| Identifier | T0283 [T] |
| Title | 菩薩十住行道品 [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 |
[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 |
[Mei 1996] Mei Naiwen 梅廼文. “Zhu Fahu de fanyi chutan 竺法護的翻譯初探.” Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal 中華佛學學報 9 (1996): 49-64. — 54 n. 26 |
|
Mei begins with the 76 texts ascribed to Dharmarakṣa in the present Taishō which also appear in Sengyou. She then eliminates eight for the following reasons: five are listed as lost by Sengyou's time (T182, T288, T496, T558, T1301); T1301, moreover, contains details that makes it appear as if it may have been composed in China; T103 and T453 have been regarded as dubious by modern scholars (Gao Mingdao and Yinshun); and Sengyou's description of the 佛為菩薩五夢經 that he ascribes to Dharmarakṣa does not match T310(4). This leaves 68 texts Mei thinks can reliably be matched against Sengyou. This entry lists those 68 texts. [Note: Mei erroneously gives the number T627 for what is properly T636---MR.] 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]. — s.v., Vol.9, 401-402 (Wada Tetsujō 和田徹城) |
According to Wada Tetsujō 和田徹城, the Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin 菩薩十住行道品 T283 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa 竺法護 is an alternate translation 異出 of the Pusa shi zhu jing 菩薩十住經 T284 ascribed to *Gītamitra 祇多蜜 (with minor differences), and an alternate version 別本 of the Shi di pin disan 十地品第三 of the Pusa benye jing 菩薩本業經 T281 translated by Zhi Qian. Thus the content of T283 corresponds to Daśabhūmika chapter of the *Buddhāvataṃsaka in sixty juan 六十華厳十住品 (juan 巻 8) and the Daśabhūmika chapter of the *Buddhāvataṃsaka in eighty juan 八十華厳十住品 (juan 16). Wada thinks that the three texts, viz., T284, T283 and the Shi di pin disan of T281, show an earlier stage of the development of the *Buddhāvataṃsaka 華厳經, since the contents of practices in the ten bhūmis 住地 in the three texts are quite different from those in the two versions of the *Buddhāvataṃsaka. Also, the three texts have many differences from one another in their contents. Based on those observations, Wada claims that, although the catalogues ascribe T284 to *Gītamitra as a second translation or "re-issue" 第二出 of T283, they should not be treated as alternate translations of the same text. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
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 |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 22c21 |
In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, T283 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), and is further identified as an excerpt from some other text 抄: 菩薩十住行道品經一卷(抄). 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. — 73-92, esp. Table 2, 75-77 |
|
Kawano notes that in the list of works ascribed to Dharmarakṣa at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 7b12-9c11, a considerable number of works (Kawano counts 31 [I count 38 --- MR] are given precise dates only in the versions of the text in the Song-Yuan-Ming line, that is to say, the same dates are missing in the Korean version of CSZJJ. This note lists all those texts. The Song version of the CSZJJ notes on these texts, as reconstructed according to the Taishō apparatus, reads as follows (the date in parentheses preceding each text is Kawano's calculation of the Gregorian equivalent for the reign date given in the note): (267) 比丘尼誡經一卷（太始三年九月十日出） Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 8b23 |
CSZJJ also carries an ascription of a title similar to that of T283 to Dharmarakṣa, 菩薩十住經. [This may be the ultimate source of the attribution of T283 to him in the present canon --- MR.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fajing 594] Fajing 法經. Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. — T2146 (LV) 119c20. |
Ascribed to Dharmarakṣa in an interlinear note in Fajing: 菩薩十住行道品經一卷(是十住品)(晉世竺法護譯). [This title is treated as anonymous in CSZJJ, so this probably represents the earliest ascription of the text to Dharmarakṣa --- MR.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Suzuki 1995] Suzuki Hiromi 鈴木裕美. “Koyaku kyōten ni okeru yakugo ni tsuite: Jiku Hōgo yakushutsu kyōten wo chūshin toshite 古訳経典における訳語について―竺法護訳出経典を中心として.” IBK 43, no. 2 (1995): 198-200. |
|
Suzuki regards the texts listed in this entry as genuine Dharmarakṣa translations. She groups them into five types, on the basis of stylistic features: A: T222, T588 , T636 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]. — Volume 9, p. 407-408 |
In the course of discussing T1487, Ōno Hōdō 大野法道 notes that the "ten grounds/stages" 十住 part of T1487 was later made into the 菩薩十住經 T284. Some sentences in T1487 also match closely with those in 菩薩十住行道品 T283. This suggests two possibilities: 1) T283 was produced by expanding T281, using sentences in T1487 (assuming that T1487 took its version of the "ten[fold?] categories" 十数の形式 from T281, because this version is the one most commonly used in so-called Huayan 華厳 scriptures); or 2) T283 was produced directly from T281 before T1487, and T1487 was made based on T283. [Ōno claims that in this scenario T1487 must be based on T283, not on T281, because 内戒経は彼れの或る部の文を缺いている, but it was difficult for me to determine if 彼れ in this refers to T281 or T283 --- AI]. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
