Text: T1289; 佛說金毘羅童子威德經

Summary

Identifier T1289 [T]
Title 佛說金毘羅童子威德經 [T]
Date [None]
Translator 譯 Amoghavajra, 不空, 不空金剛, 阿目佉, 阿謨伽 [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

[Young DDB]  Young, Stuart. DDB s.v. 金毘羅童子威德經. — Accessed April 2014.

"It is purportedly a translation, in one scroll 卷, attributed to Amoghavajra 不空 in the latter half of the eighth century....The overall intent of the Scripture on Kumbhīra was apparently to draw together a broad spectrum of ritual practices prevalent in medieval China—those traditionally associated with both Buddhism and Daoism—and assert that they all originated with Śākyamuni (in the guise of the thousand-armed, thousand-headed Prince Kumbhīra) and the exalted bodhisattvas who step forth from his audience....probably...dates to no later than the early ninth century."

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

No

[Strickmann 2002]  Strickmann, Michel. Chinese Magical Medicine. Edited by Bernard Faure. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002. — 229

Strickmann writes: "Properly speaking, many of [Amoghavajra's 167 'translations'] were not translations at all. Instead, they might better be called 'adaptations’; essentially, he refurbished them in line with his own terminology and ritual practice. This becomes even more striking in those cases where texts 'translated' by Amoghavajra are known to have been written in China centuries earlier, and directly in Chinese. A substantial part of Amoghavajra’s output thus comprises revisions of books already known in China, rather than new materials. Among the remaining, a good many cannot be found either in corresponding Sanskrit manuscripts or in Tibetan translation – at least not in the form in which Amoghavajra presents them. Much of what his texts tell us unquestionably goes back to Indian sources; he was clearly working fully within the Tantric Buddhist tradition, but often more as an author or compiler than as a translator in our sense of the term."

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit