Text: Guanshiyin guan jing 觀世音觀經

Summary

Identifier	[None]
Title	Guanshiyin guan jing 觀世音觀經 [Greene 2012]
Date	[None]

Assertions

Preferred?	Source	Pertains to	Argument	Details
No	[Greene 2012] Greene, Eric Matthew. “Meditation, Repentance and Visionary Experience in Early Medieval Chinese Buddhism.” PhD dissertation, U. C. Berkeley, 2012. — 323-336	Guanshiyin guan jing 觀世音觀經	Entry author: Michael Radich Edit	Title: Guanshiyin guan jing 觀世音觀經
No	[Greene 2012] Greene, Eric Matthew. “Meditation, Repentance and Visionary Experience in Early Medieval Chinese Buddhism.” PhD dissertation, U. C. Berkeley, 2012. — 328-335 and n. 6	Guanshiyin guan jing 觀世音觀經 T1043; Qing Guanshiyin pusa xiaofu duhai tuoluoni zhou jing 請觀世音菩薩消伏毒害陀羅尼呪經; 請觀世音菩薩消伏毒害陀羅尼呪經	Greene writes: "As far as I am aware scholars have never seriously questioned the traditional attribution holding that the Invitation Sutra [viz. the 請觀世音菩薩消伏毒害陀羅尼呪經 ] was translated in or near the southern capital by the Indian boat captain Nandi (難提) at the beginning of the Song dynasty (420 C.E.). However the Records of the Canon, the earliest relevant source, lists the Invitation Sutra as an anonymous translation, and Nandi, an obscure figure known from only a few other sources, is linked to this text only in later catalogs beginning from the seventh century. That initially this text indeed did not bear this attribution is confirmed in that the earliest copies of the text itself, from the Sui or early Tang, do not mention a translator while the later versions do. For some reason, however, these problems have not attracted the attention of even ordinarily suspicious scholars." Greene argues further that the present T1043 may have resulted from a merger of two sets of originally separate materials. "While there thus remain a number of questions about the nature of the Invitation Sutra and the Upasena narrative, as we have seen there are good reasons for doubting the traditional claim that the Invitation Sutra was translated in its present form by the Indian boat captain Nandi, and moreover for considering that the Upasena narrative in particular may have originally belonged to, or even constituted, the lost Avalokitasvara Contemplation." Greene argues at length in Appendix 2 (328-336) that the part or even all of the lost Avalokitasvara Contemplation may survive as part of T1043. He points out in 328 n. 6 that the transmitted versions of T1043 can be divided into two lineages. The Upasena narrative in the text (only, not other portions of the text) shares a number of unusual expressions and phraseology with T613, T620, and T643 (331-335; Greeen's terms are 心脈, 如馳流水, 苦空無常敗壞不久磨滅, 一一節間, 芭蕉, 四大定, 豁然意解, 如熱時焰如野馬行). In part on the basis of this evidence, he suggests that the present T1043 is the result of the coalescence of two originally separate texts (335). Greene also notes: "It seems possible that the version of the Invitation Sutra commented on by Guanding, and that used as the basis for the early Tiantai rituals, was somewhat different than the current version." Entry author: Michael Radich Edit

Preferred?

Source

Pertains to

Argument

Details

[Greene 2012] Greene, Eric Matthew. “Meditation, Repentance and Visionary Experience in Early Medieval Chinese Buddhism.” PhD dissertation, U. C. Berkeley, 2012. — 323-336

Guanshiyin guan jing 觀世音觀經

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

Title: Guanshiyin guan jing 觀世音觀經

[Greene 2012] Greene, Eric Matthew. “Meditation, Repentance and Visionary Experience in Early Medieval Chinese Buddhism.” PhD dissertation, U. C. Berkeley, 2012. — 328-335 and n. 6

Greene writes: "As far as I am aware scholars have never seriously questioned the traditional attribution holding that the Invitation Sutra [viz. the 請觀世音菩薩消伏毒害陀羅尼呪經 ] was translated in or near the southern capital by the Indian boat captain Nandi (難提) at the beginning of the Song dynasty (420 C.E.). However the Records of the Canon, the earliest relevant source, lists the Invitation Sutra as an anonymous translation, and Nandi, an obscure figure known from only a few other sources, is linked to this text only in later catalogs beginning from the seventh century. That initially this text indeed did not bear this attribution is confirmed in that the earliest copies of the text itself, from the Sui or early Tang, do not mention a translator while the later versions do. For some reason, however, these problems have not attracted the attention of even ordinarily suspicious scholars." Greene argues further that the present T1043 may have resulted from a merger of two sets of originally separate materials. "While there thus remain a number of questions about the nature of the Invitation Sutra and the Upasena narrative, as we have seen there are good reasons for doubting the traditional claim that the Invitation Sutra was translated in its present form by the Indian boat captain Nandi, and moreover for considering that the Upasena narrative in particular may have originally belonged to, or even constituted, the lost Avalokitasvara Contemplation."

Greene argues at length in Appendix 2 (328-336) that the part or even all of the lost Avalokitasvara Contemplation may survive as part of T1043. He points out in 328 n. 6 that the transmitted versions of T1043 can be divided into two lineages. The Upasena narrative in the text (only, not other portions of the text) shares a number of unusual expressions and phraseology with T613, T620, and T643 (331-335; Greeen's terms are 心脈, 如馳流水, 苦空無常敗壞不久磨滅, 一一節間, 芭蕉, 四大定, 豁然意解, 如熱時焰如野馬行). In part on the basis of this evidence, he suggests that the present T1043 is the result of the coalescence of two originally separate texts (335).

Greene also notes: "It seems possible that the version of the Invitation Sutra commented on by Guanding, and that used as the basis for the early Tiantai rituals, was somewhat different than the current version."

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit