Text: T0671; 入楞伽經


Identifier T0671 [T]
Title 入楞伽經 [T]
Date [None]
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


[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



[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



[Suzuki 1930]  Suzuki, D.T. Studies in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. London: George Routledge and Sons, 1930. — 7

Suzuki argues that Bodiruci’s Chinese rendition of the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, 入楞伽經 T671, is not a "direct translation", as it includes many explanatory glosses not paralleled in the received Sanskrit text or the two Tibetan translations (D107, Peking 775; D108, Peking 776). Suzuki writes: “It may not be quite fair to say that Bodhiruci put in his own words to help the reading of the text; the fact may be, perhaps, that his original was largely mixed with gloss and that he was not discriminating enough to reject it as such.” [BB: Suzuki appears to leave open the possibility that Bodiruci was working with a different recension of the original Sanskrit sutra than the Tibetan translators, which could account for some of the additional glosses appearing in T671.]

Entry author: Billy Brewster