| Identifier | T0366 [T] |
| Title | 佛說阿彌陀經 [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. [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 |
[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. — 415-416 |
|
Demiéville lists and discusses texts ascribed to Kumārajīva by Sengyou, namely T201 T223 T227 T235 T245(!) T262 T366 T456 T475 T613 T614 T616 T617 T1435 T1509 T1564 T1568 T1569 T1646. This implies that the ascription of all other texts ascribed to Kumārajīva in the Taishō is less secure than those ascriptions, on at least this count. This entry lists all such texts (all "Kumārajīva" texts EXCEPT those listed by Demiéville/Sengyou). [NOTE: Demiéville's list is to be used with caution. For example, as Lin Xueni points out (personal communication), he omits the Kuśalamūlasaṃparigraha 華首經 T657, even though it is in fact listed by Sengyou, CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 10c21. I have therefore corrected, and do NOT include T657 in this list of possibly dubious ascriptions.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Tsai and Wenzel 2016] Tsai, Suey-Ling, and Claudia Wenzel. “The Spell Spoken by Buddha Amitābha.” In Buddhist Stone Sutras in China. Sichuan Provicne, Volume 3, Wofoyuan Section C, edited by Claudia Wenzel and Sun Hua 孫華, 169-173. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag/Hangzhou: China Academy of Art Press, 2016. |
Tsai and Wenzel study a version of the 阿彌陀佛說呪 T369 engraved on a cave wall at Wofoyuan, Sichuan. They also discuss the fact that it was transmitted as an appendix to the 阿彌陀經 T366. They cite a range of other relevant secondary literature on T369. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Wenzel 2016] Wenzel, Claudia. "The Amitābha Sūtra." In Buddhist Stone Sutras in China. Sichuan Province, Volume 3, Wofoyuan Section C, edited by Claudia Wenzel and Sun Hua 孫華, 151-165. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag/Hangzhou: China Academy of Art Press, 2016. |
Wenzel studies a version of the 阿彌陀經 T366 carved on the walls at Wofoyuan, Sichuan, which preserves significant textual variants. She relates this to the fact that T366 was transmitted in Japan in two different recensions. Only one of these two recensions is canonical; the other was known in Japan as the "popular" 流布本 and has been called by Ducor the "Vulgate". Tang figures who wrote commentaries on the sūtra followed this popular recension. Wenzel also studies the relation of the version of the text found at Wofoyuan to a lost "Xiangyang Stele" version, which has been transmitted in two quotations in Wang Rixiu and Yuanzhao. She concludes that the Wofoyuan version is related to that of the Xiangyang Stele, and is the earliest surviving witness to that lineage. She shows that it has variants of potential doctrinal significance even from other known versions of the Xiangyang Stele recension of the text. 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, which Sakaino does regard as authentic translations by Kumārajīva. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
No |
[Su 1995] Su Jinren 蘇晉仁. "Xuyan" 序言. In Su Jinren and Xiao Lianzi 蕭鍊子, eds. Chu sanzang ji ji 出三蔵記集. Zhongguo Fojiao dianji xuankan 中國佛教典籍選刊, 1-32. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1995. |
For the 異出經緣 of CSZJJ, LDSBJ T2034 (XLIX) 125c17-126a8 reports a different number of texts and fascicles to that found in our present CSZJJ. Naitō suggests that the difference in numbering between the LDSBJ report and the transmitted CSZJJ lies in the last 9 texts in the list. [T2145 (LV) 15a8-25 --- MR.] This list of nine texts also differs in form from the bulk of the section that precedes it. The preceding 34 texts in the same list are divided in an orderly manner into sūtra-vinaya-śāstra, but these nine items mess up that categorisation [all are sūtras again --- MR.] Annotations to earlier items give number of fascicles, but here, only names of translators are given. Further, there are items among the nine that were already recorded in the preceding, more orderly list of 34, but which are here recorded again with errors. On this basis, Naitō proposes that these 9 items are a later addition, added in a rather sloppy manner. This section also features the 長者須達經 of *Guṇavr̥ddhi 求那毘地, which appears in a list at the end of the 撰出經論 that Naitō also suspects of being a later addition. He therefore proposes that this section was added at the same time as that list, sometime after 504. The titles affected by this hypothesis are: 成具光明經 For the same list, Su Jinren (20, without reference to Naitō) also points out some of the same problems. Su does not believe that this list could have been added to the text by Sengyou himself, partly on the basis of the fact that the annotations appear to reflect too much ignorance. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
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 |
|