Nakamura, Hajime. Indian Buddhism: A Survey with Bibliographical Notes. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1987.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
Nakamura notes that some scholars have argued that “Five Evils” passage was added in China, but other scholars have argued that the same passage is an authentic Indian text. He refers to studies by [Ogiwara] Unrai and Ikemoto Jūshin. |
206 |
Nakamura notes that some scholars have argued that “Five Evils” passage was added in China, but other scholars have argued that the same passage is an authentic Indian text. He refers to studies by [Ogiwara] Unrai and Ikemoto Jushin. "Five Evils" section; Sukhavativyuha-sutra | |
|
“The Chüeh-kuan-lun by Master Tao-mo 達摩和尚絕觀論”, usually ascribed to Bodhidharma, “was virtually written by [Niutou Farong 牛頭法榮] (594-657).” The Wuxin lun 無心論is a “sisterwork”, also not by Bodhidharma. Nakamura refers to a study by Sekiguchi. |
174 |
“The Chueh-kuan-lun by Master Tao-mo 達摩和尚絕觀論”, usually ascribed to Bodhidharma, “was virtually written by [Niutou Farong 牛頭法榮] (594-657).” The Wuxin lun 無心論is a “sisterwork”, also not by Bodhidharma. Nakamura refers to a study by Sekiguchi. Niutou Farong 牛頭法榮 Damo heshang jue guan lun 達摩和尚絕觀論 |
|
Nakamura claims that the Jingtu yulanpen jing 淨土盂蘭盆經 is a “spurious scripture” composed in China around 600-650 AD. For a background to this assertion, Nakamura cites Okabe Kazuo, Suzuki nenpō, No. 2, 1965, (1966) 59-71. |
228 |
Nakamura claims that the Jingtu yulanpen jing 淨土盂蘭盆經 is a “spurious scripture” composed in China around 600-650 AD. For a background to this assertion, Nakamura cites Okabe Kazuo, Suzuki nenpo, No. 2, 1965, (1966) 59-71. Jingtu yulanpen jing 淨土盂蘭盆經 |
|
Nakamura mentions in passing that the 金剛三昧經 T273 (Vajrasamādhi-sūtra) was composed in China. He cites Mizuno Kōgen in Komazawa daigaku gakuhō, no. 13, 1955, pp. 33-57. |
173-174 |
Nakamura mentions in passing that the 金剛三昧經 T273 (Vajrasamadhi-sutra) was composed in China. He cites Mizuno Kogen in Komazawa daigaku gakuho, no. 13, 1955, pp. 33-57. T0273; 金剛三昧經 |
|
The 無量壽經 T360 (Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra) is “frequently considered” to have been translated by Saṅghavarman, but Nakamura suggests that it is likely to have been translated by Dharmarakṣa [竺法護---Nakamura has "Saṃgharakṣa" in error---MR]. He adds that there are “tremendous discrepancies” between the Chinese and the Sanskrit. Some scholars have argued that many passages were later additions by translators; for instance, some scholars have argued that “Five Evils” passage was added in China, but other scholars have argued that the same passage is an authentic Indian text. Nakamura cites: Unrai, p. 235. Discussed in detail by Jūshen Ikemoto in Ryūkoku daigaku ronshū, no. 350, Oct. 1955, p. 82 f; Ikemoto: IBK., vol. II, 1, p. 165 f.; Ryūkoku daigaku ronshū, no. 350, Oct. 1955, p. 82 ff.; cf. Unrai. |
206 |
The 無量壽經 T360 (Larger Sukhavativyuha-sutra) is “frequently considered” to have been translated by Sanghavarman, but Nakamura suggests that it is likely to have been translated by Dharmaraksa [竺法護---Nakamura has "Samgharaksa" in error---MR]. He adds that there are “tremendous discrepancies” between the Chinese and the Sanskrit. Some scholars have argued that many passages were later additions by translators; for instance, some scholars have argued that “Five Evils” passage was added in China, but other scholars have argued that the same passage is an authentic Indian text. Nakamura cites: Unrai, p. 235. Discussed in detail by Jushen Ikemoto in Ryukoku daigaku ronshu, no. 350, Oct. 1955, p. 82 f; Ikemoto: IBK., vol. II, 1, p. 165 f.; Ryukoku daigaku ronshu, no. 350, Oct. 1955, p. 82 ff.; cf. Unrai. Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 T0360; 佛說無量壽經; Sukhavativyuha-sutra |
|
Nakamura notes that some scholars consider Kumārajīva’s The Sūtra of Teachings Left by the Buddha [佛垂般涅槃略說教誡經 = 遺教經 T389] to be excerpts from the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, and others consider it to be drawn from the parinirvāṇa chapter of the Buddhacarita. [It is not entirely clear from Nakamura’s description whether he considers this “excerpting” to have been undertaken in India or China, but probably the former---he says “It seems to have been composed after Aśvaghoṣa.”] Nakamura cites: B. Matsumoto, Butten, p. 129 f; Kogetsu [complete works of Watanabe], p. 599 f. Cf. Ohno, p. 241 f. |
214-215 |
Nakamura notes that some scholars consider Kumarajiva’s The Sutra of Teachings Left by the Buddha [佛垂般涅槃略說教誡經 = 遺教經 T389] to be excerpts from the Mahaparinirvana-sutra, and others consider it to be drawn from the parinirvana chapter of the Buddhacarita. [It is not entirely clear from Nakamura’s description whether he considers this “excerpting” to have been undertaken in India or China, but probably the former---he says “It seems to have been composed after Asvaghosa.”] Nakamura cites: B. Matsumoto, Butten, p. 129 f; Kogetsu [complete works of Watanabe], p. 599 f. Cf. Ohno, p. 241 f. T0389; 佛垂般涅槃略說教誡經 |
|
Nakamura claims that the 大乘大集地藏十輪經 (Daśacakra-kṣitigarbha-sūtra) T411 was “compiled by Buddhist priests who spoke Iranian languages”. |
217 |
Nakamura claims that the 大乘大集地藏十輪經 (Dasacakra-ksitigarbha-sutra) T411 was “compiled by Buddhist priests who spoke Iranian languages”. T0411; 大乘大集地藏十輪經 |
|
Nakamura claims that 地藏菩薩本願經 T412 was “probably written in Khotan" [referring to “R. Hadani”]. He adds that “another view” argues that the sūtra “as it exists today” was produced by Chinese monks who enlarged and supplemented the Kṣitigarbha-praṇidhāna-sūtra, “in imitation of the Previous Vows (pūrvapraṇidhānas) of Amitābha Buddha.” Nakamura refers to Matsumoto Bunzaburō, Butten hihyō ron (1927), p. 269 f.; 315 f. |
217 |
Nakamura claims that 地藏菩薩本願經 T412 was “probably written in Khotan" [referring to “R. Hadani”]. He adds that “another view” argues that the sutra “as it exists today” was produced by Chinese monks who enlarged and supplemented the Ksitigarbha-pranidhana-sutra, “in imitation of the Previous Vows (purvapranidhanas) of Amitabha Buddha.” Nakamura refers to Matsumoto Bunzaburo, Butten hihyo ron (1927), p. 269 f.; 315 f. T0412; 地藏菩薩本願經 |
|
Nakamura claims that Kumārajīva’s translation of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra was not faithful to the “Sanskrit original” and in some sections he made “twisted interpretations” in order to emphasise “this-worldliness” and “social duty.” "He even used the term 'filial piety'. Kumārajīva’s version is more conspicuous in representing this-worldliness, emphasis on ethical behaviour, the attitude of admitting human desires and feelings, etc. than other versions. All Chinese versions advocate filial piety, which seems to have been lacking in the original text." Nakamura cites Toda Hirofumi for the assertion that Kumārajīva’s VKN "reflects...[Kumārajīva’s] unique thought", n. 15; and his own work for assertions about filial piety. |
225 |
Nakamura claims that Kumarajiva’s translation of the Vimalakirtinirdesa-sutra was not faithful to the “Sanskrit original” and in some sections he made “twisted interpretations” in order to emphasise “this-worldliness” and “social duty.” "He even used the term 'filial piety'. Kumarajiva’s version is more conspicuous in representing this-worldliness, emphasis on ethical behaviour, the attitude of admitting human desires and feelings, etc. than other versions. All Chinese versions advocate filial piety, which seems to have been lacking in the original text." Nakamura cites Toda Hirofumi for the assertion that Kumarajiva’s VKN "reflects...[Kumarajiva’s] unique thought", n. 15; and his own work for assertions about filial piety. T0475; 維摩詰所說經 |
|
Nakamura claims that the 修行道地經; 偷迦遮復彌經 T606 (*Yogācārabhūmi-sūtra), translated by Dharmarakṣa, “came into existence” in seven chapters, but ballooned to twenty-seven and then thirty chapters, which Nakamura claims were produced later than the “original” text. He states that the last three chapters were translated into Chinese separately and added to the present text sometime later than Dharmarakṣa. |
171 |
Nakamura claims that the 修行道地經; 偷迦遮復彌經 T606 (*Yogacarabhumi-sutra), translated by Dharmaraksa, “came into existence” in seven chapters, but ballooned to twenty-seven and then thirty chapters, which Nakamura claims were produced later than the “original” text. He states that the last three chapters were translated into Chinese separately and added to the present text sometime later than Dharmaraksa. Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 T0606; 偷迦遮復彌經 *Yogacarabhumi-sutra; 修行經; 修行道地經 |
|
Nakamura suggests that the 盂蘭盆經 (Ullambana-sūtra) T685 contains “kernel” of original Indic material, with later additions written by Chinese scholars in order to emphasise filial piety. |
228 |
Nakamura suggests that the 盂蘭盆經 (Ullambana-sutra) T685 contains “kernel” of original Indic material, with later additions written by Chinese scholars in order to emphasise filial piety. T0685; 佛說盂蘭盆經 |
|
"The [Xiao shi liu men 小室六門/Shao shi liu men 少室六門 T2009] is a collection of six works which were ascribed to Bodhidharma; five of the six are regarded as spurious.” [Nakamura does not provide any references to support this statement.] |
174 |
"The [Xiao shi liu men 小室六門/Shao shi liu men 少室六門 T2009] is a collection of six works which were ascribed to Bodhidharma; five of the six are regarded as spurious.” [Nakamura does not provide any references to support this statement.] T2009; 少室六門 |
|
Nakamura notes that D.T. Suzuki considered the Damo dashi si xing guan 達摩大師四行 [菩提達磨大師略辨大乘入道四行觀 X1217] to be a genuine work of Bodhidharma. However, Ui Hakuju regarded the text as by Huike 慧可, and Sekiguchi argued that it was written after the time of Facong 法聰 (468-559). |
174 |
Nakamura notes that D.T. Suzuki considered the Damo dashi si xing guan 達摩大師四行 [菩提達磨大師略辨大乘入道四行觀 X1217] to be a genuine work of Bodhidharma. However, Ui Hakuju regarded the text as by Huike 慧可, and Sekiguchi argued that it was written after the time of Facong 法聰 (468-559). X1217; 菩提達磨大師略辨大乘入道四行觀 |