Pitāputrasamāgamanasūtra

From Bodhicitta
< TextsTexts/Pitāputrasamāgamanasūtra

🤓 Admin Zone 🛠️ hidden to non-admins
आर्यपितापुत्रसमागमननाममहायानसूत्र
Pitāputrasamāgamanasūtra
འཕགས་པ་ཡབ་དང་སྲས་མཇལ་བ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ཐེག་པ་ཆེན་པོའི་མདོ།
'phags pa yab dang sras mjal ba zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo
The Meeting of Father and Son (84000)
Text


Please note that many items in our library are simply pages that represent a detailed library catalog entry and citation of someone else's work, presentation, or performance. Read our General Disclaimer for more information.

Description

Pitāputrasamāgamasūtra. (T. Yab dang sras mjal ba'i mdo; C. Pusa jianshi jing/Fuzi heji jing; J. Bosatsu kenjitsukyō/Fushi gōjūkyō; K. Posal kyǒnsil kyǒng/Puja hapchip kyǒng 菩薩見實會/父子合集經. In Sanskrit, "Sūtra on the Meeting of Father and Son," a Mahāyāna scripture found in the Ratnakūṭasūtra, often cited in Madhyamaka texts, especially for its expositions of emptiness (śūnyatā) and the two truths (satyadvaya). It is quoted in such famous works as Nāgārjuna's Sūtrasamuccaya and Śāntideva's Śikṣāsamuccaya. The Pitāputrasamāgamasūtra was translated into Chinese by Rajendrayaśas in 568 as the Pusa jianshi jing and was included in the massive Dabaoji jing (Ratnakūṭasūtra) compilation. It was subsequently retranslated in the eleventh century by Richeng and others as the Fuzi heji jing. (Source: "Pitāputrasamāgamasūtra." In The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, 646–47. Princeton University Press, 2014. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt46n41q.27.)
Quoted in the aligned translations
Reference
Pitāputrasamāgamanasūtra [आर्यपितापुत्रसमागमननाममहायानसूत्र]. 'phags pa yab dang sras mjal ba zhes bya ba theg pa chen po'i mdo [འཕགས་པ་ཡབ་དང་སྲས་མཇལ་བ་ཞེས་བྱ་བ་ཐེག་པ་ཆེན་པོའི་མདོ།]. [The Meeting of Father and Son (84000)]. Translated by Śīlendrabodhi, Jinamitra, Dānaśīla, Ye shes sde, Narendrayaśas, Jih-ch'eng, Dharmarakṣa. Kangyur, RKTSK 60 http://www.rkts.org/cat.php?id=60&typ=1.
Interconnections
1 Scholarship
Yuyama Akira.jpg
Articles2002About this item
This article examines the canonical Buddhist texts cited by prominent Madhyamaka masters, particularly focusing on the textual-critical importance of their quotations. The author emphasizes that citations by masters such as Candrakīrti, Śāntideva, Kamalaśīla, and Prajñākaramati are invaluable for reconstructing and understanding canonical texts, especially when original manuscripts have been corrupted through transmission or are no longer extant. The paper outlines several research projects examining specific texts: the Prajñāpāramitāratnaguṇasaṃcayagāthā as cited by Candrakīrti in his Prasannapadā; the Pitāputrasamāgamasūtra quoted by multiple masters; fragments of the Suvarṇaprabhāsottamasūtra; and the Bhikṣuprakīrṇaka preserved in Śāntideva's Śikṣāsamuccaya. Through detailed philological analysis comparing Sanskrit manuscripts with Tibetan and Chinese versions, the author demonstrates how these citations reveal textual evolution and transmission patterns. The study particularly highlights Candrakīrti's faithful citation method and shows how comparing corrupted manuscript traditions with quoted passages enables scholars to reconstruct more authentic readings, serving both textual criticism and the history of Buddhist philosophical ideas.
1 A topic of
Yuyama Akira.jpg
Articles2002About this item
This article examines the canonical Buddhist texts cited by prominent Madhyamaka masters, particularly focusing on the textual-critical importance of their quotations. The author emphasizes that citations by masters such as Candrakīrti, Śāntideva, Kamalaśīla, and Prajñākaramati are invaluable for reconstructing and understanding canonical texts, especially when original manuscripts have been corrupted through transmission or are no longer extant. The paper outlines several research projects examining specific texts: the Prajñāpāramitāratnaguṇasaṃcayagāthā as cited by Candrakīrti in his Prasannapadā; the Pitāputrasamāgamasūtra quoted by multiple masters; fragments of the Suvarṇaprabhāsottamasūtra; and the Bhikṣuprakīrṇaka preserved in Śāntideva's Śikṣāsamuccaya. Through detailed philological analysis comparing Sanskrit manuscripts with Tibetan and Chinese versions, the author demonstrates how these citations reveal textual evolution and transmission patterns. The study particularly highlights Candrakīrti's faithful citation method and shows how comparing corrupted manuscript traditions with quoted passages enables scholars to reconstruct more authentic readings, serving both textual criticism and the history of Buddhist philosophical ideas.