Text: Pusa daoshu jing, 菩薩道樹經

Summary

Identifier [None]
Title Pusa daoshu jing, 菩薩道樹經 [Hayashiya 1941]
Date 西晋 [Hayashiya 1941]
Translator 譯 Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Hayashiya 1941]

Assertions

Preferred? Source Pertains to Argument Details

No

[Hayashiya 1941]  Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 481-484

Hayashiya concludes that it is best to classify this text as an anonymous translation 失訳経 of the W. Jin 西晋 era or earlier, although there is a possibility that it is identical with the 私阿末經 [= 私呵昧經 T532] translated by Zhi Qian 支謙. Dao'an 道安 lists these two titles separately, and ascribes the 私阿末經 to Zhi Qian. This should give us pause in identifying the two with one another--if they were the same, why would Dao'an have separated them?--though it is also possible that Dao'an 道安 made a mistake. The two were first identified, and regarded as by Zhi Qian, with Fajing. Subsequent bibliographers accepted this identification and did not record the two texts separately, until Zhisheng's again separted them in his KYL. However, Zhisheng ascribed the text to the E. Jin; Hayashiya thinks this is incorrect. Hayashiya concludes that these two titles may have referred to alternate translations of the same original text by different translators, and suggests that it dates to the W. Jin 西晋 era (or earlier).

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

No

[CSZJJ]  Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145.
[Dao'an catalogue]  Dao'an 道安. Zongli zhongjing mulu 綜理衆經目錄.
[Hayashiya 1945]  Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎, Iyaku kyōrui no kenkyū‚ 異譯經類の研究, Tokyo: Tōyō bunko, 1945. — 458

Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Pusa dao shu jing 菩薩道樹經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 或云道樹三昧 [經或云私阿三昧經 SYM] 經 [三 SYM] 二名異並同一本; 16c19. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is considered by Hayashiya to be “missing” (闕) from the Taishō edition of the canon. (However, cf. T532.)

Entry author: Merijn ter Haar

Edit