Text: T1520; 妙法蓮華經論優波提舍

Summary

Identifier T1520 [T]
Title 妙法蓮華經論優波提舍 [T]
Date [None]
Co-translator 共譯 Bodhiruci, 菩提流支, 菩提留支; Ratnamati, 勒那摩提 [Sakaino 1935]
Translator 譯 Ratnamati, 勒那摩提; Senglang, 僧朗 [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).

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

[Sakaino 1935]  Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 668-671

Not much is known about Ratnamati 勒那摩提. LDSBJ double-lists the *Daśabhūmika-sūtra-śāstra 十地經論 T1522, the Commentary on the Kāśyapaparivarta [大]寶積經論 T1523, the Ratnagotravibhāga 究竟一乗寶性論 T1611, and the Fahua jing lun 法華經論 T1520 (commentary on the Lotus Sūtra), ascribing them to Ratnamati and to Bodhiruci separately. Sakaino claims that, as T1522 was co-translated by Ratnamati and Bodhiruci but misunderstood later as two different versions translated by each of the two [see above, 656-657 十地經論は勒那摩提菩提流支の共譯], probably the other three titles are also in fact the co-translation works of Ratnamati and to Bodhiruci.

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit

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]. — vol. 10, pp. 367-369

According to Tajima Tokuon 田島徳音, the 妙法蓮華經憂波提舍 T1519 ascribed to Bodhiruci 菩提留支 and Tanlin 曇林, and the 妙法蓮華經論憂波提舍 T1520 ascribed to Ratnamati 勒那摩提 and Senglang 僧朗 are alternate translations of the same text. Only Bodhiruci’s version has a fourteen-line verse at the beginning. Other than that, the two scriptures differ only in wording and details.

Tajima explains the context in which those two were produced almost at the same time as follows (summarizing XGSZ and other materials): Ratnamati and Bodhiruci (as well as *Buddhaśānta 佛陀扇多) were engaged in scriptural translations in Luoyang 洛陽 in the same period (the early sixth century), but they worked separately without cooperating with one another due to the difference of lineage 師傳. Bodhiruci produced T1519 after Ratnamati’s T1520, adding the preface to the text. Tanlin 曇林 is generally regarded as having worked with Bodhiruci, but XGSZ states that he worked with *Prajñāruci 般若流支, not Bodhiruci 菩提留支.

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit

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

Edit