| Identifier | T0365 [T] |
| Title | 佛說觀無量壽佛經 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Translator 譯 | Kālayaśas, 畺良耶舍 [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 |
[Yamabe 2006] Yamabe, Nobuyoshi. “Fragments of the 'Yogalehrbuch' in the Pelliot Collection.” In Ein buddhistisches Yogalehrbuch: Unveränderter Nachdruck der Ausgabe von 1964 unter Beigabe aller seither bekannt gewordenen Fragmente, edited by Jens-Uwe Hartmann and Hermann-Josef Röllicke, 325-41. Munich: IUDICIUM, 2006. — 325-329 |
Yamabe examines the “Yogalehrbuch” (YL), a Sanskrit meditation manual based on a birch bark manuscript (SHT 150) edited and translated by Dieter Schingloff (1964a). He argues that the YL shares likenesses with some of the meditation/visualisation texts allegedly translated into Chinese in the early fifth century. Since many of these Chinese meditation texts are of dubious origin, similarities with the YL can be important clues to clarify the real provenance of these texts. In particular Yamabe discusses similarities between the YL and the Damotuoluo chan jing 達摩多羅禪經 T618. He cites Inokuchi (12-14)* who noted structural similarities between the YL and T618 (which, Yamabe notes in passing, is traditionally attributed to Dharmatrāta, but now generally to Buddhasena). Yamabe compares similar passages on upekṣā in the YL and Wumen chanjing yaoyong fa 五門禪經要用法 T619 to demonstrate that that these two texts have similar mystical visions. The Guan Wuliangshou [Fo] jing 觀無量壽[佛]經 T365 is the "most important", according to Yamabe, of the Chinese meditation texts of “dubious origin” to have similarities with YL. While T365 does not itself share many elements with the YL, it is closely related to Guanfo sanmeihai jing 觀佛三昧海經 T643 which “does have significant similarities to the YL.” *Inokuchi, Taijun. Saiiki shutsudo no bonbon yuga ronjo 西域出土の梵文瑜伽論書 (*A Sanskrit Yoga Text Excavated in Central Asia). Ryūkoku Daigaku ronshū 谷大學論集 (The Journal of Ryūkoku University) 381: 2-15. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Silk 1997] Silk, Jonathan A. “The Composition of the Guan Wuliangshoufo-jing: Some Buddhist and Jaina Parallels to Its Narrative Frame.” Journal of Indian Philosophy 25 (1997): 181–256. — 187, 190 |
Silk agrees with parts of Yamada's analysis (Yamada 1976), but argues further, on the basis of convincing but complex textual evidence, that the frame narrative about Ajātaśatru and Vaidehī is most likely to derive from India. Silk argues that a narrative "seam" falls at a similar juncture in many versions of the story, not just this one. Summary from Radich (2011): 46. Silk examines various versions of this frame narrative, how they line up against one another, what they include and what they omit. He discovers that T365 and Jain versions agree structurally, and contain content that does not appear in other Chinese versions of the story. The likenesses between T365 and Jaina texts from north-western India are significant enough to lead Silk to conclude that “the materials which inspired the authors of the Guan-jing in their composition of the narrative frame were, or at least could have been, presently unknown, and perhaps no longer extant, Indian materials, even if the sūtra as a whole were composed in a non-Indian environment.” That is, the first portion of the prologue narrative frame was borrowed verbatim, or nearly so, from Indian materials. Silk notes, however, that the same cannot be said for the Guan-jing as a whole. The first section of Silk’s article summarises some significant arguments for the non-Indian origin of the Guan-jing (including Yamada 1976; Fujita Kōtatsu 1990; Shikii Shūjō 1965). The most convincing, according to Silk, are those which suggest a Central Asian origin for the text as a whole, “but probably some area of Central Asia under strong Chinese cultural influence.” On the basis of Yamada's work Silk concludes that T365 was most likely first composed in the Chinese language. Silk adds that the vocabulary, structure, object, goal, method, and character of T365 owes much to T360 and T643 (Fujita Kōtatsu 1990; Shikii Shūjō 1965). However, according to Mark Blum (1985) these likenesses “may reflect the attitude and abilities of the translator as much as the language or authorship of the original text" since other translations also assigned to Kalayaśas reveal the same type of borrowing. Catalogues agree in attributing T365 to Kalayaśas. However, Silk advises caution in accepting the attribution of traditional catalogues. He claims they should be interpreted as “records of political decisions”. Silk argues (following Forte 1984) that for a text to be admitted to the canon, it was necessary that it be associated with a geographic source outside China that conferred upon it the authority of orthodoxy, such as India or Indian Central Asia. For these reasons, the “translators” to whom many traditional texts are ascribed “may be better termed a guarantor or certifier of orthodoxy.” “If we are dealing with non-Chinese ‘translators’ [such as Kalayaśas], then we must imagine that these individuals probably had little to do with the actual mechanics of the translation of a text.” Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Fujita 1990] Fujita, Kōtatsu. “The Textual Origins of the Kuan Wu-liang-shou ching: A Canonical Scripture of Pure Land Buddhism.” In Chinese Buddhist Apocrypha, edited by Robert Buswell, 149–173. Honolulu: University of Hawai`i Press, 1990. — 163 |
Fujita concludes that the Guan Wuliangshou jing 佛說觀無量壽佛經 T365 should not be seen as an entirely Chinese composition, nor as a direct translation from an Indic language. Instead Fujita suggests that the “core” of the text contained a Central Asian form of meditation that most likely arrived in China via oral transmission by Kālayaśas. Fujita argues that the text received a “Chinese colouring” due to the consultation of Chinese texts during the process of translation and elaboration. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Yamada 1976] Yamada Meiji 山田明爾. “Kangyōkyō: Muryōjubutsu to Amidabutsu 観経考 – 無量寿仏と阿弥陀仏.” Ryōkoku daigaku ronshū 龍谷大学論集 408 (1976): 76–95. — Cited in Silk, 1997, 186-189. |
"Yamada Meiji has shown by careful textual analysis that the text as a whole is composed of four parts, of which the frame narrative prologue that concerns us most is one, and that the four parts were stitched together to form the present text at some stage later than their separate composition." (As summarised in Radich 2011, 46.) Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Ōno 1954] Ōno Hōdō 大野法道. Daijō kai kyō no kenkyū 大乗戒経の研究. Tokyo: Risōsha 理想社, 1954. — 181-182 |
Ōno states that three different attributions are given in traditional catalogues for the “Contemplation Sūtra” 觀無量壽經 T365: 1) Sengyou classifies it as an extant anonymous scripture; 2) the Baochang catalogue 寶唱錄 (as cited in KYL) ascribes it to *Dharmamitra 曇摩蜜多 of the (Liu) Song period; and 3) GSZ, Fajing and other catalogues, and the catalogue of the Song and Qi periods 宋齊錄 by Daohui 道慧 (as cited in LDSBJ) ascribe the text to Kālayaśas 畺良耶舍 of the (Liu) Song period. In addition, LDSBJ also lists the text as an anonymous scripture of the Latter Han period (in juan 4) and as an anonymous scripture of the E. Jin period (in juan 7). Ōno supports the ascription to Kālayaśas, stating that CSZJJ does not record the works of Kālayaśas at all. Ōno adds that the tradition that T365 is an alternate translation 重譯 of a lost scripture ascribed to *Dharmamitra (in DZKZM and KYL) is mistaken, and Fajing is correct in stating that T365 is a unique translation 一譯 (單譯). Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 54b25, 74a29 |
T365 is listed in LDSBJ among anonymous E. Han texts, for which Fei cites CSZJJ 僧祐律師出三藏記, Gu lu and Jiu lu 古舊二錄, and Dao’an; and again among anonymous texts of the E. Jin. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fajing 594] Fajing 法經. Zhongjing mulu 眾經目錄 T2146. — T2146 (LV) 116c1, 122a24-25. |
A slightly variant title, probably referring to the same text, is ascribed to *Kālayaśas in an interlinear note in Fajing: 無量壽觀經一卷(宋元嘉年沙門畺良耶舍於陽[v.l. 楊S]州譯). The same attribution, with the title this time given as 無量壽觀經, also appears again in a list at the end of fascicle 1; however, according to the Taishō apparatus (122 n. 1), this list is taken from M, and collated against Y, which suggests it is missing from S and K (and therefore a late addition?). [The same title is treated as anonymous in CSZJJ. This is therefore probably the earliest attribution of such a text to *Kālayaśas --- MR.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 22a8 |
In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, T365 is regarded as an anonymous translation, that is to say, it is listed in the "Newly Compiled Continuation of the Assorted List of Anonymous Translations" 新集續撰失譯雜經錄 (juan 4): 觀無量壽[v.l. + 佛 SYM]經一卷. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|