Text: T152(39); Milan jing 彌蘭經

Summary

Identifier	T152(39) [T]
Title	Milan jing 彌蘭經 [T]
Date	[None]

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).

Assertions

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. — T152 (III) 21a9-c7	T152(39); Milan jing 彌蘭經	Entry author: Michael Radich Edit	Title: Milan jing 彌蘭經 Identifier: T152(39)
No	[Shi Tianchang 1998] Shi Tianchang 釋天常. "Liu di ji yanjiu" 六度集研究. Chung-Hwa Buddhist Studies 中華佛學研究 2 (1998): 75-104. — 87-89	T152(39); Milan jing 彌蘭經	The title Milan jing 彌蘭經 (cf. T152(39)) is already found in Dao'an, who characterises the text as old; in CSZJJ, it is already explicitly treated as from the Liu du ji. It is excerpted in the Jing lü yi xiang. At least from the time of CSZJJ, this title is identified with the Milian jing 彌連經/彌蓮經. However, Tianchang compares the Milian jing as quoted in the Jing lü yi xiang with T152(39), and argues that the differences in wording are too great for them to represent the same text; they are, rather, two independent versions of the same material. Tianchang refers to a study by Itō Chikako of eight versions of the same narrative material; according to his summary, she treats material common to all versions, and concludes that T152(39) represents the version closest to the oldest form of the story accessible. Tianchang concludes that there are certain elements of the style that suggest the text is close to Kang Senghui, or even his work; it is at least quite old. At the same time, he holds, again, that the independent sūtra format makes it difficult to see how it could fit into the overall plan of the Liu du ji, so long as the collection is united by any coherent design whatsoever. He thus concludes that it is most likely that the text did not belong to the Indic original behind the Liu du ji, and that it should have been added into the collection before Sengyou at the latest. Entry author: Michael Radich Edit

Preferred?

Source

Pertains to

Argument

Details

[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. — T152 (III) 21a9-c7

T152(39); Milan jing 彌蘭經

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

Title: Milan jing 彌蘭經
Identifier: T152(39)

[Shi Tianchang 1998] Shi Tianchang 釋天常. "Liu di ji yanjiu" 六度集研究. Chung-Hwa Buddhist Studies 中華佛學研究 2 (1998): 75-104. — 87-89

T152(39); Milan jing 彌蘭經

The title Milan jing 彌蘭經 (cf. T152(39)) is already found in Dao'an, who characterises the text as old; in CSZJJ, it is already explicitly treated as from the Liu du ji. It is excerpted in the Jing lü yi xiang. At least from the time of CSZJJ, this title is identified with the Milian jing 彌連經/彌蓮經. However, Tianchang compares the Milian jing as quoted in the Jing lü yi xiang with T152(39), and argues that the differences in wording are too great for them to represent the same text; they are, rather, two independent versions of the same material. Tianchang refers to a study by Itō Chikako of eight versions of the same narrative material; according to his summary, she treats material common to all versions, and concludes that T152(39) represents the version closest to the oldest form of the story accessible. Tianchang concludes that there are certain elements of the style that suggest the text is close to Kang Senghui, or even his work; it is at least quite old. At the same time, he holds, again, that the independent sūtra format makes it difficult to see how it could fit into the overall plan of the Liu du ji, so long as the collection is united by any coherent design whatsoever. He thus concludes that it is most likely that the text did not belong to the Indic original behind the Liu du ji, and that it should have been added into the collection before Sengyou at the latest.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit