| Identifier | T1509 [T] |
| Title | 大智度論 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Author | Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 [Katō 1996] |
| 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 |
[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. — 416-417 |
|
Demiéville reports that these are the works ascribed to Kumārajīva by Sengyou, for which the ascriptions should therefore be more secure. [NOTE: As pointed out by Lin Xueni (personal communication), CSZJJ in fact ascribes to Kumārajīva at least one text not mentioned by Demiéville, viz. the Kuśalamūlasaṃparigraha 華首經 T657, T2145 (LV) 10c21. Demiéville's list is therefore to be used with caution. I have corrected to include T657 here --- MR] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Legittimo 2010] Legittimo, Elsa. "Reopening the Maitreya-files – Two Almost Identical Early Maitreya Sutra Translations in the Chinese Canon: Wrong Attributions and Text-historical Entanglements." Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 31, no. 1/2 (2010): 251–294. — 260 and n. 24 |
Legittimo writes, "On several occasions I have detected...that the Chinese version [sic!] of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, the Da zhidu lun 大智度論 [T1509], that has always and exclusively been attributed to Kumārajīva, bears in fact considerable traces of [Zhu Fonian's 竺佛念] terminology." "There is no reason why Kumārajīva should not have adopted vocabulary and termini used by...preceding translators, but ordinary usage of preexisting vocabulary cannot explain why certain translations attributed to Kumārajīva contain a...higher number of expressions characteristic of [Zhu Fonian]." [Legittimo seems to be referring to unpublished results: she gives no examples, and cites no other publications, to support this suggestion---MR.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Saitō 2013 ] Saitō Takanobu 齊藤隆信. Kango butten ni okeru ge no kenkyū 漢語仏典における偈の研究. Kyoto: Hōzōkan, 2013. — 394-440 |
Saitō examines verses in T1509 (MPPU) featuring rhyme or loose rhyme, and argues that the most likely explanation for these verses is that they were written by Kumārajīva himself. The main considerations supporting his argument are as follows: First, none of Kumārajīva's other translations contain rhymed verse. This is the case even when, in the case of VKN T475, he was working in knowledge of an earlier version of the same text (in this case, T474 ascribed to Zhi Qian) which did contain rhymed verse. Second, however, Kumārajīva was capable of writing rhymed verse in Chinese. Saitō cites three verses (surviving from an original set of ten) written for Fahe 法和 (a monk who studied together 同学 with Dao’an), preserved in GSZ, CSZJJ, the Yiwen leiju 芸文類聚 by Ouyang Xun 欧陽詢 (557-641), and the Jingming xuan lun 浄名玄論 T1780 by Jizang 吉蔵; and one verse that accompanied a gift to Lushan Huiyuan, preserved in GSZ. MPPU contains 82 rhymed stanzas, out of a total of 612 stanzas. None of these come from the [Mūla]madhyamaka-kārikā 中論. One verse at T1590 (XXV) 161a is perfectly rhymed. Saitō argues that it is unlikely that someone else in Kumārajīva’s team inserted the verses, because this would still not explain the fact that they occur in MPPU but no other text; he rejects the possibility that the verses were inserted into the text later, on the grounds that Dunhuang manuscripts do not indicate that the text underwent such modification during transmission; and he also rejects the possibility that Kumārajīva changed his translation policy, because other works were translated alongside or after MPPU. Having eliminated these other possibilities, Saitō argues that it is most likely that Kumārajīva added the rhymed verses to the work himself. He speculates that perhaps Kumārajīva felt less objection to inserting his own words into a śāstra than into a sūtra, though he admits that this speculation encounters the objection that there are no rhymed verses in analogous texts like 中論 T1564 and 十住毘婆沙論 T1521. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
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, which Sakaino does regard as authentic translations by Kumārajīva. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
No |
[Yamabe 2013] Yamabe, Nobuyoshi. "Indian Myth Transformed in a Chinese Apocryphal Text: Two Stories on the Buddha’s Hidden Organ." In India in the Chinese Imagination: Myth, Religion, and Thought, 61-80. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press: 2013. — 61-80 |
Expanding upon his doctoral work [https://dazangthings.nz/cbc/source/38/] Yamabe examines two narratives in order to argue for Indic influence on the Guan Fo sanmei hai jing 觀佛三昧海經 T643. In the first narrative, a group of prostitutes come to a town where the Buddha is residing and cause havoc. The Buddha agrees to teach them, but they ignore his teachings, jeer at him, and imply that he is impotent. In response he first conjures an elephant with a white lotus reaching the ground between its hind legs, and then a horse-king with an extended organ reaching to its knees. Finally, he shows them his own cosmically magnificent penis, from which ten billion emanation Buddhas appear, each of which is served by ten billion bodhisattvas and a boundless assembly. These ten billion phallic Buddhas reprimand the prostitutes, and the prostitutes consequently all reach various degrees of spiritual attainment. Yamabe sees this emphasis on the Buddha’s organ and virility to be unusual for pre-Tantric Buddhist texts, as well as for Chinese Buddhism, and thus connects this enormous glorification of the male organ to Śaivite linga narratives (although he does not identify an exactly corresponding source), and Indic ithyphallic art. In addition, he connects this narrative in T643 to a passage in the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa 大智度論 T1509. T1509 discusses the Buddha’s hidden male organ, which the text describes as like those of "a well-tamed elephant-treasure and a horse-treasure." The text asks further, "When the bodhisattva attains the supreme awakening, in what situation do the disciples see the mark of the hidden male organ? He shows the mark of the hidden male organ in order to resolve people’s doubt. Other people say: The Buddha magically creates an elephant-treasure and a horse-treasure and, showing them to his disciples, he says: 'The mark of my hidden male organ is like those.” The second narrative tells of a lascivious prostitute who does not respect the Buddha. In response to her disinterest in him, the Buddha emanates three young men, and the woman has sex with one of them. After three days her desire is sated, but the boy will not stop. Her lust turns to pain, the boy eventually dies, and she remains locked in coitus to his decaying body. According to Yamabe, the motif of the corpse sticking to the body also can be traced to Śaivist origin. Additionally, he compares this motif to the Aśokāvadāna, in which Upagupta conjures a wreath of dead bodies which stick to Māra until he converts. According to Yamabe these commonalities mean that the authors of T643 “must have had direct contact with people from western regions who were followers of Shaivite traditions.” At the same time, he adds, these authors “seem to have relied heavily on Chinese Buddhist texts.” In other words, the basic motifs are Indian, but the authors “freely put together elements taken from Chinese Buddhist texts and invent their own stories.” Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Takeda 2000] Takeda Kōgaku 武田浩学. "Daichidoron no chosha wa yahari Ryūju de wa nakatta noka? 『大智度論』の著者はやはり龍樹ではなかったのか." Kokusai Bukkyōgaku daigakuin daigaku kenkyū kiyō 国際仏教学大学院大学研究紀要 3 (2000): 211-243. |
Takeda argues that the author of MPPU T1509 is more likely to be Nāgārjuna than Kumārajīva. He bases his arguments on similarities in doctrinal content with the Bodhisaṃbhāra-śāstra 菩提資糧論 T1660, held by Uryūzu Takao 瓜生津隆雄 (1985) to be an authentic work of Nāgārjuna; especially the relation between the concepts of non-retrogression (butuizhuan 不退轉, avaivartika) and the pratyutpannasamādhi 般舟三昧, an idea unique to T1509. The state of non-regression is normally founded upon the achievement of anutpattikadharmakṣānti 無生法忍 and the bestowal of a vyākāraṇa 受記. In the Sanskrit Aṣṭasāhasrikā and in Chapter 3 (習應品第三) of MPPU T1509, the connection or conjunction between non-retrogression and prajñāpāramitā is termed prajñāpāramitāpratisaṃyukta 般若波羅蜜相應. One who pratices with this prajñāpāramitāpratisaṃyukta either already has a status equivalent to the receipt of a prediction to Buddhahood, or is very close to such a prediction (當知是菩薩如受記無異，若近受記, 334c25). The connection between pratyupannasamādhi and non-retrogression is mediated via the idea of "benefiting others", and an associated model of choices of rebirth. In contrast to T227/Aṣṭa, Takeda maintains, MPPU and T223 (the "Larger" PP, and root text of MPPU) focus on practice for the benefit of others (利他 vs 自利), and in MPPU, non-retrogression corresponds to entry into this phase of bodhisatva practice. This is reflected in the view of rebirth (往生) in MPPU T1509. It is possible to be reborn either in the kāmadhātu 欲界, in worlds where there is no Buddha (無佛國土), or in lands which do have a Buddha (有佛國土) (菩薩有二種：一者、有慈悲心，多為眾生；二者、多集諸佛功德。樂多集諸佛功德者，至一乘清淨無量壽世界；好多為眾生者，至無佛法眾處, 342b1-4). T1509 emphasizes the superiority of the "other-benefiting" bodhisattva who chooses to stay in the kāmadhatu, despite the possibility of being reborn in the realm of the Buddhas, in order to transform sentient beings (是菩薩雖離欲得諸禪定，以方便力故，為眾生生欲界有現在佛處, 578c15-19). Here we see the link to the pratyupannasamādhi, which MPPU T1509 mentions as one of the expedient means (方便) of rebirth (往生) in the kāmadhātu. In a sense, the pratyupannasamādhi substitutes for rebirth in Buddha-lands; the goal of both to hear the teachings (聞法). This means that the samādhi enables bodhisatvas who choose, for the benefit of others, to remain in the kāmadhātu, nonetheless still to have access to the teachings of the Buddhas. In this connection, the text makes the statement "for this reason, the Buddhas take prajñā as their mother, and the pratyupannasamādhi as their father" 是故佛以般若為母、般舟三昧為父 (314a22-23). Here, the pratyupannasamādhi replaces the more common upāyakauśalya as the father. This peculiarity is also found in Nāgārjuna's Bodhisaṃbhāra-śāstra 菩提資糧論 T1660. According to Uryūzu Takao 瓜生津隆雄 (1985), T1660 is an authentic work of Nāgārjuna. The four indicators of the state of non-regression (不退轉位) all feature in T1660 as well: (1) pratyutpannasamādhi得無生法忍 (527c04-05) (2) prajñāpāramitāsaṃyukta般若波羅蜜相應 (529c19-20) (3) apratisthita-nirvāṇa不住涅槃の思想 (532b3-4) (4) rebirth under one's own vow in order to benefit others 利他のための願力受生 (533c23-24). Takeda suggests that if MPPU T1509 were composed by Kumārajīva, this unique understanding of the pratyutpannasamādhi 般舟三昧 should have been already reflected in the Dasheng dayi zhang 大乘大義章 T1856 and the Zhu Weimojie jing 注維摩詰經 T1775. But no similar thought is found in T1856 and T1775. The fact that the concepts discussed above are connected with each other in both MPPU T1509 and T1660 therefore makes it more likely that the author is Nāgārjuna, not Kumārajīva. Citations in MPPU T1509 from the Śata-śastra 百論 T1569 and the Catuḥśataka 四百論 in T1509 possibly represent Kumārajīva's own remarks or interpolations during the translation process (加筆), rather than evidence for Kumārajīva's authorship. Entry author: Chia-wei Lin |
|
|
|
No |
[Katō 1996] Katō Junshō 加藤純章. "Rajū to Dai chido ron" 羅什と『大智度論』. Indo tetsugaku Bukkyōgaku 印度哲学仏教学 11 (1996): 32-59. |
Katō explores the possibility that Kumārajīva himself is the author of MPPU T1509. [This might imply that the text is not in fact a translation, as the tradition informs us, unless Kumārajīva first composed in Sanskrit and then translated his own work; but note that it would still in a sense not require us to overturn the received ascription of the text in T --- MR.] Katō first summaries various theories concerning the authorship of T1509: those of Hirakawa Akira 平川彰 (1957), Yinshun 印順 (1993), Higata Ryūshō 干潟龍祥 (1958), and Étienne Lamotte (1970). Katō then provides three arguments for Kumārajīva's authorship: (1) the quantity of the original text of T1509; (2) commonalities with the Chengshi lun 成實論 T1646 (*Tattvasiddhi/Satyasiddhi); (3) citations from the works of Nāgārjuna's disciples. The number of fascicles in T1509 show that T1509 might have been composed by Kumārajīva. According to Sengrui 僧叡's preface, the Mohe banrebuoluomijing shilun xu 摩訶般若波羅蜜經釋論序, the abridged version of the treatise contains 100,000 verses and 3,200,000 words (論之略本有十萬偈，偈有三十二字，并三百二十萬言). From this is derived the statement in the Longshu Pusa zhuan 龍樹菩薩傳 T2047 that "[Nāgārjuna] expounded at length the Mahāyāna, composing the upadeśā in a hundred thousand verses 廣明摩訶衍作優波提舍十萬偈 (優波提舍 = *upadeśa cannot refer to anything other than T1509). " Whether we infer from Sengrui's 僧叡words (34×30=1020 juan 卷), or according to Lamotte's (34 juan + 66 × 3 juan = 232 juan 卷) and Yinshun's 印順 (33 juan +37 × 3 juan = 144 juan卷) estimates of the number of fascicles that would be required for a full translation, if each juan 卷 contains ten thousand words, the result does not match 3,200,000, as Sengrui recorded (that would require approx. 320 juan). Katō argues that we should not be overly dependent on Sengrui's preface. This might indicate that the phrase "one hundred thousand verses" 十萬偈 is merely have been used as a generic number for any extensive theoretical work in the Buddhist tradition. On the other hand, if Kumārajīva were the author, he might have simplified and reduced the amount of commentary after the general concept is mostly transmitted in first pin 品. This would lead to the unbalanced ratio of the first pin against the others among the hundred juan 卷 passed down to us. Both T1646 and T1509 criticise the notion of substantial existence (實有思想, *dravyasat) of the Sarvāstivādins, but nonetheless generally respect their Abhidharma. Both argue against the thesis that all phenomena in the three times truly exist (三世實有) using the same metaphor: 如人從一房入一房，不名失人？ (T1509254c); 如從舍至舍則無無常 (T1646255a29). No such metaphor is found in the Madhyamaka-śāstra 中論 T1564, the Shi'er men lun 十二門論 T1568, or the Śata-śāstra 百論 T1569. The same metaphor occurs in the *(Mahā-)Vibhāṣā, 大毘婆沙論 T1545, but it is quoted in the statement of a Vibhajyavādin 分別論師 against the doctrine that all phenomena in the three times truly exist . It is more likely that T1509 cites T1646 than that T1509 and T1646 cite T1545 respectively. The distinct similarity between T1646 and T1509 shows that Kumārajīva might have been influenced by his translation project when he was writing T1509. T1509 quotes a lengthy passage from the Śata-śastra 百論 T1569, ascribed to Āryadeva with commentary by Vasu. If Nāgārjuna is the author of T1509, this is unusual, considering the chronological order of Nāgārjuna and his disciples: Nāgārjuna 龍樹—Āryadeva 提婆—Rāhulabhadra 羅睺羅—Vasu 婆藪. When citing Āryadeva's Catuḥśataka 四百論 and Rāhulabhadra's Zan banremiduo ji 讚般若波羅蜜偈, T1509 also includes the full title of the sources. This indicates that the author of T1509 was consciously quoting the Catuḥśataka and the Zan banremiduo ji. Entry author: Chia-wei Lin |
|
|
|
No |
[Lamotte 1973] Lamotte, Étienne. "Der Verfasser des Upadeśa und seine Quellen." Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen Philologisch-Historische Klasse Jahrgang 1973, no. 2 (1973): 31-50. |
[Note: This information is recorded here because some scholars have proposed that Kumārajīva was the author, and not merely the translator, of MPPU T1509. Any theory of authorship for the text therefore has implications for its status as a translation --- MR.] Lamotte argues that the author of the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa (Upadeśa) T1509 is not identical with the author of the Madhyamaka-śāstra [as should be the case if it were Nāgārjuna --- MR]. Rather, the author of Upadeśa is most likely a Sarvāstivādin monk from North-West India, who was converted to Madhyamaka. Lamotte declares traditional biographies of Nāgārjuna untrustworthy and full of contradictions. Particularly, the association between Nāgārjuna and Kaniṣka is not credible, because it is common for Buddhist chronicles to associate Buddhist sages with famous kings. Lamotte uses internal evidence to show the geographical origin and date of the Upadeśa. Lamotte's overall purpose is to build a picture of the life of the monastic composer of the text, and understand how he came to compose the Upadeśa. The Upadeśa originated in North-West India, in the Indian provinces of the Kuṣāṇa kingdom, while Nāgārjuna was mostly active in South-India according to the traditional historiography. The evidence is threefold: (1) the Da Yuezhi and Xiao Yuezhi, the ancestors of the Kuṣāṇa, are often mentioned in the Upadeśa. Out of enmity against foreign rulers, the Kuṣāṇa kings are not mentioned by name, but only with the title devaputra. The author's contempt for the "border regions" (pratyantajanapada) is obvious. All the non-Aryan peoples are barbarians for him. (2) The author possesses thorough knowledge of North-West India. Many descriptions of the region, e.g. of Puṣkarāvatī and Anavatapta in the Himalayas, are given in great detail. (3) Most of the stories taken from the jātakas and nidānas take place in the region of Kaśmīr-Gandhāra. The Upadeśa was composed after the second Kuṣāṇa Dynasty, more precisely, around the 4th century CE, whereas Kumārajīva dates Nāgārjuna to the 3rd century CE. The reasons are the following: (1) The author cites many established sources that report upon Kaniṣka, e.g. the Vinaya of the Mūlasarvāstivādin, the *Mahāvibhāṣā from Kaśmir, the Za baozang jing 雜寶藏經 T203 and the Kalpanāmaṇḍitikā. (2) The Mahāyāna sūtras cited in the Upadeśa were translated into Chinese between 179 and 430 CE. The Upadeśa might have been composed in an age when the Mahāyāna texts had already been known for three centuries. (3) The Upadeśa cites the Madhyamaka-śāstra of Nāgārjuna, the Catuḥśataka of Āryadeva and the Prajñāpāramitā-stotra of Rāhulabhadra. The Upadeśa must postdate these three masters of the Mādhyamika school. Growing up in a Sarvāstivādin monastery and well-versed in the Ṣatpādābhidharma and the Mahāvbhāṣa, the author of the Upadeśa was inspired to compose a commentary of similar extent for the Prajñāparamita, which was widespread in his time. Firmly convinced of the doctrine of the twofold emptiness of [sentient] beings and of things ("die doppelte Leere der Wesen und der Dinge", pudgalanairātmya and dharmanairātmya), he treated both the Tripiṭaka and the Mahāyāna sūtras as authoritative. While the Tripiṭaka obtains its authority through fixed historical occurrences, the Mahāyāna sūtras rely on their internal value, the result of samādhi or absorption (Versenkung). Lamotte also notes that our author portrays more of the Abhidharma theories than required for their refutation. Perhaps the author wishes to showcase his familiarity with the Sarvāstivātin scholasticism. Entry author: Chia-wei Lin |
|
|
|
No |
[Er Qin lu] Sengrui 僧叡. Er Qin lu 二秦錄. |
|
Fei Zhangfang reports that the Er Qin lu, which he ascribes to Sengrui, was his source (or among his sources) for his ascriptions of 24 texts to Kumārajīva. The following titles can be identified with fair confidence with texts in the present Taishō: 摩訶般若波羅蜜經三十卷, T223 The following titles on Fei's list are more difficult to identify with extant texts: 大方等大集三十卷, T397?(!), or some version of the Kāśyaparivarta? Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Kimura 1986] Kimura Senshō 木村宣彰. "Kumarajū no yakukyō 鳩摩羅什の訳経." Ōtani daigaku kenkyū nenpō 大谷大学研究年報 38 (1986): 59-135. |
Kimura argues that the record of 24 texts ascribed to Kumārajīva in LDSBJ, supposedly from the Er Qin lu 二秦錄, should be the most reliable source available about Kumārajīva's work (see separate entry on LDSBJ’s reports about Kj’s works in the Er Qin lu). Although many scholars consider reports about the Er Qin lu, preserved in the Lidai sanbao ji 歷代三寶記 T2034 and Datang neidian lu 大唐內典錄 T2149, to be unreliable, Kimura argues that it is an important and reliable source, because its author, Sengrui 僧叡, was a close disciple of Kumārajīva and witnessed the translation activities directly. Entry author: Chia-wei Lin |
|
|
|
No |
[Young 2015] Young, Stuart. Conceiving the Indian Buddhist Patriarchs in China. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2015. — 88 n. 59 |
In T2058 there is a summary of Nāgārjuna’s oeuvre. Four titles are mentioned: an *Upadeśa 優波堤舍 (referring to T1509), the Zhuangyan Fodao 莊嚴佛道, the Daci fangbian 大慈方便, and the Wuwei lun 無畏論. Zhuangyan Fodao suggests a relation to the Shizhu piposa lun 十住毘婆沙論 T1521 ascribed to Nāgārjuna, but no equation of such a title with this work is elsewhere attested. Daci fangbian is reminiscent of the Fangbian xin lun 方便心論 T1632, which is ascribed in CSZJJ T2145 to Kiṅkara and Tanyao, working in 472. The text was first attributed to Nāgārjuna in the Shi'er men lun zongzhi yiji 十二門論宗致義記 T1826. There appears to be no possible Chinese equivalent to the title Wuwei lun, but Ramanan (1966, 34) identifies a similarly titled text in the Tibetan canon also attributed to Nāgārjuna. Entry author: Chia-wei Lin |
|