| Identifier | T0453 [T] |
| Title | 佛說彌勒下生經 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Unspecified | *Saṃghadeva, *Gautama Saṃghadeva, 僧迦提婆, 瞿曇僧伽提婆 [Hayashiya 1945] |
| Translator 譯 | Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 [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 |
[Legittimo 2010] Legittimo, Elsa. "Reopening the Maitreya-files – Two Almost Identical Early Maitreya Sutra Translations in the Chinese Canon: Wrong Attributions and Text-historical Entanglements." Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 31, no. 1/2 (2010): 251–294. |
The 彌勒下生經 T453 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa 竺法護 is virtually identical to EĀ 48.3 (T125:787c2 ff.), as was already noticed by Matsumoto Bunzaburō in 1911. There is no Pali equivalent. KYL also states that T453 is excerpted from EĀ. Sugi 守其 also expressed reservations about the ascription to Dharmarakṣa. Legittimo argues that the vocabulary suggests that the text is not by Dharmarakṣa. Legittimo notes that Zürcher, “Prince Moonlight”, 13 n. 16, also points out that T453 is a "literal reproduction" of the EĀ version of the story. Legittimo aims to establish the authorship of T453, with the idea that this study will also contribute to the study of the authorship of T125. Her method is to study intensively the vocabulary of the first 22 lines of the text. Her Appendix II presents this evidence in detail, and in all, her argument rests upon the characteristic patterns of occurrence of 19 terms (272). Legittimo sets aside terms that appear more than sixty times, because she believes that "their connection with a particular translator or group of translators cannot be established" (257, 272) [in my view, this assumption is incorrect---MR]. Legittimo argues, on the basis of this evidence, that T453 is by Zhu Fonian. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Anālayo 2010] Anālayo, Bhikkhu. “The Influence of Commentarial Exegesis on the Transmission of Āgama Literature.” In Translating Buddhist Chinese: Problems and Prospects, edited by Konrad Meisig, 1–20. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2010. — p. 7 n. 45 |
"Levi...draws attention to two texts preserved as individual translations in the Taishō edition that are near verbatim equivalents to discourses in the Ekottarika-āgama, cf. T 128b at T II 837c12 and EĀ 30.3 at T II 660a1; as well as T 453 at T XIV 421a6 and EĀ 48.3 at T II 787c2. The Taishō edition attributes both of these texts to translators that were active before the Ekottarika-āgama was translated. Though the identification of these two translators remains doubtful, nevertheless, these instances suggest that texts may have been incorporated in the translation of the Ekottarika-āgama that did not form part of the Indic original of this collection...” Referring to Lévi, Les seize Arhat protecteurs de la Loi,” Journal Asiatique, ser. II, 8 (1916): 191, 263. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Buswell 2004] Buswell, Robert E., Jr. "Sugi's Collation Notes to the Koryŏ Buddhist Canon and Their Significance for Buddhist Textual Criticism." The Journal of Korean Studies 9, no. 1 (2004): 129-184. — 146, 156 |
Buswell reports that Sugi found no evidence in the catalogues that Dharmarakṣa had ever made such a translation. Sugi also cited "structural evidence" [Buswell uses this phrase to mean reports about the number of pages, sections, juan etc. in a text] to prove that T453 could not be any of three non-extant works possibly matching this title. Sugi arrives at no firm conclusion about the ascription of T453. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Mei 1996] Mei Naiwen 梅廼文. “Zhu Fahu de fanyi chutan 竺法護的翻譯初探.” Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal 中華佛學學報 9 (1996): 49-64. — 53 |
Mei says that modern scholars suspect that both of these texts are not by Dharmarakṣa. He refers to Gao Mingdao (1983): 47 and Yinshun. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Boucher 1996] Boucher, Daniel. "Buddhist Translation Procedures in Third-Century China: A Study of Dharmarakṣa and his Translation Idiom." PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1996. — 279-280 |
Boucher notes that Matsumoto Bunzaburo has questioned the attribution of Mile xia sheng jing 彌勒下生經 T453 to Dharmarakṣa. Matsumoto argued that T453 is a “reproduction of the last part of chapter 44 of the Ekottarāgama translated by Saṅghadeva.” For this information Boucher cites N. Peri’s review of Matsumoto’s book in BEFEO XI (1911): 439-58, especially 444. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Hayashiya 1945] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎, Iyaku kyōrui no kenkyū‚ 異譯經類の研究, Tokyo: Tōyō bunko, 1945. — 141-215 |
Hayashiya argues that, of 6 texts in a group of Maitreya scriptures included in the Taisho, the Mile xia sheng jing 彌勒下生經 T453 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa is in fact part of the *Ekottarikāgama 増一阿含 T125 ascribed to *Saṃghadeva 僧伽提婆. (The “group of Maitreya scriptures” refers to the texts that describe Maitreya as a future Buddha and the heaven Maitreya resides in, and also other titles related to them.) Hayashiya’s discussion on T453 can be summarised as follows: Hayashiya asserts that the Maitreya text translated by Dharmarakṣa existed, but it is not the current T453. According to him, T453 is actually Ekottarikāgama 48.3. Hayashiya points out that the ascription of T453 to Dharmarakṣa was already considered dubious by the editor of the Korean edition of the canon 麗本, who stated that the text was probably anonymous. Tokiwa agrees with this view. However, Hayashiya claims that since T453 is taken from the *Ekottarikāgama, it is not anonymous (following the traditional ascription of T125 as a whole to *Saṃghadeva, Hayashiya ascribes this text, too, to *Saṃghadeva). Hayashiya thinks that the identity of T453 and Ekottarikāgama 48.3 went unnoticed because it was not easy to predict that the content of a Mahāyāna text would be identical with that of an Āgama scripture (142-143). Hayashiya speculates that such use of an Āgama scripture was possible because the tale of Maitreya described in the text is shared by both the mainstream and the Mahāyāna schools, probably originating from sometime even before the Āgamas were produced. The text about Maitreya translated by Dharmarakṣa is recorded in Dao’an’s catalogue, with the title Mile cheng Fo jing 彌勒成佛經. Hayashiya points out that Dao’an is especially reliable in this case, since he was one of initial advocates of the idea of rebirth in Tuṣita Heaven (兜率往生思想), and hence is likely to have paid special attention to the texts related to Maitreya. Sengyou also saw the text. The Mile cheng Fo jing ascribed to Dharmarakṣa is listed as extant in the catalogues following CSZJJ. KYL then records it as a lost scripture, and appears again in the Taishō wrongly in the form of “*Saṃghadeva’s” *Ekottarikāgama. The scenario Hayashiya presents as most plausible in explaining such a record is this: The Mile cheng Fo jing was lost by the time of Yancong, but still continued listed in the catalogues probably because the text was confused with the text of the Mile da cheng Fo jing 彌勒大成佛經 T456 ascribed to Kumārajīva (thus, Yancong and Jingtai list a Mile cheng Fo jing ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, while excising Kumārajīv’s Mile cheng Fo jing 彌勒成佛經, i.e. T456). Zhisheng 智昇 noticed the mistake in the foregoing catalogues and correctly reclassified the Mile cheng Fo jing ascribed to Dharmarakṣa as lost. Hayashiya claims that, since there is no other text in the group similar in length to T456 and to Dharmarakṣa’s Mile cheng Fo jing listed in the foregoing catalogues (viz., roughly seventeen sheets in KYL), it is not easy to come up with any other possibility that adequately explains the record that there were two Mile cheng Fo jing texts ascribed to Dharmarakṣa and Kumārajīva in different catalogues after CSZJJ (210-213). (Hayashiya does not try to explain why part of the *Ekottarikāgama was included in the Taishō as T453 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa.) (In support of his claims, Hayashiya lists detailed differences between T453, T454, T456, and T457 in length at 149-171.) Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
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. — 126-127 |
Sakaino claims that although the Mile xiasheng jing 彌勒下生經 [T453 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa] has several oddities with regard to terminology (such as the juxtaposition of 化自在 and 他化自在, which should have both meant the same thing for Dharmarakṣa), in all the text can safely be regarded as the work of Dharmarakṣa. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
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. — 427-428 |
Sakaino claims that the Mile xiasheng jing 彌勒下生經 [T453] ascribed to Dharmarakṣa is actually an excerpt from the *Ekottarikāgama増一阿含 ascribed to *Dharmanandin 曇摩難提. Sakaino conjectures that this excerpt was initially treated as anonymous, but ascribed to Dharmarakṣa after the Mile cheng Fo jing 彌勒成佛經 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa went missing. However, the extant T453 cannot be the Mile cheng Fo jing, because the two texts differ too much in length (Sakaino quotes a passage from a colophon 跋文 to the Xiasheng jing 下生經 written by the editor of the Shukusatsu zōkyō 縮刷藏經 to the same effect). Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
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]. — vol. 2, pp. 182-183 |
Tsujimori Yōshū 辻森要修 claims that the 觀彌勒菩薩上生兜率天經 T452 was produced after the 下生經 [佛説彌勒下生經 T453? --- AI] since T452 contains the expression 如彌勒下生經説. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 78a20, 98c24-99a1 |
LDSBJ ascribes a text with this title to Kumārajīva version, citing the “Two Qin” catalogue 二秦錄. Elsewhere, LDSBJ also ascribes a version to Huixian 慧顯 and ten other worthies, in an interlinear note carried only in K (missing SYMP). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 22b27 |
In Sengyou's Chu sanzang ji ji, T453 (or T454?) 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): 彌勒下生經一卷(異出本). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|