| Identifier | [None] |
| Title | 梵網經序 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Author | Sengzhao, 僧肇 [T] |
| 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. — T1484 (XXIV) 997a18-b5 |
Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Tomomatsu 1931] Tomomatsu, Entai. "Sûtrâlaṃkâra et Kalpanâmaṇḍitikâ. 1re Partie." Journal Asiatique 219 (1931): 135-174. — 151-152 |
Tomomatsu points out that a Prātimokṣasūtra is ascribed to Kumārajīva in an anonymous postface known to Sengyou (in CSZJJ, 菩薩波羅提木叉後記 [T2145 (LV) 79b26-c8]), but that Sengyou himself does not attribute the same text to Kumārajīva (in his catalogue of Kumārajīva's translations, [T2145 (LV) 10c16-11a27]). He points out further that though we might easily assume that this text has been lost, Zhisheng, in KYL, identified the second [sic?] fascicle [actually, Zhisheng states that the text is in two fascicles --- MR] of the Fangwang jing 梵網經 T1484 as a translation by Kumārajīva [presumably he refers to T2154 (LV) 606a21-22 --- MR]. He also points out that T1484 is preceded by two prefaces, one anonymous, and the other ascribed to Kumārajīva's disciple Sengzhao 僧肇. The anonymous preface is virtually identical with that found in CSZJJ. The Sengzhao preface is suspect for the fact that Sengyou does not mention it, though he is aware of several other Sengzhao prefaces. The Sengzhao preface also mentions the number of 50 translations by Kumārajīva, which means that if we regard the attribution of the preface to him, we have to accept that this tradition of so many translations was more or less contemporary to Kumārajīva himself. Even Huijiao, who accepts the attribution of T1484 to Kumārajīva, counts only 33 works in his corpus overall. Thus, Tomomatsu argues that the preface is not by Sengzhao, and should be regarded as anonymous. Tomomatsu points out that Huijiao was the author of a lost commentary on T1484, and that this was probably what motivated him to accept the attribution of the text to Kumārajīva, despite his otherwise cautious attitude to the corpus of Kumārajīva as a whole. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|