Text: T1478; 大愛道比丘尼經; 大愛道受誠經; 大愛道經

Summary

Identifier T1478 [T]
Title 大愛道比丘尼經 [T]
Date 涼 [T]
Unspecified Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Heirman 2001]
Translator 譯 Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [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).

Assertions

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

Edit

No

[Hayashiya 1941]  Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 1001

Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows:

The recompiled catalogue of variant translations from the Liang country 新集安公涼土異經録 (Sengyou's reconstitution of a portion of Dao'an's catalogue):
A Da'aidao shou cheng jing 大愛道受誠經 is listed in this catalogue as two scrolls 巻 in length, and was extant at the time of Sengyou.

Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, Yancong’s Zhongjing mulu and KYL 開元錄:
Fajing listed a Da'aidao biqiuni jing 大愛道比丘尼經, viz., the Da'aidao shou cheng jing 大愛道受誠經, as an anonymous scripture, and Yancong followed him. KYL also lists the Da'aidao biqiuni jing with Da'aidao shou cheng jing and Da'aidao jing as alternate titles.

Taishō:
There is extant a Da'aidao biqiuni jing 大愛道比丘尼經 T1478. Hayashiya maintains that the vocabulary of this text is clearly of the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier, while containing quite a few peculiar words. Hence, Hayashiya concludes, it is natural to regard this text as an anonymous scripture translated in the Liangzhou 涼州 area in the W. Jin 西晋 period or earlier. KYL’s claim that this text was translated in the Liang 涼 period is incorrect.

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit

No

[Heirman 2001]  Heirman, Ann. "Chinese Nuns and Their Ordination in Fifth Century China." JIABS 24, no. 2 (2001): 275-304. — 284-289 and n. 48

Heirman refers to Hirakawa, Ritsuzō no kenkyū (1970): 273-274, who "points out...that it cannot be totally excluded that [T1478] is a Chinese compilation." Heirman herself notes that the text contains "many elements" that “refer to Mahāyāna ideas”. She also notes an extensive list of features of the story that have changed, in comparison with earlier versions. These have the overall effect of increasing the apparent misogyny of the text.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

No

[Hirakawa 1960/1999]  Hirakawa Akira 平川彰. Ritsuzō no kenkyū 律蔵の研究 1. Hirakawa Akira chosakushū 平川彰著作集, vol. 9. Shunjūsha, 1999 [1960]. — 281-282

Hirakawa notes that T1478 contains many Mahāyāna concepts. In part following the observations of Ōno Hōdō 大野法道 (Daijō kaikyō no kenkyū 大乗戒経の研究), he also notes that the ten precepts for śrāmaṇerīs 沙彌尼 appearing in the text appear irregular when compared with the same items as they are presented in Vinaya texts. Various technical terms are also used in the text in senses that do not correspond to that seen in the Vinaya. In short, there are many respects in which the text does not match Vinaya sources, and the text cannot plausibly be regarded as a Vinaya document of the nikāyas.

Hirakawa states that it is difficult to determine whether the text is a translation, or a Chinese composition. The current byline in the Taishō, stating that T1478 appears in the "Northern Liang catalogue" 附北涼錄, goes back to Zhisheng's KYL. However, prior to Zhisheng, the text was always treated as anonymous. In CSZJJ, it is listed as anonymous, and a text with a similar title appears in the "Reconstruction of Dao'an's Catalogue of Alternate Translations of Scripture from the Liang Territories" 新集安公涼土異經錄. Hirakawa notes that certain terms seem archaic (裘曇彌, 阿祇梨, 六度無極, 飛行皇帝), and suggests that it is therefore safe to regard the text as dating before Kumārajīva. However, he argues further that this would probably imply that the text is indeed a translation, since few Vinaya materials had been translated into Chinese in that period, and it is therefore difficult to imagine where any possible Chinese compilers of such a text would have got their information and raw materials.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit