Text: T1422b; Mishasai jie ben 彌沙塞戒本; Mahīśāsaka prātimokṣa ; Wu fen jie ben 五分戒本

No

• T1422b; Mishasai jie ben 彌沙塞戒本; Mahīśāsaka prātimokṣa ; Wu fen jie ben 五分戒本

There are two editions of the Mahīśāsaka Prātimokṣasūtra in the Taishō Tripiṭaka which, according to Ñānatusita, “differ considerably.” 彌沙塞五分戒本 “Mahīśāsaka Five Part Prātimokṣa” is T1422a, and the second 五分戒本 “Five Part Prātimokṣa” or 彌沙塞戒本 “Mahīśāsaka Prātimokṣa” is T1422b.

Ñānatusita quotes Yuyama (Yuyama, Akira, Systematische Übersicht über die buddhistische Sanskrit-Literatur, Wiesbaden: 1979, 2 & 37) who argued that T1422a “was compiled from the Mś Vinayavibhaṅga” (T1421) while “T1422b probably was compiled from the Ten Recitation Vinaya of the Sarvāstivādins that later was wrongly qualified as a Mś text.” Ñānatusita adds that the rules in T1422a “indeed are identical to the ones in VinVibh(Mś) and are likely to have been extracted from it.” The rules in VinVibh(Mś) “appear to be partly recycled from the translation of PrMo(Sa) [= T1436]. The introduction and conclusion as well as section introductions and conclusions correspond with only a few exceptions the Chinese translation of PrMo(Sa) (T1436).” However, he writes that “the origin of T 1422b is less clear.”

Although T 1422b is “identical in parts with PrMo(Sa)”, this is not always the case. Many of the passages that Ñānatusita examines do “not match any other version”, or “match[es] the PrMo(Mś) [T1422a] and Vinaya.” In at least one case it matches the PrMo(Mā) and in another case the VinVibh(Sa) but not PrMo(Sa). The order of rules in the pātayantikā section (at least in the first 25 rules) and the śaikṣa section generally agrees with the PrMo(Sa), not with PrMo(Mś).”

Ñānatusita concludes that “the school affiliation of this text can not be ascertained.” It certainly is an anomaly and appears to be a composite hybrid text made up of parts taken from other Chinese translations and abridged and adapted to make a superior, more readable text. He speculates that it might be “a heavily adapted version of Kumārajīva’s translation of the Sarvāstivāda Prātimokṣa”, but claims that it is “more likely it is a composite of materials from earlier translations of various Prātimokṣas.”

Entry author: Sophie Florence

Edit