| Identifier | T0419 [T] |
| Title | 拔陂菩薩經 [T] |
| Date | 後漢 [Hayashiya 1941] |
| 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).
| 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 |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 1238-1241 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of archaic alternate translations 新集安公古異經錄: Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu: Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and Jingtai 靜泰錄: LDSBJ 三寶記: DZKZM 大周刊定衆經目錄 KYL 開元錄: There is surviving Bapo posa jing 拔陂菩薩經 T419. This text is roughly thirteen registers 段 long, but could easily be made into thirteen sheets, since it contains a number of verses. Thus, Hayashiya judges that T419 is the Batuo pusa jing 跋陀菩薩經 or Batuo pusa jing 拔陀菩薩經 that was listed in the catalogues since Jingtai. The vocabulary and the tone of the text are clearly of the Latter Han 後漢 period. Still, the vocabulary differs from that of Lokakṣema, the translator of the Banzhou sanmei jing [sic], so the text has to be classified as an anonymous scripture. Hayashiya claims that the variation in titles in different catalogues does not cause a problem, since there are no other texts that may be confused with this text, and the surviving T419 can legitimately regarded as the Bapituo pusa jing of Dao’an’s list. Hayashiya refers to his own Hayashiya 異譯經の研究 [Hayashiya 1945], Chapter 15 for more detailed discussions about the Banzhou sanmei jing and its alternate translations. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
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). — 332-333 n. 95 |
Zürcher argues that the Babei pusa jing 拔陂菩薩經 T419 is a “short and archaic version” of T417-T418, which "probably dates from Han times." He cites Hayashiya Tomojirō (Kyōroku-kenkyū, pp. 544-578) Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Harrison 1990] Harrison, Paul. The Samādhi of Direct Encounter with the Buddhas of the Present: An Annotated English Translation of the Pratyutpanna-Buddha-Saṃmukhāvasthita-Samādhi-Sūtra. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 1990. — 216-220 |
Harrison prefaces his discussion of the Bapo pusa jing 拔陂菩薩經 T419 by stating that there is little that can be identified with T419, and thus the origin and authorship remain unknown. In what follows he assesses the little external evidence which is available to us. The text can be traced back to an entry in CSZJJ, among a list of texts which were marked in the Dao’an lu as guyijing 古譯經 “ancient versions of sūtras;” a term which, Hayashiya has argued, was reserved for sūtras produced in the “Later Han (25-220 C.E.) and Wei-Wu (220-227) periods.” We also know that the text was lost by the time Sengyou compiled his catalogue. Dao’an considered the text of the Vaipulya [Mahāyāna] class. Harrison notes that the fact that T419 is anonymous means that even Dao’an was unable to assign it to a translator. Given the little information available to us, Harrison writes that “the customary identification of the Popituo pusa jing with the PraS is, although highly likely, still by no means completely certain … However given that the only other known sūtra of which Bhadrapāla is the chief figure is of relatively late date, the traditional identification is in all probability correct, and should be allowed to stand.” This assertion is based on three points: In the Fajing lu T419 is listed as one of three partial translations of the same text as the Banzhou sanmei jing, i.e. placed in context as a version of the PraS; although the catalogue does not note whether the text is extant, the description of it shows that the text must have been available, if not to Fajing, then to one of his sources; the title given, although it accords with standard Chinese transliteration of Bhadra has as little to do with the transliteration of that name in the text itself as the title given by Sengyou. Harrison concludes that by the time of the Kaiyuan lu all of the foregoing information is combined and “there can be no doubt that the present T419, the Bapo pusa jing, is identical with the text under discussion, by virtue of its title, its length, and the fact that it does indeed correspond to the greater part of pin I-IV of the Banzhou sanmei jing” T418. Furthermore, the lack of a proper ending, i.e. “a series of ordinary gāthās,” militates against our regarding it as a “complete text,” thus the text “has every appearance of being a fragment.” Finally, Harrison claims that (although space does not allow for a detailed examination of the styles of the text) the style of the Bapo pusa jing “confirms the testimony of the catalogues,” and scholars have been “virtually unanimous” in dating the text “sometime around the first half of the third century C.E.” Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|