Text Documents And Extracts Chiefly From Manuscripts in Bodleian Vol 01 Part 02

SR No.: 020817
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Max Muller, Bunyiu Nanjio
Publisher: Oxford
Publication Year: 1883
Total Pages: 131
Language: English, Sanskrit
Classification: Book_English & Book_Devnagari
File Size: 10 MB

Page 12

BUDDHIST TEXTS FROM JAPAN.
(12) Tâ-shan-wu-lian-sheu-kwân-yen-kin, 'Mahâyânâmitâyur-vyuhasútra.' 3 fasc. By Fa-hhien, A.D. 982-1001, of the later Sun dynasty, A.D. 960–1280. (K”-yuen-lu, fasc. 4, fol. 11 a.) Fifth of the five translations still in existence. No. 863.
None of these twelve Chinese titles reproduces the exact meaning of, the title of Sukhâvati-vyúha, or Amitabha-vydha; but on the contrary, almost all of them agree with the title Amitâyur-vyuha, or Amitâ yussútra. For the above seven missing translations, see the Khâi-yuen-lu, fasc. 14, fol. 3 b seq.
Besides the five translations, there is a work entitled TA-c-mi-tho-kin, lit. 'Large Amitâyus-sútra,' in two fasciculi, No. 203. It was compiled by a Chinese minister, Wan Zih-hhiu, in A.D. 1160–1162, under the Southern Sun dynasty, A.D. 1127-1280, and consists of extracts from four of the five translations, Nos. 25, 26, 27, and 863. The compiler, however, did not compare those translations with the Sanskrit text, but trusted simply to his own judgment, or to the spiritual help of Avalokitesvara, for which, as he states in his preface, he had always prayed in the course of his compilation. It is curious that he does not mention Bodhiruki's translation of the same Satra (No. 23. 5), which was made more than four centuries before, and is much better at least than No. 863, both in contents and composition.
In the K'-yuen-lu (fasc. I, fol. 21 b), Bodhiruki's translation is said to agree with the Tibetan translation, which is mentioned in the Asiatic Researches, vol. xx. p. 408.
If we examine carefully the five translations which are still in existence, we see that, besides their disagreement in minor and unimportant points, there were at least three different texts or copies of the text, differing from each other considerably. The first and second translations seem to have been made from nearly the same text, excepting that all the Gâthâs are left out in the second translation. The third and fourth translations seem to have been taken from almost the same text, excepting that the third translation has several additional chapters, which are given in the first and second translations also. The fifth translation stands by itself.
The exact relation of the Sanskrit text to the five translations may be seen from the following comparative table :