| Identifier | T0282 [T] |
| Title | 諸菩薩求佛本業經 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Translator 譯 | *Lokakṣema, 支婁迦讖 [Nattier 2007] |
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 |
|
|
|
Yes |
[Nattier 2007] Nattier, Jan. "Indian Antecedents of Huayan Thought: New Light from Chinese Sources." In Reflecting Mirrors: Perspectives on Huayan Buddhism, edited by Imre Hamar, 109-138. Weisbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2007. |
T280, 282 and 283 together comprise the oldest known text on the ten stages of the bodhisattva path, and can now be reascribed to Lokakṣema. Paralleled by Zhi Qian’s T281. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Nattier 2005] Nattier, Jan. “The Proto-History of the Buddhāvataṃsaka: The Pusa benye jing 菩薩本業經 and the Dousha jing 兜沙經.” ARIRIAB VIII (2005): 323-260. |
Nattier shows that T280, T282 and T283, in that order, taken together, correspond in content to Zhi Qian's T281, and in other respects too form a coherent whole. She argues that they therefore originally comprised a single text, which in the course of transmission was split into the present three "orphan texts". All three texts are ascribed to different translators in the present canon (T), but the observation that they originally formed a single whole implies that they were originally the product of a single hand, and therefore, that two of these three ascriptions are incorrect. She argues on the basis of terminology and other internal evidence that the actual translator of all three texts was Lokakṣema. 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 |
[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. — 157 |
According to Ōno, the Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin 菩薩十住行道品 T283 originally formed a single text in combination with the Dousha jing 兜沙經 T280 and the Zhu pusa qiu Fo ben ye jing 諸菩薩求佛本業經 T282, which must subsequently have been split and transmitted separately. 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. — 146 |
CSZJJ lists the Zhu pusa qiu Fo ben ye jing 諸菩薩求佛本業經 T282 as an anonymous scripture with the title Pusa qiu Fo ben ye jing 菩薩求佛本業經. The ascription of T282 to Nie Daozhen 聶道真 was first given by LDSBJ, citing the Bie lu 別錄. This ascription was also accepted by DZKZM and KYL. Ōno states that, although this ascription appears somewhat dubious since the titles LDSBJ ascribes to Nie Daozhen include the apocryphal Pusa jie yao jing 菩薩戒要經, he himself follows these old traditions こゝでは舊傳に従ふ, because the vocabulary of T282 is that of the W. Jin, and the text contains passages at the end that should be placed at the beginning of the Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin 菩薩十住行道品 T283, which indicates that the text does indeed have some relation to Dharmarakṣa. 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. — 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 |
[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 |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 65c19 |
The ascription of T282 to Nie Daozhen in the present canon (the Taishō) probably dates back to LDSBJ, which cites no particular source. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 23a10 |
In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, T282 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): 菩薩求佛本業經一卷. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|