| Identifier | T2048 [T] |
| Title | 提婆菩薩傳 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Unspecified | unknown [CSZJJ] |
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 |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 350-358 |
|
In his discussion on Kumārajīva, Sakaino presents a list of titles newly ascribed to Kumārajīva in LDSBJ, and lists of titles that Fei took in groups for this purpose from the newly compiled catalogue of anonymous scriptures in CSZJJ 新集失譯錄. These new ascriptions are thus part of a very broad pattern that Sakaino traces in LDSBJ, whereby Fei gives random and baseless new ascriptions for titles treated as anonymous by Sengyou. Sakaino marks extant titles. This entry is associated with titles Sakaino marks as extant; we list all such texts in T still ascribed to Kumārajīva, the ascriptions for which thus probably derive from LDSBJ. Chan mi yao fa jing 禪祕要法經 (written 禪祕要經 in the list) T613 Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. — T2145 (LV) 10c16-11a27 |
|
In his own list of works of Kumārajīva in CSZJJ, Sengyou lists 35 works. The full list is given below, with identifications with texts extant in T (some identifications tentative). By contrast, the present T ascribes over 50 translation works to Kumārajīva (we do not count here T1775 or T1856). The ascription of the following works ascribed to Kumārajīva in T is not supported by Sengyou's list: T35, T123, T201, T245, T250, T307, T310(26), T335, T426, T484, T614, T617, T625, T703, T988, T1484, T1489, T1659, T2046, T2047, T2048. 新大品經二十四卷(偽秦姚興弘始五年四月二十二[三M]日於逍遙園譯出至六年四月二十三日訖), T223 Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Young 2015] Young, Stuart. Conceiving the Indian Buddhist Patriarchs in China. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 2015. — 265-273 |
Young argues that the Longshu pusa zhuan 龍樹菩薩傳 T2047 and the Tipo pusa zhuan 提婆菩薩傳 T2048 were most likely composed not by Kumārajīva’s coterie, but in the decades following the compilation of T2058. An index for the authorship of Kumārajīva and his associates, which Kumārajīva’s circle always emphasized (with the sole exception of T1775), is the narrative of the decline of the Dharma, and Buddhist saints reviving the dharma through public debate and doctrinal authorship. But both T2047 and T2048 did not evince these characteristics. Both texts are also missing from CSZJJ T2145 and other catalogues before the sixth century. Two further pieces of evidence against Kumārajīva’s authorship are (1) Huiyuan’s慧遠 treatment of the biography of Nāgāruna in his preface to his abridged version of the Da zhidu lun (= MPPU T1509): Against Robinson, who believed that T2047 was a probable source for Huiyuan, Young suggests that there are significant differences between Huiyuan’s preface and T2047, but these features are shared by both T2047 and T2058. This suggests that Huiyan likely did not have T2047 before him when composing the preface. Young suggests that the only item common to Huiyuan and T2047, the journey to the dragon palace, was more likely derived by Huiyuan from two prefaces by Kumārajīva's disciples. (2) Sengrui’s 僧睿 reference to a certain “Indian Tradition” (天竺傳) at T2145 55:75a: this „Indian Tradition“ was not reproduced in any separate biography we have today, and it suggests that T2047 and T2048 were not in circulation in early-fifth-century-Chang'an. Sengrui quoted this “Indian Tradition” expressing the notion of the decline of the Dharma (像正之末微馬鳴龍樹。道學之門其淪湑溺喪矣). This notion of the decline of the Dharma, although present in the Nanatsu-dera edition of Maming pusa zhuan 馬明菩薩傳 and other writings of Kumārajīva, is included in neither T2047 nor T2048. Entry author: Chia-wei Lin |
|