| Identifier | T2045 [T] |
| Title | 阿育王息壞目因緣經 [T] |
| Date | 後秦建初 6 [Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936] |
| "handle the Indic text", [手]執梵[文], [手]執胡[本] | *Dharmanandi(n) 曇摩難提, Dharmananda? [Sakaino 1935] |
| Translator 譯 | *Dharmanandi(n) 曇摩難提, Dharmananda? [T] |
| [orally] "translate/interpret" 傳語, 口宣[...言], 傳譯, 度語 | Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 [Sakaino 1935] |
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 |
[Nattier 2010] Nattier, Jan. "Re-evaluating Zhu Fonian's Shizhu duanjie jing (T309): Translation or Forgery?" Annual Report of The International Research Insitute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University 13 (2010): 256. |
Nattier points out that in his CSZJJ and GSZ bios, Fonian is attributed with a text very much like this, and that the real work of translation would probably have been done by him. 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]. — v.1, 2 |
Tokiwa Daijo 常盤大定 argues that although LDSBJ states that T2045 was translated in Jianchu 建初 2, it should correctly be Jianchu 6, as stated in to the preface to the text. The byline in the Taishō dates the text to the Fu Qin 符秦 period, but the Jianchu reign era was in fact in the Later Qin 後秦 period. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Zhu Fonian Preface 1] Zhu Fonian 竺佛念. Wangzi Fayi huai mu yinyuan jing xu 王子法益壞目因緣經序. — CSZJJ T2145:55.51b14-c16 |
This preface seems to indicate that the actual work of translation was done by Zhu Fonian himself, and Dharmanandi (as in other cases) was responsible for supplying and reading the text. Zhu Fonian introduces a set of somewhat self-critical remarks about his own translation practice by saying "In making this translation, I..." 佛念譯音... Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Radich 2017a] Radich, Michael. “On the Ekottarikāgama 增壹阿含經 T 125 as a Work of Zhu Fonian 竺佛念.” Journal of Chinese Buddhist Studies 30 (2017): 1-31. — 6-7 |
Radich summarises a range of external evidence that might lead us to suspect that T194, T1505, T1549 and T2045 are in fact by Zhu Fonian, despite traditional ascriptions for each text. 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. — 222-223 |
Sakaino claims that as the terminology is usually used, the Fayi jing 法益經 (阿育王息壞目因緣經/阿育王太子法益壞目因緣經 T2045; cited by Sengyou in his Shijia pu, T2040 [L] 81b25 ff.) should not be ascribed to Zhu Fonian 竺佛念, because, according to the preface to the same text (王子法益壊目因緣序) by Zhu Fonian, *Dharmanandi(n) 曇摩難提 was responsible for “handling the text” 執本 and Zhu Fonian was the interpreter/oral translator 譯語. [Note: The problem here is largely terminological. In this and other statements, Sakaino usually follows tradition in regarding the term “translator” 譯 as appropriate only for the head of a translation project, often the person who “handled the text” 執本 --- MR.] Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Bie lu (DH mss)] "Liu Song" Zhongjing bie lu 劉宋眾經別錄, S.2872, P.3747. Dating complex and unclear. |
|
In the "Liu Song" Zhongjing bie lu 劉宋眾經別錄, as represented by a Dunhuang manuscript fragment, P.3747, the following titles are listed, which may correspond to extant texts (in some cases, identification is rather tentative). In contrast to some other titles, which are treated in separate CBC@ entries, these titles are listed in the Bie lu without any further accompanying information (e.g. about ascription or date). Note that the Bie lu includes interlinear notes giving such information, and the scope of application of those interlinear notes is sometimes uncertain: it can be hard to tell whether they apply only to the single title preceding the note, or to a group of titles leading up to the note; and if they apply to a group of titles, how many. Titles in the DH ms. Bie lu are identified by the numbering in Tan (1991), given at the beginning of each line. S.2872 P.3747 Many of these same titles are treated as anonymous and extant in CSZJJ fascicle 4. The same is also true of a number of titles not listed here, because the texts in question appear not to be extant. Texts presently ascribed to Dharmarakṣa and to Zhi Qian (excepting T361) are excluded from this entry, because they are treated in other CBC@ entries. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|