| Identifier | T0201 [T] |
| Title | 大莊嚴論經 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Unspecified | unknown [CSZJJ] |
| Translator 譯 | Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 [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).
| 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 |
[Palumbo 2012] Palumbo, Antonello. "Models of Buddhist Kingship in Early Medieval China." In Zhonggu shidai de liyi, zongjiao yu zhidu 中古時代的禮儀、宗教與制度 (New Perspectives on Ritual, Religion and Institution in Medieval China), edited by Yu Xin 余欣, 287-338. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe 上海古籍出版社, 2012. — 308 |
Palumbo writes that the Da zhuangyan lun 大莊嚴論 (Kalpanāmaṇḍitikā) T201 features a “gallery of monarchs” lifted from the recent past, “and fictionalised as devout supporters of the clergy”. He refers to his own article for a full discussion: Palumbo, Antonello. “Lassoed by the Throat: A Buddhist Story on the Avarca King Indravarma in the Zhuangyan lun, A Chinese Version of the Kalpanāmaṇḍitikā Dṛṣṭāntapaṅkti of Kumāralāta” (in preparation at time of publication). Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
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]. — s.v., Vol.7, 269-270 (Mino Kōjun 美濃晃順) |
Mino Kōjun 美濃晃順 explains that, although the Kalpanāmaṇḍitikā 大莊嚴論經 T201 is not listed in Sengyou’s CSZJJ 出三藏記集 (including Dao'an's work), which is the most reliable catalogue, it is shown in most of the catalogues as translated by Kumārajīva 羅什. This being the case, Mino suggests that the attribution of T201 to Kumārajīva should be accepted. However, he also argues that the text must have been translated shortly after Kumārajīva came to China, because the translation is not so good as to be regarded naturally as Kumārajīva’s. Thus, Mino infers the date of translation as between 384 and 401, or, at the very latest, in 402 or 403. Mino also mentions the variation of the titles of this text in the catalogues, and shows that the 經 in the title 大莊嚴論經 has been added to the title since KYL 開元錄, and was not in the titles in the earlier title or in the original. Further, he discusses the issue of authorship of the text and argues that the text is more likely to have been produced by Ārya-Ku(au)marālāta (阿梨耶鳩摩羅邏多/聖童受), with an alternate name 喩鬘論 , rather than by Aśvaghoṣa 馬鳴 as recorded in the catalogues. Mino says that space is insufficient to argue his view in full, and just briefly mentions some of his reasons, such as that the content of the text often indicates a connection with North India, while Aśvaghoṣa lived in South India. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Demiéville 1953] Demiéville, Paul. “Les sources chinoises.” In L’Inde classique: Manuel des études indiennes, Tome II, by Louis Renou and Jean Filliozat, 398-463. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale/Hanoi: École Française d’Extrême-Orient, 1953. — 416-417 |
|
Demiéville reports that these are the works ascribed to Kumārajīva by Sengyou, for which the ascriptions should therefore be more secure. [NOTE: As pointed out by Lin Xueni (personal communication), CSZJJ in fact ascribes to Kumārajīva at least one text not mentioned by Demiéville, viz. the Kuśalamūlasaṃparigraha 華首經 T657, T2145 (LV) 10c21. Demiéville's list is therefore to be used with caution. I have corrected to include T657 here --- MR] 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. — 350-358 |
|
In his discussion on Kumārajīva, Sakaino presents a list of titles newly ascribed to Kumārajīva in LDSBJ, and lists of titles that Fei took in groups for this purpose from the newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures in CSZJJ 新集失譯錄. These new ascriptions are thus part of a very broad pattern that Sakaino traces in LDSBJ, whereby Fei gives random and baseless new ascriptions for titles treated as anonymous by Sengyou. Sakaino marks extant titles. This entry is associated with titles Sakaino marks as extant; we list all such texts in T still ascribed to Kumārajīva, the ascriptions for which thus probably derive from LDSBJ. Chan mi yao fa jing 禪祕要法經 (written 禪祕要經 in the list) T613 Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 10c16-11a27 |
|
In his own list of works of Kumārajīva in CSZJJ, Sengyou lists 35 works. The full list is given below, with identifications with texts extant in T (some identifications tentative). By contrast, the present T ascribes over 50 translation works to Kumārajīva (we do not count here T1775 or T1856). The ascription of the following works ascribed to Kumārajīva in T is not supported by Sengyou's list: T35, T123, T201, T245, T250, T307, T310(26), T335, T426, T484, T614, T617, T625, T703, T988, T1484, T1489, T1659, T2046, T2047, T2048. 新大品經二十四卷(偽秦姚興弘始五年四月二十二[三M]日於逍遙園譯出至六年四月二十三日訖), T223 Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Tomomatsu 1931] Tomomatsu, Entai. "Sûtrâlaṃkâra et Kalpanâmaṇḍitikâ. 1re Partie." Journal Asiatique 219 (1931): 135-174. — 151-157 |
Tomomatsu points out that in CSZJJ, Sengyou himself ascribes 35 works in 294 juan to Kumārajīva [T2145 (LV) 10c16-11a27] but at the same time, cites a postface to the *Bodhisattvaprātimokṣa that says he translated more than 50 works [菩薩波羅提木叉後記, T2145 (LV) 79b26-c8]. He points out that this means that Sengyou was clearly aware of traditions that ascribed a greater number of works to Kumārajīva than he did himself, and that his more conservative list of attributions is evidence of bibliographic rigour or scruples. Tomomatsu also points out that the fact that Sengyou reports this other tradition shows that in figures other than Sengyou himself, the tendency to inflate the number of attributions to Kumārajīva (and other figures like him) already existed in his time; further evidence in this same direction is the fact that Huijiao, in his GSZ, reports similar information for Kumārajīva himself. Tomomatsu points out that the postface in CSZJJ is almost verbatim identical with an anonymous preface carried in present T by T1484 (梵網經序); and that T1484 also carries a second preface, ascribed to Sengzhao 僧肇, which also reports the inflated total of 50 texts supposedly translated by Kumārajīva. Tomomatsu argues that the ascription of both the "Sengzhao" preface and T1484 itself are false [see separate entries]. Tomomatsu presents tables showing the inflation in various traditional catalogues over time of Kumārajīva's corpus and works ascribed to other major translators, going from Sengyou's catagues ["S"] to the CSZJJ biographies ["SBi"], through Huijiao's GSZ ["K"], to Fei Zhangfang (LDSBJ) ["H], to Jingmai ["Ko"], to Zhisheng's KYL ["Ky"] (see esp. 156; Tomomatsu's idiosynractic abbrevations, based in part upon Japanese pronunciations of the names of the bibliographers in question, are noted in square brackets in my list preceding). However, Tomomatsu states that apart from the so-called *Bodhisattvaprātimokṣa/T1484, we have no concrete information about what the other 15 works might have been, that elevated the total from Sengyou's 35 to 50. Tomomatsu then brings the argument back to the *Kalpanāmaṇḍitikā (or so-called *Sūtrālaṃkāra) T201, suggesting that this work, too, might have been among the works added to Kumārajīva's credit around the same time, i.e. at or soon after the turn of the fifth-sixth centuries. On this basis, he suggests that T201 may not be due to Kumārajīva. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Young 2015] Young, Stuart. Conceiving the Indian Buddhist Patriarchs in China. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2015. — 52 ff. |
The Dazhuangyan jing lun 大莊嚴經論 T201 (*Kalpanamaṇḍitikā) was falsely ascribed to Aśvaghoṣa. It is not treated in CSZJJ T2145, and first appears in Fajing T2146 and then in LDSBJ T2034. There is no evidence that the Chang'an group of Kumārajīva ever had the text of T201 in their hand. Fajing 法經 and Fei Changfang 費長房 might have misread the line 作莊嚴佛法諸論述百萬言 in the Nanatsu-dera edition of T2047, and established a false connection between T201 and Aśvaghoṣa. However, in this line, 莊嚴佛法 is merely an adjectival phrase modifying 諸論, and does not refer to any specific text. Entry author: Chia-wei Lin |
|
|
|
No |
[Loukota 2019a] Loukota Sanclemente, Diego. "The Goods that Cannot Be Stolen: Mercantile Faith in Kumāralāta's Garland of Examples Adorned by Poetic Fancy." PhD diss., UCLA, 2019. — 111-120 |
In his dissertation on the Kalpanāmaṇḍitikā Dṛṣṭāntapaṅkti (hereafter the Garland), Loukota challenges the traditional ascription to Kumārajīva of the main Chinese translation (also the only complete version in any language), the Da zhuangyan lun jing 大莊嚴論經 T201. He first considers the external evidence, pointing out that T201 was first ascribed to Kumārajīva only in Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu, but not in Sengyou’s Chu sanzang jiji. Since ample time elapsed between Kumārajīva’s career and Sengyou, and Sengyou based his ascription directly on Kumārajīva’s disciples’ records, we have reasons to doubt Fajing’s ascription. Turning to internal evidence, Loukota not only challenges the current ascription, but further suggests re-ascribing T201 to Zhu Fonian, or at least to someone from his circle. First, he reviews previous scholars’ assessment of the ascription, including Kanno, who categorizes the language of T201 as kyūyaku 旧訳, i.e. no later than Kumārajīva. If T201 is not by Kumārajīva, then it should be from a contemporary. Chronologically, Zhu Fonian’s biography, which Loukota also reviews, fits this condition. Loukota then lists 11 items from his own lexical analysis of a single story in the collection, T201(3), which he characterises as “preliminary but statistically significant”. His evidence includes 11 words/phrases he judges to be characteristic or even unique to Zhu Fonian (Diego's full list of ostensible markers is: 詣, 愚無智慧, 毀、譽, 僂脊, 歡慶, 改悔, 獨一己, 輕蔑, 𠎝(var. 愆)咎, 黔毘羅, 伴黨). He also suggests that some of the works translated by Zhu Fonian share certain stylistic affinities with T201, such as T194 and T2045, which are similarly in a literary vein. Loukota acknowledges that re-ascribing T201 to Zhu Fonian does not solve the problem that Sengyou did not include T201 in his catalogue, but argues that the ascription is more fitting for the reasons mentioned above. Lastly, Loukota also compares one of the stories quoted by Da zhidu lun (T1509, ascribed to Kumārajīva) that are from the Garland with the corresponding story in T201. In doing so, he demonstrates that the translation in T1509 is much more faithful to both the content and the poetic style than T201. At the same time, he also points out the couple of Chinese literary tropes shared by the two texts (e.g. 秀眉), arguing that this supports his theory that the texts were produced in the same milieu, i.e. early 5th century Chang-an. For Loukota, this serves as further support for his theory that Zhu Fonian produced T201, and not Kumārajīva. Entry author: Sharon Chi |
|