between the two are not sufficient to regard the two texts as alternate translations by different translators, but rather, the two should represent basically the same text; but that the order of the texts differs widely between the two, so that T1582 is actually something of a chaotic shambles (檢此兩本。文句悉同。唯一兩品分品品名小小有異。義亦不殊。既更不見有異人重出。推之應是一經。而諸品亂雜前後參差; T2145 [LV] 63a1-4). Ōno conjectures that this disorder is an indication that T1582/T1583 is a revised version of T1581. He also points out that the story that the 序品 and 戒品 were once lost probably reflects the fact that the *Vinayaviniścaya was not originally included in the 序品, and that the one-juan “version” of the text came free and circulated independently.

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit

No

[Okimoto 1972]  Okimoto Katsumi 沖本克己. “Bodhisattva Prātimokṣa.” IBK 21, no.1 (1972): 130-131. — 130

• T1582; 菩薩善戒經

Okimoto compares T1582 to two extant sets of Sanskrit materials he regards as corresponding to the Bodhisatva Prātimokṣa, and finds partial matches for some portions of the text.

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit

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. — 28-29

• T1502; 菩薩受齋經
• T1582; 菩薩善戒經

Ōno states that the Pusa shou jie fa 菩薩受戒法 listed in catalogues with various attributions is actually the 菩薩善戒經 T1582 (the Pusa shou jie fa is regarded in different catalogues as: an extant anonymous scripture in CSZJJ; a Mahāyāna Vinaya offshoot scripture in Fajing; a missing scripture in Yancong and Jingtai; and [incorrectly] as an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han period in LDSBJ, KYL and 貞元錄).

Ōno also points out that Pusa shan jie shou jie fa 菩薩善戒受戒經 is also an alternate name of T1502. This title was listed in Yancong as a missing scripture, but rediscovered by Jingtai. Jingtai uses different titles in recording his rediscovery of the text in his catalogue of [formerly?] missing scriptures (菩薩善戒受戒経一巻貞観九年入正目誌) and in his list of the titles admitted to the canon 入蔵錄 (菩薩善戒経一巻十五紙缺本訪得).

Meanwhile, Jingtai carried over from Yancong a distinction between the Pusa shou jie fa and Pusa shan jie shou jie fa, which resulted in the Pusa shou jie fa being regarded as missing even after the text was rediscovered. KYL and the Zhenyuan lu 貞元錄 give redundant double entries using all three titles (菩薩善戒経 as an extant scripture, 菩薩受戒法經 as a missing scripture, and 菩薩善戒受戒經 as an offshoot 別生 scripture).

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit