Source: Unebe 1970

Unebe Toshihide 畝部俊英. "Jiku Butsunen no kenkyū: Kan'yaku Zōichi agon kyō no yakushutsu wo megutte 竺仏念の研究　漢訳『増壱阿含経』の訳出をめぐって." Nagoya daigaku bungaku bu kenkyū ronshū 名古屋大学文学部研究論集 51 (1970): 3-38.

Assertions

Assertion	Argument	Place in source	Search
Texts: T0125; Ekottarikāgama; 增壹阿含經 People: Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 (translator 譯); Dharmanandi(n) 曇摩難提, Dharmananda? (reciter 誦出); Saṃghadeva, *Gautama Saṃghadeva, 僧迦提婆, 瞿曇僧伽提婆 (revised)	Mizuno Kōgen had argued that a number of individual Āgama discourses scattered through the canon are vestiges of second translations of the Ekottarikāgama and Madhyamāgama [Mizuno also ascribed both of these otherwise lost collections to Zhu Fonian, while supporting the traditional ascriptions of the extant full collections T125 and T26 respectively to Saṅghadeva --- though Unebe does not address this aspect of Mizuno's argument directly]. Unebe notes that in fact, prefaces credit Zhu Fonian as the actual translator of EĀ (like a range of other texts), and also document other collaborations with Dharmanandin (the reported "translator" of the supposedly lost "second EĀ"). On this basis, Unebe explores the hypothesis that in fact, the extant EĀ T125 was translated by Zhu Fonian. He bases his argument primarily on internal evidence, viz., the close study of a limited set of interrelated stylistic markers, though he also pays ample attention to external evidence (in the biographies, catalogues, and primary documents of CSZJJ, etc.). In fact, Unebe also presents his study in part as a methodological model and overt manifesto for better attention to internal evidence in attribution studies. Unebe first surveys external evidence to identify all the works that are ascribed to ZFn as the real translator in one source or another: T1, T125, T194, T212, T309, T384, T385, T656, T1505, T1543, T1549, and T2045. He then explains his method for the treatment of internal evidence using the example of translations of samyaksaṃbuddha, on which he had already published previously. The core of Unebe's argument about Zhu Fonian's works centers on terms for the members of the eightfold path of the noble ones (āryāṣṭāṅgamārga). Unebe compares translations of these terms in translators from An Shigao down to Zhu Fonian, Saṅghadeva and Kumārajīva (results tabulated, 26-27). From the ZFn corpus, Unebe examines translations of individual members of this eightfold set in T1, T125, T194, T309, T1505, T1543, T1549. He finds that generally speaking, Zhu Fonian consistently renders samyak- (in saṃyagdr̥ṣṭi, saṃyaksaṃkalpa, etc.) as deng 等: e.g. 等見、等治、等語、等業/等行、等命、等方便、等念、等定/等三昧 (with some interesting variation in both order and two individual terms, 等行 vs. 等業 and 等定 vs. 等三昧; 11). This is in striking contrast to the usual practice of all other translators in the same period, who use zheng 正. The terms with deng- therefore constitute a strong marker of Zhu Fonian's style and corpus. Unebe finds two exceptions to this pattern in Zhu Fonian's corpus. First, the Dīrghāgama T1 never uses terms with deng-, but always uses zheng-. Second, the pattern in EĀ T125 is even more peculiar. There, we find two groups: both deng- and zheng-. Renditions with deng-, moreover, are only found in six times, in a small group of EĀ discourses: 10.2, 19.2, 23.9 (twice), 24.5, 42.3 (see p. 11). Unebe deduces that the zheng-type renderings point to revision of EĀ at some time after it was originally produced. Since the deng-type renderings are more typical of Zhu Fonian, Unebe proposes that they preserve traces of the original “Dharmanandin translation”, for which Zhu Fonian served as the actual translator, and which has generally been considered lost. Unebe argues that this evidence allows us to draw several inferences about our extant EĀ T125 (28-29). First, it shows clearly that Zhu Fonian was involved in the production of the text in some form, at some stage of its history. Second, it shows that the text includes a layer reflecting revision. Third, it allows Unebe to nuance the very notion of ascription and translatorship for this case. Against the traditional notion of two (independent) translations (and against Mizuno, who accepts this notion), Unebe proposes that it is more reasonable to think in terms of an initial translation, and then a subsequent revision of that translation (he extends this argument to the Madhyamāgama as well). For Unebe, the texts regarded by Mizuno as the "alternative" translations of EĀ and MĀ (which Mizuno believes were due to Zhu Fonian) were probably the pre-revision (actual) translations, produced in both cases by Zhu Fonian. In support of this hypothesis, Unebe cites four texts from Mizuno's "alternate MĀ", and two from his "alternate EĀ", which feature (some of) the same terms with deng- that are typical of Zhu Fonian: respectively, T66, T70, T75, and T83 (MĀ); and T127 and T140 (EĀ). This inference implies that Saṅghadeva is the most likely candidate for the layer of revision preserved in the extant EA T125—but Unebe notes that this is only a possibility, and the reviser need not have been Saṅghadeva. Edit		Mizuno Kogen had argued that a number of individual Agama discourses scattered through the canon are vestiges of second translations of the Ekottarikagama and Madhyamagama [Mizuno also ascribed both of these otherwise lost collections to Zhu Fonian, while supporting the traditional ascriptions of the extant full collections T125 and T26 respectively to Sanghadeva --- though Unebe does not address this aspect of Mizuno's argument directly]. Unebe notes that in fact, prefaces credit Zhu Fonian as the actual translator of EA (like a range of other texts), and also document other collaborations with Dharmanandin (the reported "translator" of the supposedly lost "second EA"). On this basis, Unebe explores the hypothesis that in fact, the extant EA T125 was translated by Zhu Fonian. He bases his argument primarily on internal evidence, viz., the close study of a limited set of interrelated stylistic markers, though he also pays ample attention to external evidence (in the biographies, catalogues, and primary documents of CSZJJ, etc.). In fact, Unebe also presents his study in part as a methodological model and overt manifesto for better attention to internal evidence in attribution studies. Unebe first surveys external evidence to identify all the works that are ascribed to ZFn as the real translator in one source or another: T1, T125, T194, T212, T309, T384, T385, T656, T1505, T1543, T1549, and T2045. He then explains his method for the treatment of internal evidence using the example of translations of samyaksambuddha, on which he had already published previously. The core of Unebe's argument about Zhu Fonian's works centers on terms for the members of the eightfold path of the noble ones (aryastangamarga). Unebe compares translations of these terms in translators from An Shigao down to Zhu Fonian, Sanghadeva and Kumarajiva (results tabulated, 26-27). From the ZFn corpus, Unebe examines translations of individual members of this eightfold set in T1, T125, T194, T309, T1505, T1543, T1549. He finds that generally speaking, Zhu Fonian consistently renders samyak- (in samyagdrsti, samyaksamkalpa, etc.) as deng 等: e.g. 等見、等治、等語、等業/等行、等命、等方便、等念、等定/等三昧 (with some interesting variation in both order and two individual terms, 等行 vs. 等業 and 等定 vs. 等三昧; 11). This is in striking contrast to the usual practice of all other translators in the same period, who use zheng 正. The terms with deng- therefore constitute a strong marker of Zhu Fonian's style and corpus. Unebe finds two exceptions to this pattern in Zhu Fonian's corpus. First, the Dirghagama T1 never uses terms with deng-, but always uses zheng-. Second, the pattern in EA T125 is even more peculiar. There, we find two groups: both deng- and zheng-. Renditions with deng-, moreover, are only found in six times, in a small group of EA discourses: 10.2, 19.2, 23.9 (twice), 24.5, 42.3 (see p. 11). Unebe deduces that the zheng-type renderings point to revision of EA at some time after it was originally produced. Since the deng-type renderings are more typical of Zhu Fonian, Unebe proposes that they preserve traces of the original “Dharmanandin translation”, for which Zhu Fonian served as the actual translator, and which has generally been considered lost. Unebe argues that this evidence allows us to draw several inferences about our extant EA T125 (28-29). First, it shows clearly that Zhu Fonian was involved in the production of the text in some form, at some stage of its history. Second, it shows that the text includes a layer reflecting revision. Third, it allows Unebe to nuance the very notion of ascription and translatorship for this case. Against the traditional notion of two (independent) translations (and against Mizuno, who accepts this notion), Unebe proposes that it is more reasonable to think in terms of an initial translation, and then a subsequent revision of that translation (he extends this argument to the Madhyamagama as well). For Unebe, the texts regarded by Mizuno as the "alternative" translations of EA and MA (which Mizuno believes were due to Zhu Fonian) were probably the pre-revision (actual) translations, produced in both cases by Zhu Fonian. In support of this hypothesis, Unebe cites four texts from Mizuno's "alternate MA", and two from his "alternate EA", which feature (some of) the same terms with deng- that are typical of Zhu Fonian: respectively, T66, T70, T75, and T83 (MA); and T127 and T140 (EA). This inference implies that Sanghadeva is the most likely candidate for the layer of revision preserved in the extant EA T125—but Unebe notes that this is only a possibility, and the reviser need not have been Sanghadeva. Dharmanandi(n) 曇摩難提, Dharmananda? Samghadeva, *Gautama Samghadeva, 僧迦提婆, 瞿曇僧伽提婆 Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 T0125; Ekottarikagama; 增壹阿含經
