Text: T1569; 百論

Summary

Identifier T1569 [T]
Title 百論 [T]
Date 402-406 [Kimura 1986]
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).

Assertions

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

Edit

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

Edit

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

Edit

No

[Er Qin lu]  Sengrui 僧叡. Er Qin lu 二秦錄.
[Fei 597]  Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034 (XLIX) 77b26-79a10

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
小品般若波羅蜜經十卷, T227
華首經一十卷, T657
妙法蓮華經七卷, T262
十住經五卷, T286
思益經四卷, T586
持世經四卷, T482
維摩詰經三卷, T475
佛藏經三卷, T653
自在王經二卷, T420
諸法無行經二卷, T650
無量壽經一卷, T366
金剛般若經一卷, T235
大智度論一百卷, T1509
成實論二十卷, T1646
十住論一十卷, T1521
中論八卷, T1564
百論二卷, T1569

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?
賢劫經七卷, ???
菩薩藏經三卷, T1491?
稱揚諸佛功德經二卷, T434?
彌勒下生經一卷, T454? T456?
彌勒成佛經一卷,T454? T456?

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

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

Edit

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 analyses various items of external evidence pertaining to the date and process of translation for the Bai lun 百論 T1569 (*Śataśāstra). According to CSZJJ, T1569 was translated in 弘始八年 406. According to the Er Qin lu 二秦錄 [as reported in LDSBJ], T2034, T2149 and T2154, it was translated in 弘始六年 404. Although there is only one preface extant, by Sengzhao, according to Lu Cheng’s 陸澄 Falun mulu 法論目錄, there were two prefaces entitled 百論序, by Sengrui and Sengzhao respectively. According to Sengzhao, Kumārajīva translated the text before he was acquainted with the Chinese language (以為心要先雖親譯 而方言未融). Jizang 吉藏, in his Bailun Shu 百論疏, explains that Sengrui's preface was to the translation done before 402, and Sengzhao's preface was to the retranslation in 404 (又叡師序是弘始四年前翻 什師初至方言未融為此作序 猶未中詣 肇師序即是此文六年重翻). Another piece of evidence supporting the contention that the text was translated twice is a passage that indicates two sponsors for the translation project: first Yao Xing 姚興, second Yao Song 姚松 (翻論檀越有二人二處二時 初是天子姚興為旦越 次是姚嵩 初在逍遙薗西明閣上 次是草堂寺). The second version was intended to correct the mistakes and deficiencies in the first translation. This shows that T1569 was translated twice, and what is transmitted to us is the later (“definitive”) version (治定本).

Entry author: Chia-wei Lin

Edit