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 |
[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. Ōno endorses the ascription of the Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin 菩薩十住行道品 T283 to Dharmarakṣa in the Taishō, since CSZJJ lists it in the section of extant Dharmarakṣa‘s works as the Pusa shi zhu jing 菩薩十住經. There was also extant at that time an anonymous Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin in one juan, which was regarded as an excerpt text 菩薩十住行道品一巻抄, as listed in CSZJJ. This text was lost in the time of Yancong 彥琮 and Jingtai, but found again by Zhisheng. He found that the Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin 菩薩十住行道品 was identical with the Pusa shi zhu jing 菩薩十住經 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa and used the former title when including it in the canon. 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. — 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 |
[Su 1995] Su Jinren 蘇晉仁. "Xuyan" 序言. In Su Jinren and Xiao Lianzi 蕭鍊子, eds. Chu sanzang ji ji 出三蔵記集. Zhongguo Fojiao dianji xuankan 中國佛教典籍選刊, 1-32. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1995. — 19 |
At the end of the list of Buddhabhadra texts in Fascicle 2, CSZJJ explicitly counts ten texts 十部。凡六十七, T2145 (LV) 11c22. However, Su Jinren points out that there are in fact 11 texts on the list. He points out that Zhisheng in KYL refers to CSZJJ for all but on of the titles on the list, namely, the 菩薩十住經, 11c16. On this basis, he proposes that this title was added to the list later. (Cf. T283, T284.) Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Shi Jiyan 1997] Shi Jiyan 釋繼彥. “Bao rulai jing he Pusa shizhu jing yizhe lüekao” 《寶如來經》和《菩薩十住經》譯者略考. Dharma Light Lyceum 法光學壇 1 (1997): 61-72. |
In the present Taishō canon, the Pusa shizhu jing 菩薩十住經 T284 is ascribed to *Gītamitra 祇多蜜 and the Pusa shizhu xing dao pin jing 菩薩十住行道品經 T283 is ascribed to Dharmarakṣa 竺法護. On the basis of an examination of Buddhist catalogues, Ven. Jiyan 釋繼彥 argues that the ascriptions and titles for these texts are in disarray Jiyan claims that it there are strong reasons to doubt the ascription of T283 to Dharmarakṣa, because the text reveals a different transliteration style than that of Dharmarakṣa. Jiyan further analyzes the records concerning these texts in historical Buddhist catalogues. According to CSZJJ, the Pusa shi zhu jing is categorized as Dharmarakṣa’s translation, and Sengyou saw the text. The same chapter also records another translation with the same title, the Pusa shi zhu jing, translated by Buddhabhadra 佛陀跋陀. Meanwhile, CSZJJ also includes the Shi zhu jing 十住經 T286 translated by Kumārajīva, from the same Indic text as Buddhabhadra’s. However, CSZJJ doesn’t group Dharmarakṣa’s translation together with those of Kumārajīva and Buddhabhadra. CSZJJ also includes a text called the Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin jing 菩薩十住行道品經 in the list of lost translations, and claims it is an "excerpted sūtra" 抄. Jiyan specifies, without further comment, that it was copied from the Daben jing 大本經 (??). Jiyan asserts that the Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin jing recorded by Sengyou probably has no relation to the Pusa shi zhu jing translated by Dharmarakṣa. Fajing discusses both the Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin jing and Pusa shi zhu jing together. It not only records that Dharmarakṣa translated the Pusa shi zhu jing, but also asserts that the Shi zhu pin is the lost translation entitled Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin jing mentioned in CSZJJ, which was also translated by Dharmarakṣa. Meanwhile, Fajing claims that another scripture titled Tanmeimoti pusa shuo jing 曇昧摩提菩薩說經 is excerpted from the Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin jing. As evidenced by the first sentence of the current T283, which features a bodhisattva by the same name 曇昧摩提菩薩, the Tanmeimoti pusa shuo jing recorded by Fajing probably has some connection with the Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin jing, and the Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin jing mentioned in Fajing is most likely the same text as the current T283 translated by Dharmarakṣa. However, Fajing doesn’t explain the reason for ascribing the Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin jing to Dharmarakṣa, or whether the text of the Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin jing is the same as that of the Pusa shi zhu jing. Jiyan finds that the ascription of the Pusa shi zhu jing to *Gītamitra is first mentioned in the LDSBJ. According to LDSBJ, the Pusa shi zhu jing is part of the second translation of an Indic text and was translated by *Gītamitra. Another translation of the same text is also mentioned in LDSBJ, which was translated by Buddhabhadra. Jiyan argues that KYL accepts both the assertion of Fajing , which treats the Pusa shi zhu xing dao pin jing as Dharmarakṣa’s translation, and the assertion of LDSBJ, which attributes the Pusa shi zhu jing to *Gītamitra. However, it is still unknown what records of a Pusa shi zhu jing translated by Dharmarakṣa might refer to. Entry author: Chengpeng Li |
|