| Identifier | T0835 [T] |
| Title | 如來師子吼經 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Co-translator 共譯 | Bodhiruci, 菩提流支, 菩提留支; Buddhaśānta, 佛陀扇多 [Sakaino 1935] |
| Translator 譯 | Buddhaśānta, 佛陀扇多 [T] |
| [orally] "translate/interpret" 傳語, 口宣[...言], 傳譯, 度語 | Buddhaśānta, 佛陀扇多 [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 |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 663-664 |
Sakaino states that Fajing’s catalogue 法經錄 contains a number of entries evincing confusion between Bodhiruci 菩提流支 and *Prajnāruci 般若流支. Sakaino quotes LDSBJ discussing this confusion (T2034 [XLIX], 87a11-15). Sakaino adds that Dharmaruci 曇摩流支 was also included in this confusion, due to the element流支 –ruci, shared between all the names. For example, the Jinse wang jing 金色王經 (T162 ascribed to *Prajnāruci) is listed in Fajing with a note saying “translated by Ruci” 留支譯, apparently mistaking it as Bodhiruci’s work. In LDSBJ, this Jinse wang jing is not listed as Bodhiruci’s work, but listed among both the works of *Prajnāruci and those of Dharmaruci, with a note to that ascribed to Dharmaruci stating 法上錄云菩提流支後更重勘. KYL records the same. Sakaino claims that those records indicate that the Fashang catalogue 法上錄 listed a Jinse wang jing ascribed to Bodhiruci, stating 菩提流支再勘譯出, but Fei ascribed the title to the two other “Rucis” 流支, even while he copied over Fashang’s note. Sakaino lists the following five titles that are ascribed to Bodhiruci in Fajing but not in LDSBJ (Sakaino states that the ascriptions in Fajing are written simply 流支, but Sakaino tentatively assumes that it means Bodhiruci): 如來莊嚴智慧光明入一切佛境界經 [如來莊嚴智慧光明入一切諸佛境界經 T357 ascribed to *Dharmaruci], 如來師子吼經 co-translated with *Buddhaśānta (T835 ascribed to *Buddhaśānta), 聖善住意天子所問經 (T341, presently ascribed to *Vimokṣa Prajñārṣi and *Prajñāruci), 信力入印法門經 (T305 ascribed to Dharmaruci), and T162 (discussed above). In LDSBJ, ascriptions are given to the same five titles as follows: the T357, the T305 and T162 are ascribed to Dharmaruci; T835 is ascribed to *Buddhaśānta; and T341 is ascribed to *Prajnāruci. 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. — 668-670 |
According to Sakaino, KYL follows LDSBJ regarding the works of *Buddhaśānta 佛陀扇多. Sakaino claims that the Rulai shizi hou jing 如来師子吼經 (T835 ascribed to *Buddhaśānta) was probably co-translated by *Buddhaśānta and Bodhiruci, as recorded in Fajing, but later misunderstood as two different texts, one ascribed to *Buddhaśānta and the other ascribed to Bodhiruci. 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. — 662-664 |
Fajing ascribes T835 to Bodhiruci and *Buddhaśānta. 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. — 655-656 |
|
Sakaino states that Ratnamati 勒那摩提, Bodhiruci 菩提流支, and *Buddhaśānta 佛陀扇多 were contemporaries in the Northern Dynasty period, and that it is recorded that Ratnamati started translating scriptures in China first, followed by Bodhiruci, and then by Buddhaśānta. However, Sakaino claims that Buddhaśānta probably came to China earlier than the other two. Sakaino gives the following support for this claim: For translation works ascribed to these three figures, the tradition rarely reports an oral translator/interpreter 傳語, even though an interpreter should have been necessary. The preface of the Daśabhūmika 十地[經]論 T1522, however, states that Ratnamati and Bodhiruci were the translators 譯出, and Buddhaśānta was the oral translator/interpreter 傳語. From this, Sakaino infers that Buddhaśānta was the person who worked as the oral translator/interpreter 傳語 for the other two in other cases as well. Sakaino infers that Buddhaśānta must have arrived in China earlier than the other two, and thereby had longer to learn the language. This entry is associated with all texts ascribed to the trio, to which this suggestion might apply. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|