Text: Banzhou sanmei nianfo-zhang jing 般舟三昧念佛章經

Summary

Identifier	[None]
Title	Banzhou sanmei nianfo-zhang jing 般舟三昧念佛章經 [Harrison 1990]
Date	[None]

Assertions

Preferred?	Source	Pertains to	Argument	Details
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. — 268	Banzhou sanmei nianfo-zhang jing 般舟三昧念佛章經	Harrison records three texts listed in the catalogues “which may or may not be related to the [Pratyutpannabuddhasammukhāvasthitasamādhi-sūtra],” none of which have survived. Among these is the Banzhou sanmei nianfo-zhang jing 般舟三昧念佛章經 (in one juan). This text first appeared in CSZJJ “newly compiled supplementary catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous sūtras;” Harrison claims that we can infer from this description that the text was not known to Dao’an. It then appears in Fajing, where it is described as a “separate translation” of the large edition of the Xing pin 行品, and entitled (Fo-shuo) banzhou sanmei nianfo-zhang jing 般舟三昧念佛章經. “It must therefore have been available to one of Fajing’s sources.” Subsequent catalogues record it as lost, and record no new information about it, apart from some “unfounded guesses as to its date in the [LDSBJ]” (which assigns it to the Han and the Eastern Jin). Harrison infers that since the text did not appear to be known to Dao’an, it may have been produced “as late as the fifth century.” Harrison claims that the title and “the evidence of the Fajing lu” confirms that this text contains the portion of the PraS which corresponds to the Xing pin 行品 of the Banzhou sanmei jing (BZSMJ). He notes that scholars have attempted to “identify the work” with T417 or T419, but in view of the evidence discussed above, these arguments “remain totally unconvincing.” These scholars also “fail to take into account the fact that all three texts appear side by side in the Fajing lu, which suggests Fajing’s source, to whom they were presumably available, was unable to identify any one of them with any other” (citing Hayashiya 1945: 573-574). Harrison adds that any three of these texts may be the source for the passages in T417 which are not based on the BZSMJ in three juan. Entry author: Michael Radich Edit	Title: Banzhou sanmei nianfo-zhang jing 般舟三昧念佛章經

Preferred?

Source

Pertains to

Argument

Details

[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. — 268

Banzhou sanmei nianfo-zhang jing 般舟三昧念佛章經

Harrison records three texts listed in the catalogues “which may or may not be related to the [Pratyutpannabuddhasammukhāvasthitasamādhi-sūtra],” none of which have survived. Among these is the Banzhou sanmei nianfo-zhang jing 般舟三昧念佛章經 (in one juan). This text first appeared in CSZJJ “newly compiled supplementary catalogue of miscellaneous anonymous sūtras;” Harrison claims that we can infer from this description that the text was not known to Dao’an. It then appears in Fajing, where it is described as a “separate translation” of the large edition of the Xing pin 行品, and entitled (Fo-shuo) banzhou sanmei nianfo-zhang jing 般舟三昧念佛章經. “It must therefore have been available to one of Fajing’s sources.” Subsequent catalogues record it as lost, and record no new information about it, apart from some “unfounded guesses as to its date in the [LDSBJ]” (which assigns it to the Han and the Eastern Jin). Harrison infers that since the text did not appear to be known to Dao’an, it may have been produced “as late as the fifth century.”

Harrison claims that the title and “the evidence of the Fajing lu” confirms that this text contains the portion of the PraS which corresponds to the Xing pin 行品 of the Banzhou sanmei jing (BZSMJ). He notes that scholars have attempted to “identify the work” with T417 or T419, but in view of the evidence discussed above, these arguments “remain totally unconvincing.” These scholars also “fail to take into account the fact that all three texts appear side by side in the Fajing lu, which suggests Fajing’s source, to whom they were presumably available, was unable to identify any one of them with any other” (citing Hayashiya 1945: 573-574). Harrison adds that any three of these texts may be the source for the passages in T417 which are not based on the BZSMJ in three juan.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

Title: Banzhou sanmei nianfo-zhang jing 般舟三昧念佛章經