Contributions to the Study of the Śikṣāsamuccaya Derived from Chinese Sources
| 🤓 Admin Zone 🛠️ hidden to non-admins | |
- A Reliable Witness? On the Tibetan Translation of the Śikṣāsamuccaya
- Contributions to the Study of the Śikṣāsamuccaya Derived from Chinese Sources
- Einige textkritische und exegetische Bemerkungen zu Śāntidevas Śikṣāsamuccaya (Kapitel XII und XIII)
- Verses by Śāntideva in the Śikṣāsamuccaya: A New English Translation
- Çikshāsamuccaya: A Compendium of Buddhistic Teaching (1992)
- Śikṣāsamuccaya of Śāntideva
- Śikṣāsamuccaya of Śāntideva (Vaidya)
- Śāntideva's Śikṣāsamuccaya-kārikās
Description
The present work is rendered into the Chinese by Fâ-hu and Zih-khan A.D. 1004 1058 (Nanjio's Cat. No, 1298). It is done so carelessly that we very often meet with mechanical juxtapositions of words and phrases corresponding with the original, giving no connected sense at all, which render this translation so far untrustworthy. But large portions of the works cited by the author we find correctly translated into Chinese. Moreover in finding our way about the stock phrases or technical expressions and other terminology peculiar to Buddhism we Buddhists stand in a position of some advantage.
The main object of the present paper is to illustrate certain selected passages from Chinese sources, leaving to others whose knowledge of Buddhist Sanskrit may be more extended than my own, the criticism of the work from the Indian side.
At present, I must confess, I have no time to read through this treasury of Mahāyāna doctrine. My search is limited generally to those passages, which the editor noted as doubtful or obscure in their reading. In a few cases other portions are touched on when they came under my notice.
As to my use of the Chinese, I may explain that the latest Japanese edition of the Chinese Buddhist Tripiṭaka is divided into forty groups; each group is designated, as it formerly was, by the successive characters of the " Sentence of Thousand (different) Characters " Each group thus designated contains 9 to 15 fasciculi numbered by numerals. I denote each fasciculus by Roman figure in its order, discarding the original awkward numbering. As to the version of the Śikṣāsamuccaya I give only number of leaf, for the whole work is included in fasc. CLXXXV (1). (Wogihara, "Contributions," 96–97)
";7" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 5.
