| Identifier | T0440 [T] |
| Title | 佛說佛名經 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Author | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Kuo 1995] |
| Translator 譯 | Bodhiruci, 菩提流支, 菩提留支 [T] |
| [orally] "translate/interpret" 傳語, 口宣[...言], 傳譯, 度語 | Buddhaśānta, 佛陀扇多 [Sakaino 1935] |
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).
| 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 |
|
|
|
No |
[Kuo 1994] Kuo Li-ying. Confession et contrition dans le bouddhisme chinois du Ve au Xe siècle. (Paris: Publications de l'École française d'Extrême-Orient, 1994. — 231 |
This text contains three elements: a long list of Buddha-names; a confession text; and fragments of a sutra called Baoda pusa wenda baoying shamen jing 寶達菩薩問答報應沙門經, which gives a detailed description of hell. Does this latter element indicate that it is composed in China? Kuo argues that the Foming jing was used in rites of confession called foming chan 佛名懺 ('confession by [recitation of] Buddha-names' ) from at least as early as the time of Huijiao 慧皎, who describes the practice in the Gao seng zhuan 高僧傳. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Kuo 1995] Kuo, Li-ying. “La Récitation des noms de Buddha en Chine et au Japon.” T’oung Pao 81 (1995): 230-268. — 244-246 |
Kuo discusses the Fo ming jing 佛名經 T440 in 12 fascicles, ascribed to Bodhiruci (of the N. Wei). Citing prior work by Shioiri, Shibata and Inokuchi, she argues that it was probably composed in China. The main reasons for this judgement are that some of the Buddha names included are clearly calques comprising elements from Buddha names already existing in Chinese, including alternate names for “the same” Buddha (e.g. Dīpaṃkara = 燃燈, 定光). According to Inokuchi, some of the Buddha names would also be impossible in Central Asian or Indian languages. Kuo also gives a summary of some of the content of the text (246). Cf. Shibata Tōru 柴田泰, “Bodairushi yaku Bustumyō-kyō no kōsei ni tsuite 菩提流支.” IBK 24, no. 1 (1975): 246-249. 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. — 655-656 |
|
Sakaino states that Ratnamati 勒那摩提, Bodhiruci 菩提流支, and *Buddhaśānta 佛陀扇多 were contemporaries in the Northern Dynasty period, and that it is recorded that Ratnamati started translating scriptures in China first, followed by Bodhiruci, and then by Buddhaśānta. However, Sakaino claims that Buddhaśānta probably came to China earlier than the other two. Sakaino gives the following support for this claim: For translation works ascribed to these three figures, the tradition rarely reports an oral translator/interpreter 傳語, even though an interpreter should have been necessary. The preface of the Daśabhūmika 十地[經]論 T1522, however, states that Ratnamati and Bodhiruci were the translators 譯出, and Buddhaśānta was the oral translator/interpreter 傳語. From this, Sakaino infers that Buddhaśānta was the person who worked as the oral translator/interpreter 傳語 for the other two in other cases as well. Sakaino infers that Buddhaśānta must have arrived in China earlier than the other two, and thereby had longer to learn the language. This entry is associated with all texts ascribed to the trio, to which this suggestion might apply. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|