| Identifier | T1437 [T] |
| Title | 十誦比丘尼波羅提木叉戒本 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Unspecified | Faxian, 法顯 [Sakaino 1935] |
| "handle the Indic text", [手]執梵[文], [手]執胡[本] | Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 [Sakaino 1935] |
| Compiler 編集 | Faying, 法頴 [Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936] |
| Translator 譯 | Faxian, 法顯, Faying, 法穎 [T] |
| [orally] "translate/interpret" 傳語, 口宣[...言], 傳譯, 度語 | Tanmoshi 曇摩侍 [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 |
[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 |
[Hirakawa 2000] Hirakawa, Akira平川彰. Ritsuzō no kenkyū 2 律藏の研究II. Tokyo: Sankibō Busshorin, 2000. — 77 |
Hirakawa notes that T1437 was compiled by Faying 法穎. It was mainly excerpted from the section on the Bhikṣuṇī rules in fascicles 42-47 of Sarvāstivāda Vinaya translated by Kumārajīva, Shisong lü 十誦律T1435. The section on the Bhikṣuṇī precepts in T1435 does not have 共戒, 眾學法 and 七滅諍法. Faying supplemented these parts, and thus made T1437 a complete Bhikṣuṇī Prātimokṣa. Entry author: Lin Qian |
|
|
|
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. — 280-281 |
Quoting a document entitled 關中近出尼二種檀文夏坐雜十二事并雜事共卷前中後三記 (CSZJJ, T2145 [LV] 81b19-82a17), Sakaino summarises details about the process of translation of a Bhikṣuṇī Prātimokṣa, which he identifies with the Sarvāstivāda Shi song biqiuni jie ben 十誦比丘尼戒本 T1437. According to Sakaino’s summary: The original text was given by 佛圖舌彌 (Buddhaśamī?) in Kuchā 龜玆 to Sengchun 僧純 and Tanchong 曇充. Not only the 尼戒本, but other similar materials (壇文, 夏坐, and 雑事) were also translated. Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 “handled the text” 執本, and Tanmoshi 曇摩侍 was the “oral translator/interpreter” 傳語. 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. — 534-535 |
The last part of the Fo guo ji 佛國記 contains a sentence reading 夏坐訖法顯離諸師久欲趣長安。但所營事重。遂便南下向都。就禪師出經律藏; T2085 (LI) 866b15-17. Sakaino reads this sentence to mean that after arriving in Qingzhou 青州, Faxian wanted to go to Chang'an 長安 to see his teachers and friends again, but decided to go to Jiankang 建康 instead because Buddhabhadra, a prominent translator of scriptures, was there, and it was more important to contribute to the diffusion of the Dharma. Sakaino infers that the translation work of the texts ascribed to Faxian was actually done by Buddhabhadra, and Faxian’s role in translating was rather small. Those texts were ascribed/co-ascribed to Faxian out of respect to him as the one who brought the original to China. Sakaino claims that this background explains why catalogues often differ regarding the ascription of texts related to Faxian. For example, T1425 (ascribed today to Buddhabhadra and Faxian) is classified as Faxian’s work in CSZJJ (following CSZJJ’s general policy to list all the scriptures brought to China by Faxian as Faxian’s work). On the other hand, LDSBJ and other catalogues following it, such as KYL, ascribe the scripture to Buddhabhadra, although LDSBJ adds a note reading 共法顯譯. 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. — 792 |
Sakaino states that after the translation of the longer/full Vinaya 廣律, the “Bhikṣunī Prātimokṣa in Ten Recitations” (?) 十誦尼戒本 was lost as a separate text, but Faying 法頴 edited a new version of the text [from the full Vinaya 廣律; cf. T1437]. The biography of Faying 法頴 in GSZ records that he composed this and other texts 撰十誦戒本并羯磨等 (T2059 [L] 402a15). Some sources incorrectly record that Faying 法頴 actually compiled 集 the text himself. 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. — 534-535 |
Sakaino reads a sentence in the last part of the Foguo ji 佛國記 (夏坐訖法顯離諸師久欲趣長安。但所營事重。遂便南下向都。就禪師出經律藏 (T2085 [LI] 866b15-17) as describing the situation that, after arriving in Qingzhou 青州, Faxian wanted to go to Chang'an 長安 to see his teachers and friends, but decided to go to Jiankang 建康 instead, because Buddhabhadra, a prominent translator of scriptures, was there, and it was more important to contribute to the diffusion of the Dharma than to go to Chang'an. From this understanding, Sakaino infers that the translation work of the texts ascribed to Faxian was actually done by Buddhabhadra, and Faxian’s role in translating was rather small. Those texts were ascribed/co-ascribed to Faxian out of respect to him as the one who brought the original to China. Then Sakaino claims that this background explains why catalogues often differ regarding the ascription of those texts related to Faxian. For example, the 僧祇律 (摩訶僧祇律 T1425 ascribed to Buddhabhadra and Faxian) is classified as Faxian’s work in CSZJJ (as it is CSZJJ’s policy to list all the scriptures brought to China by Faxian as Faxian’s work), while LDSBJ and other catalogues following it, such as KYL, ascribe the scripture to Buddhabhadra (although LDSBJ adds a note reading 共法顯譯). Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936] Ono Genmyō 小野玄妙, Maruyama Takao 丸山孝雄, eds. Bussho kaisetsu daijiten 佛書解說大辭典. Tokyo: Daitō shuppan, 1933-1936 [縮刷版 1999]. — vol. 5, p. 166 |
Sakaino Kōyō's 境野黄洋 description of 十誦比丘尼波羅提木叉戒本 T1437 includes the following pieces of information: The Taishō byline recording that the 十誦比丘尼波羅提木叉戒本 T1437 was compiled 集出 by Faxian 法顯 is incorrect. It was in fact Faying 法頴 who did the compilation work. This mistake was probably caused by taking the character 頴 in 法頴 as 顯. According to GSZ, Faying became an overseer of the Sangha 僧主 by imperial order in the Xiao Qi 蕭齊 period. The 十誦戒本 and 羯磨 mentioned in GSZ as compiled by Faying should refer to the 十誦比丘尼戒本 and 十誦律羯磨雜事 listed in CSZJJ as his works. [In fact, Taishō vol. 23 p. 479 n. 9 records a variant reading in YMP that gives the ascription to Faying --- MR.] Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|