Text: T1856; Dasheng dayi zhang 大乘大義章; 鳩摩羅什法師大義

Summary

Identifier	T1856 [T]
Title	鳩摩羅什法師大義 [T]
Date	[None]
Author	Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆; Lushan Huiyuan, 慧遠, 廬山慧遠 [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.	T1856; Dasheng dayi zhang 大乘大義章; 鳩摩羅什法師大義	Entry author: Michael Radich Edit	Title: 鳩摩羅什法師大義 People: Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 (author); Lushan Huiyuan, 慧遠, 廬山慧遠 (author) Identifier: T1856
No	[Wagner 1971] Wagner, Rudolf G. “The Original Structure of the Correspondence between Shih Hui-Yüan and Kumārajīva.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 31 (1971): 28-48. [Wagner 1969] Wagner, Rudolf G. “Die Fragen Hui-yuans an Kumārajīva.“ PhD dissertation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, 1969. — Wagner (1969): 6-11, 28-37; reprised in English in Wagner (1971).	T1856; Dasheng dayi zhang 大乘大義章; 鳩摩羅什法師大義	Wagner argues that the Dasheng dayi zhang 大乘大義章 T1856 (also known as the Jiumoluoshi fashi dayi 鳩摩羅什法師大義) was scrambled in transmission, and attempts, on the basis of close philological scrutiny of the text, to reconstruct the original order in which Huiyuan's questions and Kumārajīva's answers were produced and would have been presented. Essentially, Wagner argues as follows. Given the probable dating of the exchange (in Wagner´s view, approx. spring 406 to the end of 407), and the logistical realities of postal exchange at the time, Wagner contends that there would not have been sufficient time for an exchange of eighteen or twenty-eight questions and answers to have been delivered to and fro between Lushan and Chang'an, as the present structure of the text would make it appear. On the basis of rigorous formal criteria for determining the relative sequence of questions and answers (1971: 43), Wagner concludes that there were in fact only two exchanges of a total of four letters, each containing multiple questions (from Huiyuan) or answers thereto (from Kumārajīva). "I hope to have established that there were two letters with questions by Hui-yüan and two letters with answers by Kumārajīva, and that Hui-yüan knew only the answers to his first series of questions when he formulated the second series." Entry author: Michael Radich Edit	Title: Dasheng dayi zhang 大乘大義章

Preferred?

Source

Pertains to

Argument

Details

[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.

T1856; Dasheng dayi zhang 大乘大義章; 鳩摩羅什法師大義

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

Title: 鳩摩羅什法師大義
People: Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 (author); Lushan Huiyuan, 慧遠, 廬山慧遠 (author)
Identifier: T1856

[Wagner 1971] Wagner, Rudolf G. “The Original Structure of the Correspondence between Shih Hui-Yüan and Kumārajīva.” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 31 (1971): 28-48.
[Wagner 1969] Wagner, Rudolf G. “Die Fragen Hui-yuans an Kumārajīva.“ PhD dissertation, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, 1969. — Wagner (1969): 6-11, 28-37; reprised in English in Wagner (1971).

T1856; Dasheng dayi zhang 大乘大義章; 鳩摩羅什法師大義

Wagner argues that the Dasheng dayi zhang 大乘大義章 T1856 (also known as the Jiumoluoshi fashi dayi 鳩摩羅什法師大義) was scrambled in transmission, and attempts, on the basis of close philological scrutiny of the text, to reconstruct the original order in which Huiyuan's questions and Kumārajīva's answers were produced and would have been presented. Essentially, Wagner argues as follows. Given the probable dating of the exchange (in Wagner´s view, approx. spring 406 to the end of 407), and the logistical realities of postal exchange at the time, Wagner contends that there would not have been sufficient time for an exchange of eighteen or twenty-eight questions and answers to have been delivered to and fro between Lushan and Chang'an, as the present structure of the text would make it appear. On the basis of rigorous formal criteria for determining the relative sequence of questions and answers (1971: 43), Wagner concludes that there were in fact only two exchanges of a total of four letters, each containing multiple questions (from Huiyuan) or answers thereto (from Kumārajīva). "I hope to have established that there were two letters with questions by Hui-yüan and two letters with answers by Kumārajīva, and that Hui-yüan knew only the answers to his first series of questions when he formulated the second series."

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

Title: Dasheng dayi zhang 大乘大義章