| Identifier | T0153 [T] |
| Title | 菩薩本緣經 [T] |
| Date | after W. Jin (316) [Yan and Xiong 2010] |
| Unspecified | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Sakaino 1935] |
| Translator 譯 | Zhi Qian 支謙 [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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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 |
[Nattier 2008] Nattier, Jan. A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations: Texts from the Eastern Han 東漢 and Three Kingdoms 三國 Periods. Bibliotheca Philologica et Philosophica Buddhica X. Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2008. |
The traditional ascription to Zhi Qian is not regarded by Nattier as reliable. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Zürcher 1959/2007] Zürcher, Erik. The Buddhist Conquest of China: The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China. Third Edition. Leiden: Brill, 1959 (2007 reprint). — 50, 336 n. 137 |
|
According to Zürcher, Sengyou attributed thirty-six texts to Zhi Qian 支謙, of which twenty-three have survived. This entry lists texts which are ascribed to Zhi Qian in the present Taishō, yet do not appear among Sengyou’s attributions. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
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. — 134 |
Sakaino claims that the correct ascription of the Pusa benyuan jing 菩薩本縁經 [T153 ascribed to Zhi Qian] is unknown, because the terminology of the text is newer than that of Zhi Qian (e.g., 阿修羅 and 迦樓羅). Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Yan and Xiong 2010] Yan Qiamao 顏洽茂 and Xiong Juan熊娟. "Pusa benyuan jing zhuanjizhe he yizhe zhi kaobian"《菩薩本緣經》撰集者和譯者之考辨. Zhejiang Daxue xuebao 浙江大学学报 5 (2010): 55-63. |
In the Taishō, the Pusa benyuan jing 菩薩本緣經 T153 is ascribed to Zhi Qian 支謙. Yan and Xiong argue that this ascription is false, but they do not claim to be able to advance an alternate ascription, arguing rather that it should be treated as anonymous. They argue for a date later than the Three Kingdoms (220-280) or even W. Jin (266-316). Yan and Xiong base their argument on both the external evidence of catalogues, and internal, linguistic and stylistic evidence. In the catalogues, CSZJJ does not mention T153; it first appears in catalogues under the Sui. The principle items of terminology that they use to question the ascription to Zhi Qian are as follows: 地了 ("early morning"); 某甲; 涅槃; 摩睺羅伽 (*mahoraga); 阿修羅 (asura); 頗梨 (*phāṭika). The authors also cite grammatical usage inconsistent with Zhi Qian: 將非; interrogative particles 耶 and 乎; passives constructed with 為…所. They also argue that genre conventions found in T153 are atypical for Zhi Qian, specifically, a chapter structure beginning with gāthā and followed by prose. The opening of sūtras (nidāna) is also atypical for ZQ: 如我曾聞 or 我昔曾聞. On the history of various passive constructions, they cite: Tang Yuming 唐鈺明, “Han Wei liuchao beidongshi lüe" 漢魏六朝被動式略論枠. Chinese Language 3 (1987): 217-222. Yan and Xiong also advance arguments against the ascription of the Indic Vorlage for this text to *Saṅghasena 僧伽斯那. Entry author: Jiali He |
|
|
|
No |
[Fang and Lu 2023] Fang Yixin 方一新 and Lu Lu 盧鹭. “Jin shiyu nian cong yuyan jiaodu kaobian keyi Fojing chengguo de huigu yu zhanwang” 近十余年從語言角度考辨可疑佛經成果的回顧與展望.” Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences Online Edition), Jan. 2023: 1–24. — 8 |
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Chen Xiangming argues that the translation of the Pusa benyuan jing 菩薩本緣經 T153 does not predate the Western Jin dynasty, even could postdate the Eastern Jin dynasty. They refer to Chen Xiangming 陳祥明. “Cong yuyan jiaodu kan Pusa benyuan jing de yizhe ji fanyi niandai” 從語言角度看《菩薩本緣經》的譯者及翻譯年代. Changjiang xueshu 長江學術 2 (2010): 152–160. Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|
|
|
No |
[Fang and Lu 2023] Fang Yixin 方一新 and Lu Lu 盧鹭. “Jin shiyu nian cong yuyan jiaodu kaobian keyi Fojing chengguo de huigu yu zhanwang” 近十余年從語言角度考辨可疑佛經成果的回顧與展望.” Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences Online Edition), Jan. 2023: 1–24. — 8 |
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Wang Yili argues that the translation of the Pusa benyuan jing 菩薩本緣經 T153 postdates the Three Kingdoms period, and even possibly the Eastern Jin dynasty. They refer to Wang Yili 王毅力. “Cong ciyu jiaodu kan Pusa benyuan jing zhi yizhe yinian” 從詞語角度看《菩薩本緣經》之譯者譯年. Wuyi daxue xuebao (shehui kexue ban) 五邑大學學報（社會科學版） 2 (2011): 89–92. Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|