Text: T0410; 大方廣十輪經

Summary

Identifier	T0410 [T]
Title	大方廣十輪經 [T]
Date	涼 [T]
Unspecified	Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Ōno 1954]
Translator 譯	Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [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).

Assertions

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.	T0410; 大方廣十輪經	Entry author: Michael Radich Edit	Title: 大方廣十輪經 People: Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 (translator 譯) Date: 涼 Identifier: T0410
No	[Zhiru 2007] Ng, Zhiru. The Making of a Savior Bodhisattva: Dizang in Medieval China. Kuroda Institute Studies in East Asian Buddhism 21. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2007. — 225-238, 8 n. 20	T0410; 大方廣十輪經	Zhiru considers various evidence bearing on the complex question of the origins and composition of T410. In the present Taishō, the text bears a note saying it is anonymous, but dates to the N. Liang 失譯人名今附北涼錄. In fact this dating may be problematic. The title first appears only in LDSBJ (i.e. it does not appear in CSZJJ, or Fajing). However, we also have reports that Xinxing 信行 (540–594), the founder of Sanjie jiao 三階教, made great use of T410 and composed two commentaries upon it. This makes Fajing's silence all the more remarkable. Meanwhile, T893, the "Divination Sutra", also features centrally Dizang/Kṣitigarbha, and also appears for the first time in LDSBJ. This suggests that T410 appeared as part of a surge of interest in the cult of Dizang/Kṣitigarbha in the mid sixth century. The same title then appears in other catalogues, through Jingmai, Jingtai, Mingquan etc. Mingquan, oddly enough, ascribes this title to *Dharmakṣema, saying he got the information from LDSBJ, even though our extant LDSBJ says nothing of the sort. The dating of T410 to the N. Liang seems to be a judgement of the Tang bibliographers, enshrined by Zhisheng in KYL. The Tibetan version of the text has a colophon stating that it was translated from Chinese (8 n. 20). Hadani has indicated that an Iranian version of the text may exist, "but we know almost nothing about this source" (236-237 n. 33, citing Hadani　羽渓了諦, Chūa Bukkyōkai no tokuisō 中亜仏教会の特異相. Bukkyō kenkyū , 1, no. 1, 1937: 38). Thus far, it might appear that we are confronted with a text composed in China. However, matters are complicated by the existence of a supposed alternate translation of the text, ascribed to Xuanzang, T411. [The ascription of T411 has been questioned by Wang-Toutain; see separate CBC@ record.] In addition, Zhiru notes that passages in Śāntideva’s Śikṣāsamuccaya (Bendall and Rouse 1922: 14, 72, 90, 102, 171) bear evident similarities to the content of T410/T411; Śāntideva cites these passages under the title Āryakṣitigarbha-sūtra. Zhiru mentions that according to Soper, portions of T410 on Dizang/Kṣitigarbha appear to have no intrinsic connection with other content of the text, and could therefore have been added to the text later; Soper has therefore proposed that the text may have been composed at least in part in China (236, citing Soper 1959: 210). Zhiru herself claims that because Śāntideva is much later than the "Northern Liang Chinese translation", it "cannot qualify as verification of the text's pre-Chinese origin" (236 n. 33). [Unfortunately, Zhiru does not identify portions of T410/T411 corresponding to the Śāntideva citations. Nor, frustratingly, does she say whether the portions of T410/T411 found in the Śāntideva citations overlap with the Dizang/Kṣitigarbha materials that Soper suggests could have been added in China. However, If we are to hold that the text was composed outright in China, we must hold that it was somehow transmitted back to India in time for Śāntideva to be aware of it; and if the Dizang passages were supposed to be added in China, one would also have to ask why Śāntideva would have known the text under the title Āryakṣitigarbha-sūtra. Alternatively, we must admit at least that the composers of the Chinese version had access to authentic Indic materials reflected in at least the passages overlapping with Śāntideva --- MR.] Entry author: Michael Radich 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. — 318	T0410; 大方廣十輪經	Ōno states that the anonymous Dafangguang shi lun jin 大方廣十輪經 T410 (Daśacakrakṣitigarbha) was intended to be connected to the Candragarbha-sūtra 月藏經 T397(15), as indicated by the phrase 説月藏訖爾時 (T410 [XIII] 681a9-11). As such, it is odd that Sengjiu 僧就 did not include T410 in the Mahāsaṃnipāta. T410 was first dated to the northern Liang 北涼 by KYL, but Ōno thinks that it should be redated as in or around the 北齊 period (550-570), after the end of the Liang 梁 period (505-570 CE). This is because T410 is not listed by Sengyou, but is listed in Fajing under the title Fangguang shi lun jing 方廣十輪經. Fajing cites other catalogues of the Nanbeichao 南北朝 period, the latest of which is Fashang of the Northern Qi. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki Edit	People: Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 (unspecified) Date: 北齊

Preferred?

