Text: Bei hua jing 悲華經 Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka

Summary

Identifier	[None]
Title	Bei hua jing 悲華經 Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka [Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936]
Date	北凉 [Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936]
Translator 譯	Daogong 道龔 [Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936]

Assertions

Preferred?	Source	Pertains to	Argument	Details
No	[Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936] Ono Genmyō 小野玄妙, Maruyama Takao 丸山孝雄, eds. Bussho kaisetsu daijiten 佛書解說大辭典. Tokyo: Daitō shuppan, 1933-1936 [縮刷版 1999]. — s.v., Vol.9, 125-129 (Akanuma Chizen 赤沼智善 and Nishio Kyōo 西尾京雄)	Bei hua jing 悲華經 Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka	Akanuma Chizen 赤沼智善 and Nishio Kyōo 西尾京雄 explain that there were four alternate translations of the Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka, including 悲華經 T157. One was the Bei hua jing 悲華經, recorded as translated by Daogong 道龔 of the N. Liang 北凉. This text has been lost, and Akanuma and Nishio suspect that it might not have even existed in the first place. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki Edit	Title: Bei hua jing 悲華經 Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka People: Daogong 道龔 (translator 譯) Date: 北凉
No	[Silk 1994] Silk, Jonathan Alan. “The Origins and History of the Mahāratnakūṭa Tradition of Mahāyāna Buddhism with a Study of the Ratnarāśisūtra and Related Materials.” PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, 1994. — 669	Bei hua jing 悲華經 Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka T0157; 悲華經	In KYL, Zhisheng discussed the fact that three translations had been reported of the Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka, by Dharmarakṣa, Daogong 道龔, and Dharmakṣema. Zhisheng reported a tradition that Daogong had in fact revised and arranged the first translation, by Dharmarakṣa; but Zhisheng's own opinion was that the extant text was in fact probably the Dharmakṣema version. KYL: 悲華經十卷(第三出與法護閑居經及大悲分陀利曇無讖悲華經等同本房云見古錄似是先譯龔更刪改今疑即無讖出者是), T2154:55.519b20-21. [Note: This may mean that the present ascription of T157 in T derives from this judgement of Zhisheng --- MR.] Entry author: Michael Radich Edit
No	[Silk 1994] Silk, Jonathan Alan. “The Origins and History of the Mahāratnakūṭa Tradition of Mahāyāna Buddhism with a Study of the Ratnarāśisūtra and Related Materials.” PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, 1994. — 670	Bei hua jing 悲華經 Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka T0157; 悲華經	Silk states briefly, referring to KYL, Tokiwa, Yamada, and Hayashiya, that "the evidence seems to suggest that the attribution [of a Bei hua jing to Daogong] is probably false, and that the 'lost' Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka translation of Daogong is rather to be identified wit the extant translation attributed to his more famous contemporary Dharmakṣema. Entry author: Michael Radich Edit

Preferred?

Source

Pertains to

Argument

Details

[Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936] Ono Genmyō 小野玄妙, Maruyama Takao 丸山孝雄, eds. Bussho kaisetsu daijiten 佛書解說大辭典. Tokyo: Daitō shuppan, 1933-1936 [縮刷版 1999]. — s.v., Vol.9, 125-129 (Akanuma Chizen 赤沼智善 and Nishio Kyōo 西尾京雄)

Bei hua jing 悲華經 Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka

Akanuma Chizen 赤沼智善 and Nishio Kyōo 西尾京雄 explain that there were four alternate translations of the Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka, including 悲華經 T157. One was the Bei hua jing 悲華經, recorded as translated by Daogong 道龔 of the N. Liang 北凉. This text has been lost, and Akanuma and Nishio suspect that it might not have even existed in the first place.

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit

Title: Bei hua jing 悲華經 Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka
People: Daogong 道龔 (translator 譯)
Date: 北凉

[Silk 1994] Silk, Jonathan Alan. “The Origins and History of the Mahāratnakūṭa Tradition of Mahāyāna Buddhism with a Study of the Ratnarāśisūtra and Related Materials.” PhD dissertation, University of Michigan, 1994. — 669

In KYL, Zhisheng discussed the fact that three translations had been reported of the Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka, by Dharmarakṣa, Daogong 道龔, and *Dharmakṣema. Zhisheng reported a tradition that Daogong had in fact revised and arranged the first translation, by Dharmarakṣa; but Zhisheng's own opinion was that the extant text was in fact probably the *Dharmakṣema version.

KYL: 悲華經十卷(第三出與法護閑居經及大悲分陀利曇無讖悲華經等同本房云見古錄似是先譯龔更刪改今疑即無讖出者是), T2154:55.519b20-21.

[Note: This may mean that the present ascription of T157 in T derives from this judgement of Zhisheng --- MR.]

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

Silk states briefly, referring to KYL, Tokiwa, Yamada, and Hayashiya, that "the evidence seems to suggest that the attribution [of a Bei hua jing to Daogong] is probably false, and that the 'lost' Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka translation of Daogong is rather to be identified wit the extant translation attributed to his more famous contemporary Dharmakṣema.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit