| Identifier | T2032 [T] |
| Title | 十八部論 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
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 |
[Buswell 2004] Buswell, Robert E., Jr. "Sugi's Collation Notes to the Koryŏ Buddhist Canon and Their Significance for Buddhist Textual Criticism." The Journal of Korean Studies 9, no. 1 (2004): 129-184. — 148, 170-171 |
The Kaibao had copied the 部執異論 T2033 [K975; Buswell mistakenly gives K973] under the present title. Sugi therefore admits the Koryŏ version into the canon in its place. Sugi discusses the attribution of the text to Paramārtha, noting that the citation of the the Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā 文殊師利問經 T468 at includes a phrase saying that the text was "compiled by Kumārajīva 羅什法師集, 17c29 [this is weird: the line appears in the middle of a string of verse as formatted in CBETA---MR]; but that in fact, the Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā had not yet been translated at Kumārajīva's time. He also notes that the text includes Qin phraseology deriving from [or typical of] Kumārajīva. "After showing that similar problems would remain even if the text were the product of an anonymous translator, Sugi then explores whether Wenshu wen jing [T468] might have been a retranslation by Paramārtha, which was then included in the Shibabu lun [T2032]." [MR: I believe Buswell has misread this line, and Sugi is saying "If [T2032] was a second translation [of the same text as T2033, also ascribed to Paramārtha] by Paramārtha, then it would not make sense that the interlinear notes within the text say 'in the language of Qin...'"] "Sugi finally cannot resolve the issues and leaves the problem for later scholars to resolve." Sugi's note is included in the text as it appears in the Taishō: 按此論者宋藏中錯重寫。彼部異執論。名為十八部論故今取此國本為正。開元錄云右十八部論群錄並云。梁代三藏真諦所譯。今詳真諦三藏已譯十八部論。不合更譯部異執論。其十八部論初首引文殊問經分別部品。後次云羅什法師集後方是論。若是羅什所翻。秦時未有文殊問經。不合引之置於初也。或可準別錄中文殊問經編為失譯。秦時引證此亦無疑。若是真諦再譯。論中子注不合有秦言之字。詳其文理多是秦時羅什譯出。諸錄脫編致有疑焉。其真諦十八部疏。即部異執疏是雖有斯理未敢指南。後諸博聞請求實錄; T2032:49.19c15-28. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
Yes |
[Demiéville 1924] Demiéville, Paul. "Les versions chinoises du Milindapañha." Bulletin de l'École Française d'Extrême-Orient 24 (1924) [Hanoi 1925]: 1-253. — 48 n. 1 |
T 2032 is ascribed to Paramârtha 眞諦, but so is T 2033, a variant translation of the same text. Paul Demiéville is of the opinion that T 2032, the present text, was in fact translated by Kumārajīva, for the following reasons: it mentions Kumārajīva's name, T 2032.17c29; it speaks of Chinese as "the language of Qin (秦言), 18a14; Jizang believed that it was Kumārajīva's work. 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. — 722 |
Sakaino states that he agrees with the view that the Shiba bu lun十八部論 (Samayabhedoparacanacakra T2032 ascribed to Paramārtha) is not Paramārtha’s work but Kumārajīva’s. The Bu zhi yi lun 部執異論 (T2033 ascribed to Paramārtha, an alternative translation of the same work) was also called the Shiba bu lun. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Radich 2012a] Radich, Michael. “External Evidence Relating to Works Ascribed to Paramārtha, with a Focus on Traditional Chinese Catalogues.” In Shintai sanzō kenkyū ronshū 真諦三藏研究論集 [Studies of the Works and Influence of Paramartha], edited by Funayama Tōru 船山徹, 39-102[L]. Kyoto: Kyōto daigaku jinbun kagaku kenkyūjo/Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University, 2012. — 74-76 |
Entry author: Michael Radich |
|