| Identifier | T0417 [T] |
| Title | Pratyutpannabuddhasammukhāvasthitasamādhi-sūtra [Nattier 2008] |
| Date | 光和二年 (179 CE) [Jiu lu CSZJJ] |
| Unspecified | *Lokakṣema, 支婁迦讖 [Hayashiya 1945] |
| Revised | Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 [Sakaino 1935] |
| "handle the Indic text", [手]執梵[文], [手]執胡[本] | Zhu Shuofo 竺朔佛/Zhu Foshuo 竺佛朔 [Sakaino 1935] |
| Translator 譯 | *Lokakṣema, 支婁迦讖 [T] |
| [orally] "translate/interpret" 傳語, 口宣[...言], 傳譯, 度語 | *Lokakṣema, 支婁迦讖 [Sakaino 1935] |
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 |
[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. — 6 |
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 Weihui argues that the Banzhou sanmei jing 般舟三昧經 T417 (Pratyupannabuddhasaṃmukhāvasthitasamādhi-sūtra) was not translated by Lokakṣema, based on a linguistic examination. Fang and Gao provide additional evidence to support Wang’s argument. They refer to Wang Weihui 汪維輝. “Cong yuyan jiaodu lun yijuanben Banzhou sanmei jing fei Zhi Chen suo yi” 從語言角度論一卷本《般舟三昧經》非支讖所譯. In Yuyan xue luncong 語言學論叢, vol. 35, edited by Beijing daxue Hanyu yuyanxue yanjiu zhongxin 北京大學漢語語言學研究中心, 303–319. Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 2007; Fang Yixin 方一新 and Gao Lieguo 高列過. Donghan yi wei Fojing de yuyan xue kaobian yanjiu 東漢疑偽佛經的語言學考辨研究. Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 2012: 172–199. Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|
|
|
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 |
[Fang and Gao 2012a] Fang Yixin 方一新 and Gao Lieguo 高列過. Dong Han yi wei Fojing de yuyan xue kaobian yanjiu 東漢疑偽佛經的語言學考辨研究. Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 2012. — 172-199 |
The Banzhou sanmei jing 般舟三昧經 T417 is attributed to Lokakṣema in the Taishō canon, but scholars have questioned this attribution. Fang and Guo argue that it is impossible that T417 was translated by Lokakṣema, and instead, it more likely postdates the W. Jin. This assertion is based on their examination of the phraseology and grammar in T417. They specifically analyze two types of phraseology (see below), revealing that many expressions in this scripture cannot be found in the translations from the E. Han, but do appear in texts postdating the W. Jin. a) Buddhist terminology: b) idiom 習語: In terms of grammar, they examine certain interrogative pronouns in T418, which show significant differences compared to the translations from the E. Han and those attributed to Lokakṣema: 云何, 何以故, 何等, 何, 何所, 何所, 幾, 何人, 所以者何 Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|
|
|
Yes |
[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. — 119 n. 25 |
Nattier does not regard the ascription to Lokakṣema as reliable. Nattier says that it contains six-character verse, like T418 (which, for this reason, is regarded as probably revised by Zhi Qian), and that the verses of the two texts should therefore be compared. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Zürcher 1991] Zürcher, Erik. "A New Look at the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Texts." in Koichi Shinohara and Gregory Schopen, eds. From Benares to Beijing: Essays on Buddhism and Chinese Religion in Honour of Prof. Jan Yün-hua, 277-304. Oakville, Canada: Mosaic Press, 1991. — 298 |
Zürcher argues that the Banzhou sanmei jing 般舟三昧經 (Pratyutpannabuddhasammukhāvasthitasamādhi-sūtra) T417 is a “later ‘polished’ extract” based upon T418. For an in-depth study of internal evidence, Zürcher cites Paul Harrison, The Pratyutpanna-buddha-saṃmukhāvasthita-samādhi-sūtra, an annotated English translation of the Tibetan version (PhD. Dissertation, A.N.U.), Canberra, 1979, Appendix A, esp. pp. 200-235. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Harrison 1990] Harrison, Paul. The Samādhi of Direct Encounter with the Buddhas of the Present: An Annotated English Translation of the Pratyutpanna-Buddha-Saṃmukhāvasthita-Samādhi-Sūtra. Tokyo: The International Institute for Buddhist Studies, 1990. — 250-254, 264-266 |
Harrison argues that the 般舟三昧經 T417 (BZSMJ in one juan) is a “later abridgement” of the 般舟三昧經 T418 (BZSMJ in three juan), rather than an independent translation. In his discussion of T418, Harrison divides the text into Redaction A, corresponding to chapters 1-6 of the Korean edition, and Redaction B, which consists of chapters 7-26 of the Korean edition as well as all chapters of the version belonging to the Song, Yuan and Ming Dynasties. T417 follows Redaction B of T418; wherever B differs markedly from A, T417 follows B. According to Harrison, T417 appears to be the result of a “scissors-and-paste job” which is most evident in the gāthās, where the author has selected pādās from different verses of redaction B and recombined them to form new verses. Within T417 there appear to be occasional misunderstandings of the original text, which have also been noticed by Zürcher. (Zürcher, Erik. “A New Look at the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Texts”, with Appendix: “Buddhist Texts of the Later Han Period” (unpublished paper delivered at the Symposium on State, Ideology and Justice in Early Imperial China, Leiden, Sept. 1975), 14, n. 19. The author of T417 appears to have updated many of Lokakṣema’s renderings: in T418 Amitābha advises bodhisattvas that they must “call me to mind repeatedly” if they wish to be reborn in Sukhāvatī, whereas in T417 the bodhisattvas are told to “call to mind my name;” in T418 the bodhisattvas should think of Amitābha preaching to an “assembly of bhikṣus,” while T417 it is to a group of bodhisattvas. According to Harrison, these differences indicate the influence of Pure Land theory and terminology; and rather than reflecting the original text of the PraS, betray the use of the abridged sūtra as a “support for Pure Land practice.” These alterations make the attribution to Lokakṣema illogical. Furthermore, given the “modern” terminology, we can date its composition to around 300 or later. Harrison then examines external evidence. Sengyou’s catalogue indicates that Dao’an attributed a text entitled Banzhou sanmei jing to Lokakṣema, as did the Jiu lu, and both indicated that Lokakṣema either translated or published the translation on the “eighth day of the tenth month, 179 C.E.” (which, as Harrison points out, is the same date on which he released the DXJ!). In addition, a colophon to the BZSMJ (by an unknown author) tells us that Lokakṣema translated the text along with Zhu Foshuo, an Indian who was also involved in the translation of the Aṣṭa (which, according to Harrison, raises the possibility that the PraS was brought from India at the same time). Zhu Foshuo is said to have “recited the text in the original language, while Lokakṣema translated it orally into Chinese for his Chinese assistants to take down in writing”. Fei Changfang attributed an additional translation of the PraS to Zhu Foshuo, but Harrison considers this to be improbable. Additional evidence for the text’s attribution to Lokakṣema can be found in another colophon (written by Zhi Mindu). Thus, Harrison claims, “the attribution of a work entitled BZSMJ to Lokakṣema is well established in the earliest sources.” Harrison adds that “since Sengyou does not mention any other extant works with this title, we can assume that there were only two works of that name;” the longer version popularly attributed to Dharmarakṣa, and the shorter to Lokakṣema (T417). The Fajing lu attributed a two juan version to Dharmarakṣa, and lists a one juan, separate and partial, translation by Lokakṣema. However, after its appearance in the Fajing lu Lokakṣema’s version in one juan disappears. It is not mentioned by LDSBJ, and the Renshou lu, Jingtai lu and DZKZM list it among lost texts. The text did not appear in the Song, Yuan or Ming editions of the Canon, nor the Jisha edition. Yet it surfaced in the Korean edition, and has since found its way to the Taishō as T417. How it did so, Harrison writes, remains a mystery. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
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). — 35, 332-333 n. 95 |
Zürcher argues that the Banzhou sanmei jing (Pratyutpannabuddhasaṃukhāvasthitasamādhi-sūtra) T417/418 is one of only two extant texts for which Dao’an’s attribution to *Lokakṣema was more than “hypothetical” (the second being T224) on the basis of its mention in the CSZJJ II and an anonymous colophon (ib. VII 48.3.9 sqq.). Zürcher adds that the textual origins of this scripture are complicated, and scholars who have studied the text have reached very different opinions. Zürcher cites Hayashiya Tomojirō (Kyōroku-kenkyū, pp. 544-578) who “discusses the opinions of former specialists” such as Sakaino Kōyō and Mochizuki Shinkō; after a careful comparison of the two versions, Hayashiya concludes that the version in in one juan (T417) is “an abstract made from the earlier more extensive text.” The more extensive text being the one in three juan (T418) which Hayashiya considers the original translation by *Lokakṣema. He adds that besides these two texts, there is another “short and archaic version” (the Babei pusa jing 拔陂菩薩經 T419) which "probably dates from Han times." Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Hayashiya 1945] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎, Iyaku kyōrui no kenkyū‚ 異譯經類の研究, Tokyo: Tōyō bunko, 1945. — 544-578 |
Hayashiya discusses the texts/titles he refers to as the Banzhou sanmei jing 般舟三昧經 (*Pratyutpannasamādhi-sutra) group. Among those, he chiefly discusses the ascriptions of and the relation between the Banzhou sanmei jing 般舟三昧經 T417 (*Pratyutpannabuddhasaṃmukhāvasthitisamādhi-sūtra) ascribed to *Lokakṣema 支婁迦讖 and the Banzhou sanmei jing 般舟三昧經 T418, also ascribed to *Lokakṣema. Though both texts are ascribed to Lokakṣema, they differ considerably in length: T417 is slightly shorter than 15 registers long, with 8 chapters 品, while T418 is 50 registers long with 16 chapters. Hayashiya examines the relation between T417 and T418, and argues that T417 is just a shortened version of T418, and thus should be excised. This is because there are close overlaps between the two (he shows sample paragraphs on 560-563), which would not have been possible if the shorter T417 had been translated separately, referring to T418 merely as an aid. In addition, there is a part in T417 in which an unclear point in T418 was apparently clarified (564). Hayashiya agrees with the ascription of T418 to *Lokakṣema, pointing out that the vocabulary and tone of T418 show a perfect match with Lokakṣema’s other works, such as the Daoxing jing 道行經 (555-558). Thus, Hayashiya asserts that T417 should be excised, while the ascription of T418 to Lokakṣema is correct. [According to Hayashiya, T418 was initially ascribed to Dharmarakṣa 法護 by Dao’an, probably based on an incorrect description in the Banzhou sanmei jing ji 般舟三昧經記 (569-570). This ascription was accepted by a number of catalogues after Dao’an. The correct ascription to Lokakṣema was first given by LDSBJ, as a byproduct of Fei’s misunderstanding: He apparently misunderstood the length of the shorter T417, and listed it as a new, longer Banzhou sanmei jing translated by Lokakṣema, separately from the one ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. After that, KYL adopted that ascription to Lokakṣema for the extant, longer Banzhou sanmei jing (according to Hayashiya, the only authentic version that ever existed), which had long been incorrectly ascribed to Dharmarakṣa (572-573).] 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. — 890-891 |
Sakaino notes the following two notes in KYL, on different versions of the Pratyutpannabuddhasammukhāvasthitasamādhi: 一名十方現在佛悉在前立定經舊錄云大般舟三昧經或二卷光和二年譯初出與大集賢護經等同本見聶道真錄及吳錄, T2154 (LV) 478c9-10 (in a list of texts ascribed to *Lokakṣema). 光和二年十月八日出見經後記高僧傳等二經同時啟夾故出日同也舊錄云大般舟三昧經或一卷第二出與大集賢護經等同本, T2154 (LV) 482b16-17 (ascribing this version of the text to Zhu Foshuo 竺佛朔). Sakaino argues that these notes demonstrate that even Zhisheng is sometimes unreliable, since they indicate, implausibly, that two versions of the text (in 2 juan, and in 3 juan) were completed in the same year (光和 2 = 179 CE). All we can conclude on the basis of these notes is that a single version of the text in either 1 or 2 juan was translated by Zhu Foshuo/Shuofo 朔佛 and *Lokakṣema together in 179. The ascription of the 3 juan version [Sakaino also points out elsewhere that this version is also recorded as 2 juan in some catalogues ---AI] to *Lokakṣema in KYL is therefore incorrect. 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. — 101-102 |
|
According to Sakaino, Dao’an endorsed twelve texts as the works of *Lokakṣema 支讖, seven of which are extant. 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. — 887-888, 306 |
Sakaino points out that an anonymous preface to the Pratyutpannabuddhasammukhāvasthitasamādhi 般舟三昧經, preserved in CSZJJ, appears to state anachronistically that Dharmarakṣa was the oral translator/interpreter 傳言 for *Lokakṣema’s translation of the text: 般舟三昧經。光和二年[179 CE]十月八日。天竺菩薩竺朔佛。於洛陽出。菩薩法護。時傳言者。月支菩薩支讖授與。河南洛陽孟福字元士。隨侍菩薩。張蓮字少安筆受... T2145 (LV) 48c10-16. Sakaino suggests that despite the anachronism, this report may preserve in a garbled form a faint shadow of a historical memory that Dharmarakṣa at some point revised the text. 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. — 883-890 |
A Banzhou sanmei jing 本般舟三味經 in one juan is ascribed to *Lokakṣema in CSZJJ, and should correspond to the extant T417. CSZJJ does not record a Banzhou sanmei jing ascribed to Zhu Shuofo 竺朔佛. It was LDSBJ that first recorded separately a Banzhou sanmei jing ascribed to *Lokakṣema and another ascribed to Zhu Shuofo. Sakaino points out that Fei took the former entry from CSZJJ, and the latter from GSZ. Sakaino states, however, that CSZJJ and GSZ might well have recorded the same text, in the translation of which both Zhu Shuofo and *Lokakṣema were involved, the former handling the text 執本, and the latter as oral translator 傳語. Sakaino also mentions the possibility that *Lokakṣema translated the one juan, incomplete version T417 first, and the three-juan, complete version T418, the base text of which was brought to China by Zhu Shuofo, only later, as in the case of the “excerpted” Prajñāpāramitā 般若鈔經 [cf. 摩訶般若鈔經 T226 ascribed to 曇摩蜱譯 and 竺佛念] and the Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā 道行般若經 (T224 ascribed to *Lokakṣema). Sakaino maintains that both T417 and T418 should be *Lokakṣema’s works, but revised by Dharmarakṣa. He discusses the following characteristics of the vocabulary of T417 and T418 as part of his support for this claim: The differences between the vocabulary of the one-juan version (T417) and that of the three-juan version (T418) are not substantial enough to regard the two texts as translated by different translators. Examples are: nirvāṇa: 涅槃 T417, 泥洹 418; yakṣa: 夜叉 T417, 閲叉 418; and kiṃnara: 甄陀羅 T417, 眞陀羅 418. 涅槃 for nirvāṇa in T417 appears odd, as *Lokakṣema always used 泥洹, but it is [according to Sakaino – MR] explicable if Dharmarakṣa later revised the text. For kiṃnara, *Lokakṣema uses mostly 甄陀羅 or 甄陀, very rarely 眞陀羅. Dharmarakṣa uniformly used 眞陀羅. Many other words are, according to Sakaino, used by both *Lokakṣema and Dharmarakṣa, and so are not useful in determining ascriptions, e.g., 阿耨多羅三耶三菩阿惟三佛, 薩阿竭阿羅訶三耶三佛, 摩訶衍三拔致薩芸若, and 摩訶僧那僧涅. Sakaino maintains that 恒邊沙 (for “the sands of the river Ganges”), seen in T418, appears only in *Lokakṣema’s work [sic—it also appears in the “Larger” Prajñāpāramitā 放光般若經 T221 ascribed to Mokaṣala 無羅叉, and some other texts in the PP line; scattered in small concentrations in some other works ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, e.g. T263, T266, T323, T342, T378, T401, T433, T598, T810, T811; and outside Dharmarakṣa and PP, in several texts like T269, T309, T356, T434, T621, T632, T760, T816 and T1507 --- AI/MR]. Sakaino points out that a note on T417 entitled Banzhou sanmei jing ji 般舟三昧經記 contains confusions, including a claim that Dharmarakṣa was the oral translator for Lokakṣema, which is chronologically impossible. In addition, CSZJJ comments on the Banzhou sanmei jing ascribed to Dharmarakṣa that Dao'an's catalogue calls it a "reissue" 安公錄云更出般舟三昧經, T2145 (LV) 8a1. Sakaino conjectures that Dharmarakṣa might well have revised T417 perhaps because he obtained a different original, which would explain those [apparently confused] records. Sakaino maintains that the extant T418 was translated by Dharmarakṣa. The ascription of a Banzhou sanmei jing 般舟三昧經 in three juan to Dharmarakṣa was first given by Jingtai. Jingtai states that the text sometimes also circulated in two juan, forty-seven sheets. KYL classifies a two juan Banzhou sanmei jing ascribed to Dharmarakṣa as lost, while ascribing the three juan Banzhou sanmei jing to *Lokakṣema. Sakaino points out that as no catalogues before KYL record the three juan version ascribed to *Lokakṣema. Probably Zhisheng mistook the three-juan version he saw for *Lokakṣema’s work, while simultaneously classifying Dharmarakṣa’s version as lost, overlooking the record of the three-juan version ascribed to Dharmarakṣa in Jingtai. In addition, KYL gives the same year of translation (Guanghe 光和 2, 179 CE) for the three juan 般舟三昧經 to *Lokakṣema and for the two juan version of the text ascribed to Zhu Shuofo, which, Sakaino states, shows the carelessness of Zhisheng (これ明に智昇の杜撰を暴露するものである). According to Sakaino, the fact that the translation year is the same indicates that Zhu Shuofo and *Lokakṣema worked together in translating the one-juan/two-juan version of the text. Sakaino thinks that the variation in length is due to the existence of incomplete and complete versions. By contrast, the three juan version ascribed to Dharmarakṣa should be the extant T418, since it has never been recorded as lost (except in KYL). Sakaino infers that T418 is Dharmarakṣa’s revision of the two juan version ascribed to Zhu Shuofo (with *Lokakṣema as the oral translator), which explains why Dharmarakṣa’s version is said variously to be in two or three juan. Sakaino adds that the one juan version of the text that he regards as genuinely due to *Lokakṣema, T417, should also have been revised by Dharmarakṣa. 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. — 107-108 |
According to Sakaino, the Pratyupannabuddhasaṃmukhāvasthitasamādhi-sūtra 般舟三昧經 ascribed to *Lokakṣema is actually the same text as the one ascribed to Zhu Shuofo 竺朔佛, and LDSBJ and other scriptural catalogues are incorrect in recording as if *Lokakṣema and Zhu Shuofo separately produced two different translations. It is true, however, that there existed two versions of the Pratyupannabuddhasaṃmukhāvasthitasamādhi-sūtra, one incomplete (1 juan, cf. T417) and one complete (2 juan, cf. T418, which however is today in 3 juan?), but Sakaino explains that probably *Lokakṣema and Zhu Shuofo translated those two versions together, not separately. The extant three-juan version (T418) is Dharmarakṣa’s revision of the two-juan version by *Lokakṣema and Zhu Shuofo. Sakaino states that he will discuss these texts further in a later chapter [in the same book], without specifying where. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Jiu lu CSZJJ] Jiu lu 舊錄 as reported by CSZJJ 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 6b12 |
Sengyou cites a/the Jiu lu 舊錄 as a source for information about the 般舟[般]三昧經, including a date for its translation (179 CE): 般舟般[-SYM]三昧經一[二SYM]卷(舊錄云大般舟三昧經光和二年十月[＋初SYM]八日出) Entry author: Michael Radich |
|