Text: T1422; 彌沙塞五分戒本; 五分戒本


Identifier T1422 [T]
Title 五分戒本; 彌沙塞五分戒本 [T]
Date [None]
Translator 譯 *Buddhajīva, 佛陀什 [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


[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



[Ñāṇatusita 2014]  Ñāṇatusita, Bhikkhu. "Translations or Adaptations? Chinese Hybrid Translations of Vinaya Texts", Journal of Buddhist Studies vol. XII (2014–2015): 123- 187.

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” 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). The introduction and conclusion as well as section introductions and conclusions correspond with only a few exceptions the Chinese translation of PrMo(Sa) (T1436).”

Ñāṇatusita also extends Funayama's argument for a “third type of Chinese text” (Funayama 2006) into a typology which can account for a wide array of composites of mixed origins. For example he classifies T1422a as a “hybrid text type 1” and a “hybrid text type 2”.

Type 1 refers to texts that are “hybrids and adaptations” in that they “contain passages or translations” which Ñāṇatusita claims are “copied from earlier Chinese translations of the canonical commentaries on the texts translated, rather than being new, direct translations.” He adds that since the text and commentaries are of the same school, “the passages in both the Indic texts likely were identical or almost identical too.” He asserts that T1422a can be considered as such since it includes translations of the Prātimokṣa rules from the “canonical commentary of the Prātimokṣa rules contained in the Vinayavibhaṅga of the Mahīśāsakas, rather than being a translation of the actual Mahīśāsaka Prātimokṣa sutra itself.”

Type 2 refers to “hybrids and adaptations,” translations that “contain passages or sections copied from other, earlier Chinese translations of the same text ... [or] from a different version of the text of a different school.” Since T1422a appears to have “recycled” Prātimokṣa rules from an earlier translation of the Sarvāstivāda Prātimokṣa, and has “copied” Kumārajīva's introduction and conclusion, according to Ñāṇatusita it can be classified as a hybrid text type 2.

Entry author: Sophie Florence