Text: T1299; 文殊師利菩薩及諸仙所說吉凶時日善惡宿曜經

Summary

Identifier T1299 [T]
Title 文殊師利菩薩及諸仙所說吉凶時日善惡宿曜經 [T]
Date 759; 764 [Yano 2013]
Revised Yang Jingfeng 楊景風 [Yano 2013]
Translator 譯 Amoghavajra, 不空, 不空金剛, 阿目佉, 阿謨伽 [T]
Amanuensis 筆受 Shi Yao 史瑤 [Yano 2013]

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

[Goble 2012]  Goble, Geoffrey. “Chinese Esoteric Buddhism: Amoghavajra and the Ruling Elite.” PhD dissertation, Indiana University, 2012. — 87-88 n. 1

Goble notes in passing that the Wenshushili pusa ji zhuxian suoshuo jixiong shiri shan’e suyao jing 文殊師利菩薩及諸仙所說吉凶時日善惡宿曜經 T1299 is “almost certainly not a product of Amoghavajra’s translation project.” He does not elaborate on the reasons for making this claim.

Entry author: Sophie Florence

Edit

No

[Yano 2013]  Yano Michio 矢野道雄. Mikkyō sensei jutsu 密教占星術. Tokyo: Toyoshoin: 2013. — 12-25, 226-264

Yano argues that the Taishō version of the 文殊師利菩薩及諸仙所說吉凶時日善惡宿曜經 T1299 is not the original work by Amoghavajra's team(s), but rather is a heavily modified version; and the preface to the Taishō version does not specify that the text is comprised of two recensions. Yano identifies the first fascicle as being the revised recension of the text done with the assistance of Yang Jingfeng 楊景風 in 764. Yang Jingfeng added running commentary to the text. The second fascicle was the earlier version done with the assistance of Shi Yao 史瑤 in 759. This is expressly stated in the preface of the original recension of the text preserved in Japan, for which see Wakita, Bunshō 脇田文紹, ed. Sukuyō-kyō shukusatsu 宿曜經縮刷. Nagoya: Wakita Bunshō, 1897. The key line reads: 今此經文見有有両本、一是史揺瑤初筆本、二是楊景風再加修注本.

Entry author: Jeffrey Kotyk

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