| Name | Date | Notes | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
| Daolüe, 道略 | fl. ca. 405 | Daolue, 道略 | |
| Dharmaruci 曇摩流支 | d.u., fl. ca. 405 | In 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, 167. | Dharmaruci 曇摩流支 In Ono Genmyo 小野玄妙, Maruyama Takao 丸山孝雄, eds. Bussho kaisetsu daijiten 佛書解說大辭典. Tokyo: Daito shuppan, 1933-1936 [縮刷版 1999], Vol.5, 167. |
| Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 | 350-409/411? | Two main theories have been proposed about Kumārajīva's dates: 355-413, and 350-409. Funayama (2013): 28 opines that the latter dates are more persuasive. Tsukamoto (1954) argues for 350-409. Pelliot (2002) prefers 413; 16-17. Pelliot's is a detailed study, which lists a number of primary sources, including GSZ, CSZJJ, prefaces by such figures as Sengzhao, and secular sources such as the Qin shu 秦書; and mentions translations of the GSZ biography by Nobel, and other studies by Lévi, Edkins, and Nanjiō. He argues that the Qin shu biography is based upon another lost biography, and discusses difficulties interpreting the exact nature of the tradition about Kumārajīva’s wives and children (whether the initiative came from Kumārajīva himself, or from Yao Xing, etc.). Palumbo (2013): 105-106 follows Lévi to argue that both 344 and 350 are somewhat too early for Kumārajīva's birth date; a Chinese document dated 379 (CSZJJ 79c16-17) describing Buddhism in Kucha mentions a "young man" of great intelligence, which can be identified with Kumārajīva. Palumbo suggests he might have been born between 355 and 360. Hureau (2006):90/115 n. 8, cites work by Saitō, ICABS journal 2000, who draws upon details in the biographies and the writings of Sengzhao, and proposes that Kumārajīva died in 411 at the earliest. Hureau follows him, placing the death in 411 or perhaps 412 or 413. Felbur (2018) adduces important evidence, 131-132 n. 158, suggesting that Sengrui at times expressed a negative evaluation of Kumārajīva's grasp of Chinese, against the common view in scholarship that he had become "fluent" during his time as a hostage in Liangzhou (383-401). Hureau (2006): 93/112-96/109 provides a useful summary of sources suggesting, by contrast, that Kumārajīva's mastery of Chinese was strong, but she also notes that we have evidence that he still needed to continue to improve in Chinese, and did so, after his arrive in Chang'an (n. 27). | Kumarajiva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 Two main theories have been proposed about Kumarajiva's dates: 355-413, and 350-409. Funayama (2013): 28 opines that the latter dates are more persuasive. Tsukamoto (1954) argues for 350-409. Pelliot (2002) prefers 413; 16-17. Pelliot's is a detailed study, which lists a number of primary sources, including GSZ, CSZJJ, prefaces by such figures as Sengzhao, and secular sources such as the Qin shu 秦書; and mentions translations of the GSZ biography by Nobel, and other studies by Levi, Edkins, and Nanjio. He argues that the Qin shu biography is based upon another lost biography, and discusses difficulties interpreting the exact nature of the tradition about Kumarajiva’s wives and children (whether the initiative came from Kumarajiva himself, or from Yao Xing, etc.). Palumbo (2013): 105-106 follows Levi to argue that both 344 and 350 are somewhat too early for Kumarajiva's birth date; a Chinese document dated 379 (CSZJJ 79c16-17) describing Buddhism in Kucha mentions a "young man" of great intelligence, which can be identified with Kumarajiva. Palumbo suggests he might have been born between 355 and 360. Hureau (2006):90/115 n. 8, cites work by Saito, ICABS journal 2000, who draws upon details in the biographies and the writings of Sengzhao, and proposes that Kumarajiva died in 411 at the earliest. Hureau follows him, placing the death in 411 or perhaps 412 or 413. Felbur (2018) adduces important evidence, 131-132 n. 158, suggesting that Sengrui at times expressed a negative evaluation of Kumarajiva's grasp of Chinese, against the common view in scholarship that he had become "fluent" during his time as a hostage in Liangzhou (383-401). Hureau (2006): 93/112-96/109 provides a useful summary of sources suggesting, by contrast, that Kumarajiva's mastery of Chinese was strong, but she also notes that we have evidence that he still needed to continue to improve in Chinese, and did so, after his arrive in Chang'an (n. 27). |