| Identifier | T0262 [T] |
| Title | 妙法蓮華經 [T] |
| Date | 405-406 [Kimura 1986] |
| 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 |
[Funayama 2013] Funayama Tōru 船山徹. Butten wa dō Kan’yaku sareta no ka: sūtora ga kyōten ni naru toki 仏典はどう漢訳されたのか スートラが経典になるとき. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten: 2013. — 29 |
The Devadatta chapter was translated by Fayi 法意 in 490, from a text acquired by Faxian while he was in Khotan; CSZJJ 13b, GSZ 411c. This makes the full text, as we now have it, a composite product of two translators. 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 |
[T264 Preface ] Anon. Preface to 添品妙法蓮華經 T264. — T264:9.134c4-11. |
The author of the preface to T264 says that the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra of Kumārajīva (T262) was translated from an original manuscript brought from Kucha, which he had examined. The author also discusses parts of the text that were "missing" in T262 Cf. Demiéville (1954): 315 n. 6. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Suguro 1993] Suguro Shinjō 勝呂信静. Hoke kyō no seiritsu to shisō 法華経の成立と思想. Daitō shuppansha, 1993. — 77-78 |
Suguro states that a note carried by catalogues beginning with LDSBJ shows that the gāthās in the Pu men pin 普門品 of Kumārajīva’s translation of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka T262 were not in the original, and were added back into the text later on the basis of *Jñānagupta/Jinagupta’s version; neither does equivalent material occur in Dharmarakṣa’s T263 (77-78). [Note: In the Taishō, the chapter as a whole has a footnote saying that it was missing from the Koryŏ, Song and Yuan editions, and was inserted on the basis of the Ming edition; 麗本宋本元本缺此經依明本載之, T262 (IX) 198a12. The chapter also has a title that identifies it as a “sūtra”, 妙法蓮華經觀世音菩薩普門品經, T262 (IX) 198b7-8 -- MR.] 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, which Sakaino does regard as authentic translations by Kumārajīva. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
No |
[Ōno 1954] Ōno Hōdō 大野法道. Daijō kai kyō no kenkyū 大乗戒経の研究. Tokyo: Risōsha 理想社, 1954. — 129 |
The preface 經序 of T264 states that the first parts of the “Five Hundred Śrāvakas” 五百弟子 and “Dharma Preacher” 法師 chapters in T262 are lacking in T263 and T264, but they are in fact not missing in the extant versions. Ōno refers to his own paper, "Hokke kyō hon’yaku no shomondai" 法華經翻譯の諸問題, for the details of the relations between those alternate translations. 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. — 390-391 |
Sakaino states that the well-known recapitulatory verses 重頌偈 occurring at the end of the Pumen chapter 普門品 of Kumārajīva’s Lotus Sūtra T262 (apparently referring to T262 (IX) 57c7-58b2) were not in Kumārajīva’s translation but added later. The verses in question are actually from *Jñānagupta/Jinagupta’s 闍那崛多 translation. Sakaino points out that the content of this verse does not fit very well with the preceding prose, and it is not included in the translation by Dharmarakṣa 正法華 T263. Hence there is room for doubt if this verse was truly a recapitulatory verses for this chapter. However, the extant Sanskrit text of the Lotus has these verses, so it was not added after the text was brought to China. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
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 |
[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 analyses two prefaces to Kumārajīva's Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, Miaofa lianhua jing 妙法蓮花經 T262, by Huiguan 慧觀 and Sengrui 僧叡. According to these prefaces and most catalogues, the text was translated in 406 弘始八年. There are some minor differences between Huiguan's 慧觀 and Sengrui's 僧叡account of the translation activities. Kimura concludes that Sengrui's account refers to the first draft (初訳) and Huiguan's 慧觀 account refers to the last (“definitive”) draft (決定訳). However, the date of 405 弘始七年in the Dazhou kanding zhongjing mulu 大周刊定眾經目錄 T2153 (右後秦弘始七年沙門羅什於長安逍遙園譯, T2153 [LV] 385c10-11 [according to a note, taken from LDSBJ --- MR]) is not necessarily wrong. It is echoed by fascicle 3 of the Lidai sanbao ji 歷代三寶紀卷三 T2034; Sengxiang's 僧詳 Fahua zhuanji 法華傳記 (弘始七年冬); and the colophon of the Dunhuang manuscript edited by Tokiwa Daijō常盤大定 (此經是偽秦弘始七年三月十六日 羅什法師於長安大明寺翻譯之 又別錄及慧遠法師所記日月小不同). Here, the phrase “Lushan Huiyuan’s memorandum” 慧遠法師所記 refers to Huiyuan's 慧遠 Miaofa lianhua jing xu 妙法蓮華經序. Although this document is not extant, there are fragments preserved in Zhanran's 湛然 Fahua wenju ji juan 法華文句記卷 T1719 (東安法師云 七年三月十六日譯訖 慧遠經序同 或云 弘始十年二月譯竟 不同之事不可追尋). Here, 東安法師 refers to another disciple of Kumārajīva, Huiyan 慧嚴, who returned from Chang’an 長安 to Jiankang 建康. Considering all this evidence, Kimura suggests that the translation might have been done in 405, with eight hundreds monks in attendance, according to Sengrui, and revised in 406, with two thousands monks, according to Huiguan. Entry author: Chia-wei Lin |
|