| Identifier | T0235 [T] |
| Title | 金剛般若波羅蜜經 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Unspecified | Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 [Sakaino 1935] |
| 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 |
[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. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Teiser 1994] Teiser, Stephen F. The Scripture of the Ten Kings and the Making of Purgatory in Medieval Chinese Buddhism. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1994. — 95-98 |
Teiser discusses versions of Kumārajīva’s Vajracchedikā T235 which “contain a sixty-character interpolation the authenticity of which has been disputed...since medieval times”. This interpolation is popularly referred to as 冥司偈, “gāthās from the dark offices”. It is featured in S 5450 and S 5544 (manuscripts which also contain the "Sutra on the Ten Kings"), and also in a number of other manuscript booklets. Teiser remarks that this interpolation was probably already present in a printed version of the text from Sichuan, which is believed to be the basis for these manuscript copies. This rescension is referred to as the “true printed copy of the Guo family of Xichuan" 西川過家真印本. The same versions of the text are divided into 32 sections (other manuscripts are divided sometimes into 32, sometimes into 12 sections), and end with three dhāraṇī that are also not in transmitted canonical versions of the text. Makita suggested, after Song historiographers, that the 冥司偈 were dropped inadvertently from the earliest copies of Kumārajīva’s translation and reinserted under the Tang, i.e. that they are authentic. Teiser is here citing Makita’s “Kan’yaku Butten denshōjō no ichi mondai 漢訳仏典伝承上の一問題” 128 n. 10. 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. — 346-350 |
|
According to Sakaino, CSZJJ ascribes 31 texts still extant today to Kumārajīva. Sakaino maintains that three of them should not be regarded as Kumārajīva’s independent works. This entry is associated with the remaining 28 titles. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
No |
[Er Qin lu] Sengrui 僧叡. Er Qin lu 二秦錄. |
|
Fei Zhangfang reports that the Er Qin lu, which he ascribes to Sengrui, was his source (or among his sources) for his ascriptions of 24 texts to Kumārajīva. The following titles can be identified with fair confidence with texts in the present Taishō: 摩訶般若波羅蜜經三十卷, T223 The following titles on Fei's list are more difficult to identify with extant texts: 大方等大集三十卷, T397?(!), or some version of the Kāśyaparivarta? Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Kimura 1986] Kimura Senshō 木村宣彰. "Kumarajū no yakukyō 鳩摩羅什の訳経." Ōtani daigaku kenkyū nenpō 大谷大学研究年報 38 (1986): 59-135. |
Kimura argues that the record of 24 texts ascribed to Kumārajīva in LDSBJ, supposedly from the Er Qin lu 二秦錄, should be the most reliable source available about Kumārajīva's work (see separate entry on LDSBJ’s reports about Kj’s works in the Er Qin lu). Although many scholars consider reports about the Er Qin lu, preserved in the Lidai sanbao ji 歷代三寶記 T2034 and Datang neidian lu 大唐內典錄 T2149, to be unreliable, Kimura argues that it is an important and reliable source, because its author, Sengrui 僧叡, was a close disciple of Kumārajīva and witnessed the translation activities directly. Entry author: Chia-wei Lin |
|