| Identifier | T0528 [T] |
| Title | 佛說菩薩逝經 [T] |
| Date | 西晋 [Hayashiya 1941] |
| Unspecified | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Sakaino 1935] |
| Translator 譯 | Zhi Fadu, 支法度 [Hayashiya 1941] |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
No |
[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 |
|
|
|
No |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. |
Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
Yes |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 910-925 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on these and related titles is as follows: Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録: CSZJJ 出三藏記集: Other catalogues, and Taishō: Hayashiya argues that only two texts have ever existed in this group: the Shi jing 逝經 (or Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經) and the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經. His two main reasons for this claim are as follows. First, among the four titles shown by Sengyou, Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 and Zhangzhezi Shi jing 長者子誓經 are likely to be the same. This is because the difference of the two characters zhi 制and she 誓 between these titles can easily be explained as variants of Shi 逝 in the title Shi jing 逝經. Also, Sengyou saw the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經, but not the Zhangzhezi Shi jing 長者子誓經, so his note claiming that the two were different was not based on direct observation. Thus, it is reasonable to regard the two titles as referring to the same text. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu omitted the Zhangzhezi Shi jing, and Hayashiya thinks that this omission is sensible because since the catalogue lists a Zhangzhezi Zhi jing, the Zhangzhezi Shi jing should be redundant. Second, Sengyou states that the Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 is roughly the same 大同小異 as the Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經/ or Shi jing 逝經. Hayashiya points out that, among the three versions in the Taishō, two of them, namely, the Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經T528 and the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 T526, are indeed extremely similar. Differences between them are so minor that they must have been created during the transmission process, cannot have been due to differences in the original texts or translators. Hayashiya also claims that T528 appears to be closer to the original form than T526. Thus, T528 and T526 should be considered as the same text, and the title "Shi tongzi jing" in Sengyou's catalogue of assorted anonymous scriptures refers probably not the Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 T527, but rather, to the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 T526. Thus, the only truly separate texts that ever existed were the Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經 and the Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經. As for the Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 (i.e. the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing 長者子制經 T526), Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu and subsequent catalogues ascribe the text to Zhi Fadu 支法度. Hayashiya infers that the initial source of this ascription is Baochang's catalogue 寶唱錄. Hence, the ascription is largely reliable. The vocabulary and tone of T526 also support this ascription, since they are of the W. Jin 西晋 period. Hayashiya admits that, since there are no surviving texts that clearly ascribed to Zhi Fadu, it is methodologically impossible to undertake a detailed examination of the text to determine the translator decisively. However, as the text is probably Zhi Fadu's translation, Dao’an and Sengyou’s treatment of it as anonymous should be considered as having preceded closer scrutiny by Baochang. Given that T526 is Zhi Fadu's translation, this means that T528 must be his translation as well, since they are the same text. As for the Zhangzhezi Zhi jing/Zhangzhezi Shi jing (Hayashiya appears to regard this text as the Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 T527), judging from its vocabulary and tone, it should be classified as an anonymous scripture of the W. Jin 西晋 period. Hayashiya claims that all other entries and attributions regarding related texts, appearing in the various catalogues, are incorrect and should be eliminated. For example, the Taishō ascribes T528 to Bo Fazu 白法祖, T526 to An Shigao 安世高, and T527 to Zhi Fadu, presumably following KYL 開元錄. All of these ascriptions are wrong and should be changed to the above mentioned ascriptions: T528 is by Zhi Fadu, T526 is also by Zhi Fadu (and should perhaps be better omitted, since it is not in reality a truly independent text), and T527 is anonymous. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Iwamatsu 1976b] Iwamatsu Asao 岩松浅夫. “Nehan gyō shōhon no hon’yakusha 涅槃経小本の翻訳者.” IBK 25, no. 1 (1976): 244-247. — 245 |
According to Iwamatsu, in CSZJJ, Bo Fazu is ascribed with only one text, which is moreover said to have been lost; in LDSBJ, however, he is suddenly ascribed with 23 works. Iwamatsu believes that this means that we have no extant works that can reliably be ascribed to Bo Fazu. If this is true, it would undermine the received ascriptions of T5, T144, T330, T528 and T777. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 273-275 |
Sakaino states the following (273): CSZJJ lists only the Weidai pusa jing 惟逮菩薩經 (not extant) as the work of Bo Fazu 白法祖. LDSBJ ascribes 23 titles in 25 juan to him, which KYL reduced to 16 titles 18 juan by excising offshoot or byproduct scriptures 別生. The titles Dizi ben 弟子本 and Wu bu seng 五部僧 are mentioned in GSZ, but it is not known exactly which texts they referred to. Sakaino quotes a passage in LDSBJ, 高僧傳(止)云祖出一經。然其所出諸經遭世擾攘名録罕存。莫紀其實 [T2034 (XLIX) 66b18-b19], and criticizes this statement, pointing out that GSZ says three scriptures 三部經, not just one scripture 一經, and that the issue is rather the odd names given for two of those three scriptures. 1) 8 titles, all of which are also ascribed to Dharmarakṣa (listed, 274). The number of juan often differs between the ascription to Bo Fazu and that to Dharmarakṣa, but Sakaino asserts that it is plain that Fei reused those titles of works of Dharmarakṣa as works of Bo Fazu as well. (This is therefore part of a wider pattern, which Sakaino also observes elsewhere for the corpora ascribed to other translators, where contiguous chunks of CSZJJ lists are re-used in LDSBJ as the basis for arbitrary new ascriptions to a single figure.) Especially, the word fanzhi 梵志 in the title Chixin fanzhi jing 持心梵志經 is clearly a copyist’s error for fantian 梵天 in the Chixin fantian jing 持心梵天經 (Chixin fantian suowen jing 持心梵天所問經), and such an error makes it even more plausible that those titles were just taken from somewhere and arbitrarily attributed to Bo Fazu. 2) 10 titles found elsewhere in CSZJJ (presented on p. 274). 8 titles out of the 10 are listed in Sengyou’s new catalogue of anonymous scriptures 續失譯經錄, the majority of which are related to tongzi/māṇava 童子 (童子經類). [Sakaino seems to overlook the 佛問四童子經 in this group, thus the above numbers should be “9 titles out of 11”, not “8 titles out of 10” -- AI ]. Fei apparently took them from the group of tongzi scriptures 童子經 and allocated them to Bo Fazu, creating the impression that Bo Fazu translated many scriptures related to tongzi. Sakaino also claims that it is not a coincidence that both the Dai’aidao [jing] 大愛道 (cf. T144) and the Shouda jing 首達經 are included in Dao’an’s catalogue of anonymous scriptures 安公失譯錄. 3) 3 titles, viz., the Da fangdeng rulai jing 大方等如来經, the Wuliang po mo tuoluoni jing 無量破魔陀羅尼經, and the Tan chi tuoluoni jing 檀持陀羅尼經. The sources from which these ascriptions were taken are not known (275). Sakaino concludes: All of Fei’s new ascriptions of 22 titles to Bo Fazu in LDSBJ must be fabrications, or based on unreliable sources. It is still plausible that Bo Fazu was taught by Bo Yan 白延, because they were near contemporaries and Bo Yan was the only person named 白 who brought the Buddhism of Kutsi/Kuci(na)/Küsen 龜玆 to China (275). However, this implies that no ascriptions carried to Bo Fazu carried today in T are accurate. This entry is associated with all ascriptions to Bo Fazu in T. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 869-870 |
According to Sakaino, it was Fei’s common practice to change the title a little, or use an alternate title, when he baselessly gave a new ascription to an anonymous scripture taken from Sengyou’s lists in CSZJJ. Sakaino briefly explains some examples of such cases, taken from the titles ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 京聲 in LDSBJ. One of those examples is the Pusa shi jing 菩薩誓經, which is the Shi jing 逝經 in Dao’an’s catalogue of anonymous scriptures 道安失譯 (cf. T528). Fei uses the alternate title 菩薩逝經 but replaces 逝 with 誓. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 870 |
Sakaino claims that the ascription of the extant Shi tongzi jing 逝童子經 T527 to Zhi Fadu 支法度, and also that of the extant 菩薩逝經 T528 to Bo Fazu 白法祖, originated in LDSBJ (clearly implying that both are groundless). He points out that Fei took those titles from the Zhangzhezi Shi jing 長者子逝經 in Sengyou’s “new” catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集失譯經, as well as the Shi jing 逝經 in Dao’an’s catalogue of anonymous scriptures 道安失譯. Fei used the same title, Shi jing 逝經 to fabricate another entry, the Pusa shi jing 菩薩誓經 ascribed to Juqu Jingsheng 京聲. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Kamata 1982] Kamata Shigeo 鎌田茂雄. Chūgoku bukkyō shi, dai ikkan: Shodenki no bukkyō 中国仏教史 第一巻 初伝期末の仏教. Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1982. — 299 |
Kamata challenges some of the ascriptions given to Bo Yuan 帛遠 (aka Bo Fazu 白法祖) in the Taishō [Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra 佛般泥洹經 T5; *Mahāprajāpatīparinirvāṇa-sūtra 大愛道般泥洹經 T144; Pusa xiuxing jing 菩薩修行經 T330; 菩薩逝經 Pusa shi jing T528; Xianzhe wu fude jing 賢者五福德經 T777; Kamata does not specify which are incorrect/correct --- IA]. Kamata states that [according to CSZJJ] Bo translated several texts, but no details about these works are unknown [Kamata is not clear here, but most likely referring to this CSZJJ passage: 常譯惟逮弟子本五部僧等三部經。又注首楞嚴經。又言。別譯數部小經值亂零失不知其名, T2145 (LV) 107c10-12 --- IA]. Dao’an does not list any works by him. Sengyou gives only a Weidai pusa jing 惟逮菩薩經. However, LDSBJ and other catalogues ascribe more than twenty titles to Bo, 帛遠, including the five ascribed to him in the Taishō. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. |
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 Shi jing 逝經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 或云菩薩逝經; 17a15. 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 identified by Hayashiya with the Pusa Shi jing 菩薩逝經 T528, attributed in the present canon (T) to Bai Fazu 白法祖. Entry author: Merijn ter Haar |
|