Text: T1005A; 大寶廣博樓閣善住祕密陀羅尼經

Summary

Identifier T1005A [T]
Title 大寶廣博樓閣善住祕密陀羅尼經 [T]
Date [None]
Translator 譯 Amoghavajra, 不空, 不空金剛, 阿目佉, 阿謨伽 [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).

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.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

No

[Goble 2012]  Goble, Geoffrey. “Chinese Esoteric Buddhism: Amoghavajra and the Ruling Elite.” PhD dissertation, Indiana University, 2012. — 11-12

Goble cites Osabe who argued that Amoghavajra’s Ba baoguang bolouge shanzhu mimi tuoluoni jing 大寶廣博樓閣善住祕密陀羅尼經 T1005A contains traces of “Confucian ethics.” Among the elements which Osabe identified as "Confucian ethical principles" were (among a list of bad behaviour): not respecting one’s parents or the honoured ones, slandering or harming sages, being unfilial to one’s parents, and disrespecting one’s elders. However, Goble is critical of Osabe’s interpretation of these elements as Confucian because Osabe appears to assume that filial piety is the exclusive domain of Chinese society and Confucian tradition.” Osabe (1990 = 1971): 89-105.

Entry author: Sophie Florence

Edit

No

[Strickmann 2002]  Strickmann, Michel. Chinese Magical Medicine. Edited by Bernard Faure. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002. — 229

Strickmann writes: "Properly speaking, many of [Amoghavajra's 167 'translations'] were not translations at all. Instead, they might better be called 'adaptations’; essentially, he refurbished them in line with his own terminology and ritual practice. This becomes even more striking in those cases where texts 'translated' by Amoghavajra are known to have been written in China centuries earlier, and directly in Chinese. A substantial part of Amoghavajra’s output thus comprises revisions of books already known in China, rather than new materials. Among the remaining, a good many cannot be found either in corresponding Sanskrit manuscripts or in Tibetan translation – at least not in the form in which Amoghavajra presents them. Much of what his texts tell us unquestionably goes back to Indian sources; he was clearly working fully within the Tantric Buddhist tradition, but often more as an author or compiler than as a translator in our sense of the term."

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit