| Identifier | T0643 [T] |
| Title | 佛說觀佛三昧海經 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Translator 譯 | Buddhabhadra, 佛陀跋陀羅, 覺賢 [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 |
|
|
|
Yes |
[Yamabe 1999] Yamabe, Nobuyoshi. “The Sutra on the Ocean-like Samadhi of the Visualization of the Buddha: The Interfusion of the Chinese and Indian Cultures in Central Asia as Reflected in a Fifth Century Apocryphal Sutra.” Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1999. |
The “Sutra on the Ocean-Like Samādhi of the Visualization of the Buddha” 觀佛三昧海經 T643 is one of a group of "contemplation" sūtras 觀經, appearing around the same time in China, which share certain conditions: apparent debts to earlier texts in the Chinese tradition; the absence of parallel texts in other Buddhist languages, etc. Yamabe also shows that the text is related to another class of problematic sūtras from nearly the same period, the 禪經 or "meditation sūtras" ("meditation manuals", Yamabe, 59–114). A Sogdian version is known, but is probably a translation from T643, and so does not constitute an independent witness (30). A Dunhuang text was once reported by Jiang Liangfu to constitute a variant translation, but Yamabe says it "is probably a chanting manual excerpted from [T643] and should not be considered as a separate translation" (30). The ascription to Buddhabhadra is supported by CSZJJ and GSZ, but Yamabe notes that neither gives "a specific date, place or occasion" for the translation of the text (31). Such details are added by Fajing. Yamabe states that "there are serious reasons to doubt Buddhabhadra's involvement [with T643]" (32). "The attribution of [T643] to Buddhabhadra seems to be almost impossible in spite of the testimonies of [CSZJJ] and GSZ" (54). At the end of a lengthy and detailed discussion of the portion of the text that treats the "Buddha Shadow Cave" in Gandhāra, Yamabe writes, "Everything taken together, it is difficult for me to believe that the Buddha Image Cave portion...was written by somebody who have first-hand knowledge of the site. This observation makes it unlikely that [T643] was composed in Gandhāra, or that the Buddha Image Cave portion was inserted by Buddhabhadra himself. Since Buddhabhadra was from the area around Nagarahāra, he must have had accurate knowledge of the site. I believe, therefore, that until some strong counter-evidence is found, we should not assum Buddhabhadra's involvement in the formation or transmission of [T643]. [T643] should rather be treated as a purely apocryphal work" (296-297). On the basis of his careful full-length study of the text against a number of relevant contexts, Yamabe has concluded that it is a "cross-cultural product compiled in Central Asia" (2). That is to say, it includes some information which was probably only available in the Indian cultural sphere at the time of its composition, but on the other hand, it also may have been written in Chinese and shows debts to earlier Chinese texts. Yamabe's study of the sūtra thus shows that this text defies treatment by an "either Indian or Chinese" approach to textual history and associated questions of "authenticity" and "apocrypha". Yamabe summarizes theories advanced by scholars preceding him, arguing variously for the origin of the text in Gandhāra, China, and Central Asia, or that the text was gradually compiled over a period of time through a combination of such circumstances. Important figures in this debate include Ono Genmyō, Alexander Soper, Tsukinowa Kenryū, Kasugai Shin'ya, Fujita Kōtatsu, Shikii Shūjō and Kuwayama Shōshin (Yamabe diss. 115–124). The main evidence Yamabe adduces to show that the author(s) must also have been drawing upon Chinese sources are: terminological and stylistic peculiarities (186–215); strange lists of hells seemingly unknown in Indian sources, but with Chinese analogues; strange lists of marks found on the bodies of Buddhas (216–262); a questionable story about the "Cave of the Buddha's Shadow/Image" 佛影窟 in Gandhāra; and borrowings from other Chinese texts. Yamabe considers that the text was probably composed in Chinese, and not translated from any other language (213). The account of the “Buddha-Shadow Cave” has sometimes been used to argue a Gandhāran origin for the text, but Yamabe argues on the basis of comparison with other descriptions that it is incorrect in important details, suggesting that the authors of the text could not have been physically familiar with the actual site (263–298, esp. 280 ff.). The main evidence Yamabe adduces for the claim that the text shows knowledge of the Indian tradition not available in the China of the day is: striking parallels in unusual content (images etc.) with visualization meditations described in the Sanskrit "Yogalehrbuch" found at Qizil and Shorchuq (300–352); parallels between the unusual description of the Buddha's cosmically magnificent penis and Śaivite liṇga-worship motifs (377–426), and other materials also resonant of Śaivism, such as the motifs of extremely prolonged copulation and of a corpse sticking to the body; parallels between the content of some of the meditations described in the text and cave art at Toyok near Turfan (427–497); and the fact that knowledge of the "Buddha-Shadow Cave" is too detailed for it to have been based on what was known in China at the time. [As summarised in Radich and Muller, DDB s.v. 觀佛三昧海經] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fujita 1990] Fujita, Kōtatsu. “The Textual Origins of the Kuan Wu-liang-shou ching: A Canonical Scripture of Pure Land Buddhism.” In Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, edited by Robert Buswell, 149–173. Honolulu: University of Hawai`i Press, 1990. — 154, 157, 158, 161 |
Fujita suggests that the “original manuscript” for the Guan Fo sanmei hai jing 首楞嚴三昧經 T643 may have originated in Central Asia, “along with the other contemplation sūtras.” His reasons for this assertion include Buddhabhadra and Baoyun's knowledge of central Asia, and the origin of other texts which they translated; a Buddha image described in the text sports a moustache, one of the unique characteristics of Gandhāran Buddhas; it also accurately describes a famous cave in Nagahāra. Fujita notes that the Guan fo sanmei hai jing was translated before the Guan Wuliangshou jing 觀無量壽佛經 T365, and the latter text was likely influenced by the former. Furthermore, he adds that Friedrich Weller has demonstrated that the Guan fo sanmei hai jing corresponds to a Sogdian manuscript, a manuscript which Hans Reichelt had previously considered to be related to the Guan Wuliangshou jing. Hans Reichelt, Die soghdischen Handschriftenreste des Britischen Museums, I. Teil (Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung, 1928), S. 33-56 (Der Dhyāna-Text). Friedrich Weller, Bemerkungen zum soghdischen Dhyāna-Texte,” Monumenta Serica (Journal of Oriental Studies of the Catholic University of Peking) 2 (1935-1937): 341-404; 3 (1938): 78-129. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Chen 2014] Chen, Jinhua. “From Central Asia to Southern China: The Formation of Identity and Network in the Meditative Traditions of the Fifth—Sixth Century Southern China (420—589).” Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 7, no. 2 (2014): 171–202. — 173 n. 2 |
Chen considers the most important texts translated by Buddhabhadra to be: Mohe sengqi lü 摩訶僧祇律 [Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya] T1425 (co-translated with Faxian 法顯), Da Fangguangfo huayan jing 大方廣佛華嚴經 [Buddhāvataṃsaka] T278 (the “new version” of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra), and Wuliangshou jing 無量壽經 [interpreted by many scholars to refer to T360 --- MR]. In addition, Chen attributes to Buddhabhadra the meditation manuals Damoduoluo chanjing 達摩多羅禪經 T618 and Guanfo sanmeihai jing 觀佛三昧海經 T643 (for which he refers to Yamabe 1999). Chen adds that Buddhabhadra’s biographies attribute different numbers of texts to him, which he argues is due to “different ways of counting his translations”; the Gaoseng zhuan lists under Buddhabhadra’s name all texts which he either translated or co-translated, while the Chu sanzang ji ji lists only those translated solely by Buddhabhadra and his team. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Yamabe 2006] Yamabe, Nobuyoshi. “Fragments of the 'Yogalehrbuch' in the Pelliot Collection.” In Ein buddhistisches Yogalehrbuch: Unveränderter Nachdruck der Ausgabe von 1964 unter Beigabe aller seither bekannt gewordenen Fragmente, edited by Jens-Uwe Hartmann and Hermann-Josef Röllicke, 325-41. Munich: IUDICIUM, 2006. — 325-329 |
Yamabe examines the “Yogalehrbuch” (YL), a Sanskrit meditation manual based on a birch bark manuscript (SHT 150) edited and translated by Dieter Schingloff (1964a). He argues that the YL shares likenesses with some of the meditation/visualisation texts allegedly translated into Chinese in the early fifth century. Since many of these Chinese meditation texts are of dubious origin, similarities with the YL can be important clues to clarify the real provenance of these texts. In particular Yamabe discusses similarities between the YL and the Damotuoluo chan jing 達摩多羅禪經 T618. He cites Inokuchi (12-14)* who noted structural similarities between the YL and T618 (which, Yamabe notes in passing, is traditionally attributed to Dharmatrāta, but now generally to Buddhasena). Yamabe compares similar passages on upekṣā in the YL and Wumen chanjing yaoyong fa 五門禪經要用法 T619 to demonstrate that that these two texts have similar mystical visions. The Guan Wuliangshou [Fo] jing 觀無量壽[佛]經 T365 is the "most important", according to Yamabe, of the Chinese meditation texts of “dubious origin” to have similarities with YL. While T365 does not itself share many elements with the YL, it is closely related to Guanfo sanmeihai jing 觀佛三昧海經 T643 which “does have significant similarities to the YL.” *Inokuchi, Taijun. Saiiki shutsudo no bonbon yuga ronjo 西域出土の梵文瑜伽論書 (*A Sanskrit Yoga Text Excavated in Central Asia). Ryūkoku Daigaku ronshū 谷大學論集 (The Journal of Ryūkoku University) 381: 2-15. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Yamabe 2013] Yamabe, Nobuyoshi. "Indian Myth Transformed in a Chinese Apocryphal Text: Two Stories on the Buddha’s Hidden Organ." In India in the Chinese Imagination: Myth, Religion, and Thought, 61-80. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press: 2013. — 61-80 |
Expanding upon his doctoral work [https://dazangthings.nz/cbc/source/38/] Yamabe examines two narratives in order to argue for Indic influence on the Guan Fo sanmei hai jing 觀佛三昧海經 T643. In the first narrative, a group of prostitutes come to a town where the Buddha is residing and cause havoc. The Buddha agrees to teach them, but they ignore his teachings, jeer at him, and imply that he is impotent. In response he first conjures an elephant with a white lotus reaching the ground between its hind legs, and then a horse-king with an extended organ reaching to its knees. Finally, he shows them his own cosmically magnificent penis, from which ten billion emanation Buddhas appear, each of which is served by ten billion bodhisattvas and a boundless assembly. These ten billion phallic Buddhas reprimand the prostitutes, and the prostitutes consequently all reach various degrees of spiritual attainment. Yamabe sees this emphasis on the Buddha’s organ and virility to be unusual for pre-Tantric Buddhist texts, as well as for Chinese Buddhism, and thus connects this enormous glorification of the male organ to Śaivite linga narratives (although he does not identify an exactly corresponding source), and Indic ithyphallic art. In addition, he connects this narrative in T643 to a passage in the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa 大智度論 T1509. T1509 discusses the Buddha’s hidden male organ, which the text describes as like those of "a well-tamed elephant-treasure and a horse-treasure." The text asks further, "When the bodhisattva attains the supreme awakening, in what situation do the disciples see the mark of the hidden male organ? He shows the mark of the hidden male organ in order to resolve people’s doubt. Other people say: The Buddha magically creates an elephant-treasure and a horse-treasure and, showing them to his disciples, he says: 'The mark of my hidden male organ is like those.” The second narrative tells of a lascivious prostitute who does not respect the Buddha. In response to her disinterest in him, the Buddha emanates three young men, and the woman has sex with one of them. After three days her desire is sated, but the boy will not stop. Her lust turns to pain, the boy eventually dies, and she remains locked in coitus to his decaying body. According to Yamabe, the motif of the corpse sticking to the body also can be traced to Śaivist origin. Additionally, he compares this motif to the Aśokāvadāna, in which Upagupta conjures a wreath of dead bodies which stick to Māra until he converts. According to Yamabe these commonalities mean that the authors of T643 “must have had direct contact with people from western regions who were followers of Shaivite traditions.” At the same time, he adds, these authors “seem to have relied heavily on Chinese Buddhist texts.” In other words, the basic motifs are Indian, but the authors “freely put together elements taken from Chinese Buddhist texts and invent their own stories.” Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|