| Identifier | T262 Devadatta Ch. [Funayama 2013] |
| Title | [None] |
| Date | Lotus Sutra, 提婆達多品 Devadatta Chapter [Funayama 2013] |
| Translator 譯 | Fayi 法意, *Dharmamati 達摩摩提 [Funayama 2013] |
| Preferred? | Source | Pertains to | Argument | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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 |
In 490 the Devadatta chapter was translated by Fayi 法意 from a text acquired by Faxian while he was in Khotan; CSZJJ 13b, GSZ 411c. 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. — 366-367, cf. 649-650 |
Kumārajīva’s Lotus 法華經 T262 does not include the Devadatta chapter 提婆品. The chapter was translated by Faxian 法献 and Fayi 法意 (達摩摩提, *Dharmamati), slightly more than eighty years after Kumārajīva translated the rest of the text, and added to it. Faxian 法献 was the teacher of Sengyou, so the ascription to him and Fayi in CSZJJ should be reliable. Not much is known about Fayi/*Dharmamati. 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. — 370-374 |
Sakaino introduces the view of Tiantai dashi 天台大師 , i.e. Zhiyi 智顗, expressed in his (Fahua) Wenju ji (法華)文句 T1718 (XXXIV) 114c23-115a2, that Kumārajīva’s Lotus 法華經 initially included the Devadatta chapter 提婆品 (quoted on 371). Sakaino claims that there is nothing odd about the absence of the Devadatta chapter, since it is now widely accepted that the original text Kumārajīva used was copied in Kuchā 龜茲, preserving an older form of the text than that used by Dharmarakṣa to produce his version of the text, 正法華 T263. Sakaino adds that Jingxi 荊溪 (i.e. Zhanran 湛然), in T1719, also comments upon a theory of a ninefold analysis of the structure of the Lotus Sūtra (九轍説) by Sengrui 僧叡 in the 妙法蓮華經文句 T1718 by 智顗. This might be thought to imply that Sengrui saw the Devadatta chapter of the Lotus, which would then imply in turn that the Devadatta chapter was included in Kumārajīva’s translation of the text, However, Sakaino claims that there is nothing in what Zhanran says that demonstrates that Kumārajīva’s Lotus included the Devadatta chapter. 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. — 375 |
Sakaino states that Daosheng’s 道生 Fahua shu 法華疏 (2 juan) (妙法蓮花經疏 X577) is based on what the author heard at Kumārajīva’s lectures. [X557 gives the author as 笠(sic!)道生, fn. 2 in CBETA corrects this obvious error, saying: 笠ハ竺ニツクルベシ --- MR.] Among the three commentaries by Kumārajīva’s students’ on the Lotus, only this one is extant. The content indicates that the Devadatta chapter 提婆品 was missing from Kumārajīva’s original translation of the Lotus T262. 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. — 128 |
The postface 經後序 of T262 records that the text was translated by Kumārajīva in Hongshi 弘始 8 (406 CE). Ōno adds that the Devadatta chapter of the extant version was translated by *Dharmamati 達摩摩提 of the Southern Qi 南齊, and the summary gāthās 重誦偈 of the Pumen 普門 chapter was taken from the translation by *Jinagupta/*Jñānagupta 闍那崛多. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|