Source

Pertains to

Argument

Details

[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.

T0410; 大方廣十輪經

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

Title: 大方廣十輪經
People: Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 (translator 譯)
Date: 涼
Identifier: T0410

[Zhiru 2007] Ng, Zhiru. The Making of a Savior Bodhisattva: Dizang in Medieval China. Kuroda Institute Studies in East Asian Buddhism 21. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2007. — 225-238, 8 n. 20

T0410; 大方廣十輪經

Zhiru considers various evidence bearing on the complex question of the origins and composition of T410. In the present Taishō, the text bears a note saying it is anonymous, but dates to the N. Liang 失譯人名今附北涼錄. In fact this dating may be problematic. The title first appears only in LDSBJ (i.e. it does not appear in CSZJJ, or Fajing). However, we also have reports that Xinxing 信行 (540–594), the founder of Sanjie jiao 三階教, made great use of T410 and composed two commentaries upon it. This makes Fajing's silence all the more remarkable. Meanwhile, T893, the "Divination Sutra", also features centrally Dizang/Kṣitigarbha, and also appears for the first time in LDSBJ. This suggests that T410 appeared as part of a surge of interest in the cult of Dizang/Kṣitigarbha in the mid sixth century.

The same title then appears in other catalogues, through Jingmai, Jingtai, Mingquan etc. Mingquan, oddly enough, ascribes this title to *Dharmakṣema, saying he got the information from LDSBJ, even though our extant LDSBJ says nothing of the sort. The dating of T410 to the N. Liang seems to be a judgement of the Tang bibliographers, enshrined by Zhisheng in KYL.

The Tibetan version of the text has a colophon stating that it was translated from Chinese (8 n. 20). Hadani has indicated that an Iranian version of the text may exist, "but we know almost nothing about this source" (236-237 n. 33, citing Hadani　羽渓了諦, Chūa Bukkyōkai no tokuisō 中亜仏教会の特異相. Bukkyō kenkyū , 1, no. 1, 1937: 38).

Thus far, it might appear that we are confronted with a text composed in China. However, matters are complicated by the existence of a supposed alternate translation of the text, ascribed to Xuanzang, T411. [The ascription of T411 has been questioned by Wang-Toutain; see separate CBC@ record.] In addition, Zhiru notes that passages in Śāntideva’s Śikṣāsamuccaya (Bendall and Rouse 1922: 14, 72, 90, 102, 171) bear evident similarities to the content of T410/T411; Śāntideva cites these passages under the title Āryakṣitigarbha-sūtra.

Zhiru mentions that according to Soper, portions of T410 on Dizang/Kṣitigarbha appear to have no intrinsic connection with other content of the text, and could therefore have been added to the text later; Soper has therefore proposed that the text may have been composed at least in part in China (236, citing Soper 1959: 210). Zhiru herself claims that because Śāntideva is much later than the "Northern Liang Chinese translation", it "cannot qualify as verification of the text's pre-Chinese origin" (236 n. 33).

[Unfortunately, Zhiru does not identify portions of T410/T411 corresponding to the Śāntideva citations. Nor, frustratingly, does she say whether the portions of T410/T411 found in the Śāntideva citations overlap with the Dizang/Kṣitigarbha materials that Soper suggests could have been added in China. However, If we are to hold that the text was composed outright in China, we must hold that it was somehow transmitted back to India in time for Śāntideva to be aware of it; and if the Dizang passages were supposed to be added in China, one would also have to ask why Śāntideva would have known the text under the title Āryakṣitigarbha-sūtra. Alternatively, we must admit at least that the composers of the Chinese version had access to authentic Indic materials reflected in at least the passages overlapping with Śāntideva --- MR.]

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

[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. — 318

T0410; 大方廣十輪經

Ōno states that the anonymous Dafangguang shi lun jin 大方廣十輪經 T410 (Daśacakrakṣitigarbha) was intended to be connected to the Candragarbha-sūtra 月藏經 T397(15), as indicated by the phrase 説月藏訖爾時 (T410 [XIII] 681a9-11). As such, it is odd that Sengjiu 僧就 did not include T410 in the Mahāsaṃnipāta. T410 was first dated to the northern Liang 北涼 by KYL, but Ōno thinks that it should be redated as in or around the 北齊 period (550-570), after the end of the Liang 梁 period (505-570 CE). This is because T410 is not listed by Sengyou, but is listed in Fajing under the title Fangguang shi lun jing 方廣十輪經. Fajing cites other catalogues of the Nanbeichao 南北朝 period, the latest of which is Fashang of the Northern Qi.

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit

People: Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 (unspecified)
Date: 北齊