| Identifier | T0389 [T] |
| Title | 佛垂般涅槃略說教誡經 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Unspecified | Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 [Sakaino 1935] |
| Translator 譯 | Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 [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).
| 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 |
|
|
|
No |
[Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936] 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]. — s.v., Vol.9, 302-305 (Fukaura Seibun 深浦正文) |
According to Fukaura Seibun 深浦正文,the Fo chui banniepan lüe shuo jiao jie jing 佛垂般涅槃略說教誡經 T389 has a number of alternate titles, all of which indicate precisely the content of the text, which is the Buddha’s last sermon shortly before his death. The original text became lost early and hence the original title is not known. Kumārajīva 羅什 translated this text, but the exact date of composition is unknown. Fukaura mentions a couple of views regarding the nature of this text: one view claims that probably T389 is a prose translation of a text that is supposed to have originally been written in verse form. This is because T389 has a very similar content and structure to the Parinirvāṇa chapter 大般涅槃品 in the Buddhacarita 佛所行讃, which is written in verse, and because the text of T389 is very well written, being among the most beautiful Chinese prose in the entire Chinese canon (which suggests the possibility that it was not a literal translation of the original). No alternate translations of this text is known to exist. Fukaura refers to Watanabe Kaikyoku 渡邉海旭’s article (in Shinbukkyō 10.6) as the source of this view. The other views goes further by claiming that the Parinirvāṇa chapter in the Buddhacarita, and a certain part of another text, the Fo ben xing jing 佛本行經 T193, were written upon the basis of T389. This is because the part that describes Buddha’s last sermon in the Parinirvāṇa chapter 大滅品 of T193, translated by Baoyun 寶雲, also corresponds closely to T389. Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋 presented this view in an article in Shisō 79. Fukaura agrees that there are some connections between T389, the Parinirvāṇa chapter in the Buddhacarita, and the Parinirvāṇa chapter in T193, but also points out that since those three were produced in the same period, further evidence is needed to determine which one is the origin of the others, if any. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Sakaino 1928] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. “Butsu yuikyō gyō to Butsu shogyō san ni tsuite 『仏遺教経』と『仏所行讃』について.” Shisō 思想 79 (1928): 189-204. |
Sakaino discusses relations among *Dharmakṣema's Buddhacarita 佛所行讚 T192, Baoyun's 佛本行經 T193, and the Yi jiao jing 遺教經 T389 ascribed to Kumārajīva. He notes that the overall order of events, the topics and sequence of the Buddha's deathbed exhortations to his disciples, and much detailed phraseology, overlaps closely between T389 and Ch. 26 of T193. Most of the article is given over to detailed examples of these overlaps. Sakaino also notes that the introductory portion of T389 has a model or parallel in the Faxian/Buddhabhadra translation of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra 大般泥洹經 T376 (which he states he regards as actually by Guṇabhadra) (191). Sakaino considers two possibilities: this phrasing might have been modeled on the earlier wording of "Kumārajīva's" T389; or else this phrasing could have added later to T389 on the basis of T376. Sakaino also notes (201 ff.) that Baoyun's T192 also overlaps with both T193 and T389 in many of the same details, though he says that T192 is more polished than T193. Sakaino states that T192 and T193 nonetheless still differ from one another too much to be regarded as alternate translations of the same work; rather, they are different works based upon the same source materials. Sakaino concludes that T192 and T193 were based upon the same source text, and T389 is the root text underlying both (i.e. *Buddhacarita is a versification of T389), rather than T389 representing a prose reworking of the *Buddhacarita. He regards T192 as closer to T389 than it is to T193. [Sakaino does not consider the possibility that any of these overlaps indicate that the texts in question were composed, or partly composed, in China; he seems to consider this evidence only for what it indicates about presumed original Indic source texts.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Nakamura 1987] Nakamura, Hajime. Indian Buddhism: A Survey with Bibliographical Notes. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1987. — 214-215 |
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. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Lai 1990] Lai, Whalen. "The Chan-ch'a ching: Religion and Magic in Medieval China." In Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, edited by Robert E. Buswell, Jr., 175-206. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990. — 201 n. 36 |
Lai mentions in passing that the Fanwang jing 梵網經 T1484 and the Fo chui banniepan lüe shuo jiao jie jing 佛垂般涅槃略說教誡經T389 are examples of the rejection of divination in Chinese “apocryphal sūtras.” Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Demiéville 1953] Demiéville, Paul. “Les sources chinoises.” In L’Inde classique: Manuel des études indiennes, Tome II, by Louis Renou and Jean Filliozat, 398-463. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale/Hanoi: École Française d’Extrême-Orient, 1953. — 415-416 |
|
Demiéville lists all the texts ascribed to Kumārajīva by Sengyou, namely T201 T223 T227 T235 T245(!) T262 T366 T456 T475 T613 T614 T616 T617 T1435 T1509 T1564 T1568 T1569 T1646. This implies that the ascription of all other texts ascribed to Kumārajīva in the Taishō is less secure than those ascriptions, on at least this count. This entry lists all such texts (all "Kumārajīva" texts EXCEPT those listed by Demiéville/Sengyou). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Chen 2014b] Chen, Frederick Shih-Chung. “The Deathbed Injunction Sutra.” In Buddhist Stone Sutras in China. Sichuan Province, Volume 2, edited by Tsai Suey-Ling and Sun Hua 孫華, 48-52. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag/Hangzhou: China Academy of Art Press, 2014. |
Chen summarises work on the sources of the 佛遺教經 T389 in the following article: Hosaka Gyokusen 保坂玉泉. “Butsuyuikyō gyō no seiritsu ni tsuite 佛遺教經の成立に就いて.” Komazawa daigaku jissen sōjō kenkyūkai nenpō 駒沢大学実践宗乗研究会年報 7 (1939): 30-39. According to Chen, Hosaka identifies sources of specific passages in T389 in Chinese Agama texts, and in the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 346-350 |
|
According to Sakaino, CSZJJ ascribes 31 texts still extant today to Kumārajīva. Sakaino maintains that three of them should not be regarded as Kumārajīva’s independent works. This entry is associated with the remaining 28 titles. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
No |
[Hosaka 1939] Hosaka Gyokusen 保坂玉泉. “Butsu yuikyō gyō no seiritsu ni tsuite 佛遺教經の成立に就いて.” Komazawa daigaku jissen sōjō kenkyūkai nenpō 駒澤大學實踐宗乘研究會年報 7 (1939): 30-39. |
Hosaka examines the issue of the origin of the Fo yijiao jing 佛遺教經 (佛垂般涅槃略説教誡經, also entitled 佛遺教經, T389 ascribed to Kumārajīva). According to him, different views have been proposed, including that T389 might have a non-Buddhist origin, or that T389 might have been developed from/separated from/developed into the Fo suoxing zan 佛所行讚 (T192, a version of the Buddhacarita by Aśvaghoṣa 馬鳴, ascribed to *Dharmakṣema 曇無讖), since T389 and the Parinirvāṇa chapter 大涅槃品 of T192 share the same contents (as does also the Parinirvāṇa chapter 大滅品 of the Fo benxing jing 佛本行經 Buddhacarita T193, ascribed to Baoyun 寶雲). Hosaka argues that T389 was separated and developed from the Nirvāṇa chapter 涅槃品 of the original text of T192, a chapter which Aśvaghoṣa wrote based on texts such as the Mahāparinirvaṇa-sūtra, the Ambaṭṭha-sutta, the Ba nian jing 八念經 Madhyamāgama (T26) 74, and the Qi che jing 七車經 MĀ 8. Sections describing the Buddha’s death: Hosaka points out that a part of the contents of the sections describing Buddha’s death shows striking similarities with the third juan 巻下 of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra 大般涅槃經 (T7 ascribed to Faxian 法顯). Specifically, in T389, the introductory section 序分, the beginning of the Xiuxi shijian gongde fen 修習世間功徳分 section, and from the Xianshi ruzheng jueding fen 顯示入證決定分 section up til the end section, have contents practically identical with T7. Hosaka quotes a number of passages from T7 corresponding to T389 to demonstrate this claim (quotations on 32-33). Hosaka maintain that the close relation between the two texts is evident, since no other scripture shows such a high degree of matching with T389. Sections describing the Buddha’s last sermon: According to Hosaka, the part of T389 relating to the Buddha’s last sermon, which consists of part of the Xuixing shijian gongde fen 修習世間功徳分 (七誡) and the Chengjiu chushijian daren gongde fen 成就出世間大人功徳分 (八大人覺), did not come from any of the texts on Buddha’s biography or his death, but rather, from the Āgamas 阿含. In this respect, Hosaka cites Masunaga's work focusing on the "eight kinds of attentiveness proper to great persons" (ba daren jue 八大人覺) and their relation to T389. Hosaka quotes a number of passages from the Dīrghāgama equivalent to the Ambaṭṭha-sutra 阿摩晝經 DĀ (T1) no. 3, on the topics of the 修習世間功徳分 (七誡) in T389, which match closely with what we see in T389 (35-37). As a result, Hosaka claims that the practices of renouncers 出家行 in DĀ 3 corresponds extremely well with the 修習世間功徳分 (七誡) of T389, strongly suggesting that DĀ 3 is related to the development of T389. Hosaka also presents a chart showing which sections of T389 are related to which texts (chart on 37-38). He points out that the other texts are seem to have been used in a systematic manner: T7 is related to the introductory and end sections; DĀ 3 is related to six out of the seven Xiuxing shijian gongde fen 修習世間功徳分 (七誡) sections; and the Ba nian jing 八念經 Madhyamāgama (T26) 74 and Qi che jing 七車經 MĀ 8 are related to the Chengjiu chushijian daren gongde fen 成就出世間大人功徳分 (八大人覺) section. (This means that only the text/s or sources related to the Xianshi bijing shenshen gongde fen 顯示畢竟甚深功徳分 section [and the 誡諂曲 section of the Xiuxing shijian gongde fen 修習世間功徳分 (七誡)] have not been identified.) In conclusion, Hosaka maintains that 1) in writing the Nirvāṇa chapter 涅槃品 of the original Buddhacarita, Aśvaghoṣa compiled texts such as the Mahāparinirvaṇa-sūtra, as represented in Chinese translation by T7, the Ambaṭṭha-sutta, the Ba nian jing 八念經 Madhyamāgama (T26) 74, and Qi che jing 七車經 MĀ 8; 2) Aśvaghoṣa embellished what he took from those materials with similes and beautiful expressions in the Nirvāṇa chapter, as he does in the other chapters of the Buddhacarita as well; and 3) T389 represents essentially this Nirvāṇa chapter of the Buddhacarita later separated as an independent text. Hosaka claims that the beautiful style of T389 strongly suggests that some intermediate material must have intervened between T389 and its source scriptural materials (in T26 and MĀ). Hosaka adds that, if his hypothesis is correct, the view that T389 has a non-Buddhist origin can safely be rejected. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|