Source: Radich DDBa

Radich, Michael. DDB s.v. 孔雀王呪經.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

"As Lévi points out, T987 overlaps with T986 in some passages, with simple variations; the bibliographic tradition was in the habit of attaching other material to these fragments; and the 'Kumārajīva' version also overlaps in some respects with the others, though in some cases it is 'mutilated' (mutilée), and it jumps around between different parts of the sequence of the text as known from other, more complete versions. Lévi concludes that all three texts are parts of the same original text, which were separated, garbled, and added to in transmission, and that the ascription of T988 to Kumārajīva is unreliable; Lévi (1915): 24-26." Referring to Lévi, Sylvain. "Le catalogue géographique des yakṣa dans la Mahāmāyūrī." Journal Asiatique 11 (1915): 19-137, esp. 24-26. Radich continues: "Sengyou already knew of various texts with titles related to Mahāmāyūrī: the Dakongque wang shenzhou 大孔雀王神呪 and the Kongque wang za shenzhou 孔雀王雜神呪, each in one fascicle, which he ascribes to *Śrīmitra 尸梨蜜 (fl. ca. 307–mid 4th c.), T 2145.55.10a16–19; and a Kongque jing 孔雀經 in one fascicle which he says was excerpted from the Sheng jing 生經, 27b11. He also mentions that Śrīmitra translated the text in his biography of him, 99a13–14. (Unsurprisingly, a text entitled Mahāmāyūrī is first ascribed to Kumārajīva by Fei Changfang, who did so much to multiply the number of problematic ascriptions in our bibliographic record; T 2034.49.78b10). However, even Sengyou says that one of the texts he catalogues is merely a 'miscellany' 雜 of dhāraṇīs. Given this, and the jumbled present condition of T 986–988, even if Lévi is right that these three texts are vestiges of a single text, we certainly cannot be sure that they derive from Śrīmitra's version."

Edit

Accessed July 27 2014.

 "As Levi points out, T987 overlaps with T986 in some passages, with simple variations; the bibliographic tradition was in the habit of attaching other material to these fragments; and the 'Kumarajiva' version also overlaps in some respects with the others, though in some cases it is 'mutilated' (mutilee), and it jumps around between different parts of the sequence of the text as known from other, more complete versions. Levi concludes that all three texts are parts of the same original text, which were separated, garbled, and added to in transmission, and that the ascription of T988 to Kumarajiva is unreliable; Levi (1915): 24-26." Referring to Levi, Sylvain. "Le catalogue geographique des yaksa dans la Mahamayuri." Journal Asiatique 11 (1915): 19-137, esp. 24-26. Radich continues: "Sengyou already knew of various texts with titles related to Mahamayuri: the Dakongque wang shenzhou 大孔雀王神呪 and the Kongque wang za shenzhou 孔雀王雜神呪, each in one fascicle, which he ascribes to *Srimitra 尸梨蜜 (fl. ca. 307–mid 4th c.), T 2145.55.10a16–19; and a Kongque jing 孔雀經 in one fascicle which he says was excerpted from the Sheng jing 生經, 27b11. He also mentions that Srimitra translated the text in his biography of him, 99a13–14. (Unsurprisingly, a text entitled Mahamayuri is first ascribed to Kumarajiva by Fei Changfang, who did so much to multiply the number of problematic ascriptions in our bibliographic record; T 2034.49.78b10). However, even Sengyou says that one of the texts he catalogues is merely a 'miscellany' 雜 of dharanis. Given this, and the jumbled present condition of T 986–988, even if Levi is right that these three texts are vestiges of a single text, we certainly cannot be sure that they derive from Srimitra's version." T0986; *Mahamayuri-[vidyarajni]-sutra; 大金色孔雀王呪經 T0987; *Mahamayuri-[vidyarajni]-sutra; 佛說大金色孔雀王呪經 T0988; 孔雀王呪經; *Mahamayuri-[vidyarajni]-sutra