| Identifier | T1435 [T] |
| Title | 十誦律 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Translator 譯 | *Puṇyatāra, 弗若多羅; 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 |
[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.5, 167 (Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋) |
Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋 explains the translation process of this *Daśa-bhāṇavāra-vinaya 十誦律 T1435 (the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya)as follows: Puṇyatāra 弗若多羅 recited the original text in its entirety from memory; probably Kumārajīva 羅什 translated it; but 弗若多羅 passed away due to illness and the translation work discontinued. Later, Dharmaruci 曇摩流支 came to China with the original text of the *Daśa-bhāṇavāra-vinaya. Huiyuan 惠遠, who had found it a shame that the translation of thsi *Daśa-bhāṇavāra-vinaya was incomplete, heard the news and requested Kumārajīva to continue the project with Dharmaruci 曇摩流支, and Kumārajīva completed the translation accordingly. Thus, this text was translated with two chief translators 譯主, Puṇyatāra and Dharmaruci 曇摩流支. 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 |
[Funayama 2004] Funayama Tōru. "The Acceptance of Buddhist Precepts by the Chinese in the Fifth Century." Journal of Asian History 38, no. 2 (2004): 97-120. — 100- |
Funayama recounts details of the process whereby the final text of the 十誦律 T1435 was produced. It arrived in China shortly after Kumārajīva himself (he arrived in 401). Translation was initiated when Puṇyatāra arrived in 404. After two thirds of the text had been translated, Puṇyatāra died, and translation was resumed with the help of Dharmaruci, who arrived in 405. Kumārajīva nurtured the hope of improving on the final translation. However, the final editor of T1435 was in fact Vimalākṣa 卑摩羅叉, who had been Kumārajīva's Vinaya teacher in Kucha. After Kumārajīva's death, Vimalākṣa went to Shouchun 壽春, where he lectured on Vinaya; he later moved to Jiangling 江陵, where he did the same. In Shouchun, Vimalākṣa composed the final version of T1435. (A lecture he gave at a summer retreat 夏坐 at Jiangling was transcribed and delivered to Jiankang 建康; Funayama dates this lecture between 412 and 415; the content of this lecture later became 目連問戒律中五百輕重事 T1483 [Funayama refers to his own study of 1998].) 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. — 348 |
Sakaino mentions that Zhisheng held that the Shi song lü 十誦律 in 61 juan [Sarvāstivāda Vinaya/*Daśādhyāyavinaya T1435, ascribed to *Puṇyatāra and Kumārajīva 弗若多羅共羅什譯] should be excised from the list of Kumārajīva’s works, since 58 out of 61 juan were “translated” by Puṇyatāra 弗若多羅, and the remaining three juan were an addition “translated” by *Vimalākṣa 卑摩羅叉. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|