Texts: T0066; 魔試目連經; 弊魔試摩目連經; 魔嬈亂經; 魔王試目連經; 魔王入目連腹中經; 魔王入目犍蘭腹經 ; T0070; 數經 ; T0075; 佛為黃竹園老婆羅門說學經 ; T0083; 應法經 ; T0127; 佛說四人出現世間經; Mizuno's "alternate Ekottarikāgama" ; T0140; Mizuno's "alternate Ekottarikāgama"; 阿那邠邸化七子經 People: Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 (translator 譯)	The main aim of Unebe's study is to address the translatorship of the extant Ekottarikāgama T125. Unebe bases his argument on a combination of rigorous scrutiny of external evidence, and the analysis of one restricted set of stylistic markers (internal evidence), viz., terms for the members of the eightfold path of the noble ones. Unebe discovers that translators down to the time of Zhu Fonian and Kumārajīva generally translated saṃyak-, as it enters into these terms (in saṃyagdr̥ṣṭi, saṃyaksaṃkalpa, etc.) as zheng 正. Zhu Fonian, however, renders the same element as deng 等: e.g. 等見、等治、等語、等業/等行、等命、等方便、等念、等定/等三昧 (with some interesting variation in both order and two individual terms, 等行 vs. 等業 and 等定 vs. 等三昧; 11). Unebe also discovers that four texts from Mizuno's "alternate MĀ", and two from his "alternate EĀ" feature (some of) the same terms with deng- that are typical of Zhu Fonian: respectively, T66, T70, T75, and T83 (MĀ); and T127 and T140 (EĀ). This implies that these texts, too, were originally translated by a team that included Zhu Fonian. Edit	28	The main aim of Unebe's study is to address the translatorship of the extant Ekottarikagama T125. Unebe bases his argument on a combination of rigorous scrutiny of external evidence, and the analysis of one restricted set of stylistic markers (internal evidence), viz., terms for the members of the eightfold path of the noble ones. Unebe discovers that translators down to the time of Zhu Fonian and Kumarajiva generally translated samyak-, as it enters into these terms (in samyagdrsti, samyaksamkalpa, etc.) as zheng 正. Zhu Fonian, however, renders the same element as deng 等: e.g. 等見、等治、等語、等業/等行、等命、等方便、等念、等定/等三昧 (with some interesting variation in both order and two individual terms, 等行 vs. 等業 and 等定 vs. 等三昧; 11). Unebe also discovers that four texts from Mizuno's "alternate MA", and two from his "alternate EA" feature (some of) the same terms with deng- that are typical of Zhu Fonian: respectively, T66, T70, T75, and T83 (MA); and T127 and T140 (EA). This implies that these texts, too, were originally translated by a team that included Zhu Fonian. Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 T0066; 魔試目連經; 弊魔試摩目連經; 魔嬈亂經; 魔王試目連經; 魔王入目連腹中經; 魔王入目犍蘭腹經 T0070; 數經 T0075; 佛為黃竹園老婆羅門說學經 T0083; 應法經 T0127; 佛說四人出現世間經; Mizuno's "alternate Ekottarikagama" T0140; Mizuno's "alternate Ekottarikagama"; 阿那邠邸化七子經
Texts: T0194; 僧伽羅剎所集經 ; T0309; 最勝問菩薩十住除垢斷結經 ; T1505; 四阿鋡暮抄解 ; T1543; 阿毘曇八犍度論 ; T1549; 尊婆須蜜菩薩所集論 People: Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 (translator 譯)	The main aim of Unebe's study is to address the translatorship of the extant Ekottarikāgama T125. Unebe bases his argument on a combination of rigorous scrutiny of external evidence, and the analysis of one restricted set of stylistic markers (internal evidence), viz., terms for the members of the eightfold path of the noble ones. Unebe discovers that translators down to the time of Zhu Fonian and Kumārajīva generally translated saṃyak-, as it enters into these terms (in saṃyagdr̥ṣṭi, saṃyaksaṃkalpa, etc.) as zheng 正. Zhu Fonian, however, renders the same element as deng 等: e.g. 等見、等治、等語、等業/等行、等命、等方便、等念、等定/等三昧 (with some interesting variation in both order and two individual terms, 等行 vs. 等業 and 等定 vs. 等三昧; 11). Aside from EĀ T125 itself, Unebe finds (some of) these rare translation terms in T194, T309, T1505, T1543, and T1549. This reinforces the inference available from external evidence, that the real work of translation for all of these works was performed by Zhu Fonian (against the indications we find in the present Taishō for T194, T1505, and T1549 in particular). Edit	26-27	The main aim of Unebe's study is to address the translatorship of the extant Ekottarikagama T125. Unebe bases his argument on a combination of rigorous scrutiny of external evidence, and the analysis of one restricted set of stylistic markers (internal evidence), viz., terms for the members of the eightfold path of the noble ones. Unebe discovers that translators down to the time of Zhu Fonian and Kumarajiva generally translated samyak-, as it enters into these terms (in samyagdrsti, samyaksamkalpa, etc.) as zheng 正. Zhu Fonian, however, renders the same element as deng 等: e.g. 等見、等治、等語、等業/等行、等命、等方便、等念、等定/等三昧 (with some interesting variation in both order and two individual terms, 等行 vs. 等業 and 等定 vs. 等三昧; 11). Aside from EA T125 itself, Unebe finds (some of) these rare translation terms in T194, T309, T1505, T1543, and T1549. This reinforces the inference available from external evidence, that the real work of translation for all of these works was performed by Zhu Fonian (against the indications we find in the present Taisho for T194, T1505, and T1549 in particular). Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 T0194; 僧伽羅剎所集經 T0309; 最勝問菩薩十住除垢斷結經 T1505; 四阿鋡暮抄解 T1543; 阿毘曇八犍度論 T1549; 尊婆須蜜菩薩所集論

Assertion

Argument

Place in source

Texts: T0125; Ekottarikāgama; 增壹阿含經
People: Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 (translator 譯); *Dharmanandi(n) 曇摩難提, Dharmananda? (reciter 誦出); *Saṃghadeva, *Gautama Saṃghadeva, 僧迦提婆, 瞿曇僧伽提婆 (revised)

Mizuno Kōgen had argued that a number of individual Āgama discourses scattered through the canon are vestiges of second translations of the Ekottarikāgama and Madhyamāgama [Mizuno also ascribed both of these otherwise lost collections to Zhu Fonian, while supporting the traditional ascriptions of the extant full collections T125 and T26 respectively to Saṅghadeva --- though Unebe does not address this aspect of Mizuno's argument directly].

Unebe notes that in fact, prefaces credit Zhu Fonian as the actual translator of EĀ (like a range of other texts), and also document other collaborations with *Dharmanandin (the reported "translator" of the supposedly lost "second EĀ"). On this basis, Unebe explores the hypothesis that in fact, the extant EĀ T125 was translated by Zhu Fonian. He bases his argument primarily on internal evidence, viz., the close study of a limited set of interrelated stylistic markers, though he also pays ample attention to external evidence (in the biographies, catalogues, and primary documents of CSZJJ, etc.). In fact, Unebe also presents his study in part as a methodological model and overt manifesto for better attention to internal evidence in attribution studies.

Unebe first surveys external evidence to identify all the works that are ascribed to ZFn as the real translator in one source or another: T1, T125, T194, T212, T309, T384, T385, T656, T1505, T1543, T1549, and T2045. He then explains his method for the treatment of internal evidence using the example of translations of samyaksaṃbuddha, on which he had already published previously.

The core of Unebe's argument about Zhu Fonian's works centers on terms for the members of the eightfold path of the noble ones (*āryāṣṭāṅgamārga). Unebe compares translations of these terms in translators from An Shigao down to Zhu Fonian, Saṅghadeva and Kumārajīva (results tabulated, 26-27). From the ZFn corpus, Unebe examines translations of individual members of this eightfold set in T1, T125, T194, T309, T1505, T1543, T1549. He finds that generally speaking, Zhu Fonian consistently renders samyak- (in saṃyagdr̥ṣṭi, saṃyaksaṃkalpa, etc.) as deng 等: e.g. 等見、等治、等語、等業/等行、等命、等方便、等念、等定/等三昧 (with some interesting variation in both order and two individual terms, 等行 vs. 等業 and 等定 vs. 等三昧; 11). This is in striking contrast to the usual practice of all other translators in the same period, who use zheng 正. The terms with deng- therefore constitute a strong marker of Zhu Fonian's style and corpus.

Unebe finds two exceptions to this pattern in Zhu Fonian's corpus. First, the Dīrghāgama T1 never uses terms with deng-, but always uses zheng-. Second, the pattern in EĀ T125 is even more peculiar. There, we find two groups: both deng- and zheng-. Renditions with deng-, moreover, are only found in six times, in a small group of EĀ discourses: 10.2, 19.2, 23.9 (twice), 24.5, 42.3 (see p. 11). Unebe deduces that the zheng-type renderings point to revision of EĀ at some time after it was originally produced. Since the deng-type renderings are more typical of Zhu Fonian, Unebe proposes that they preserve traces of the original “Dharmanandin translation”, for which Zhu Fonian served as the actual translator, and which has generally been considered lost.

Unebe argues that this evidence allows us to draw several inferences about our extant EĀ T125 (28-29). First, it shows clearly that Zhu Fonian was involved in the production of the text in some form, at some stage of its history. Second, it shows that the text includes a layer reflecting revision. Third, it allows Unebe to nuance the very notion of ascription and translatorship for this case. Against the traditional notion of two (independent) translations (and against Mizuno, who accepts this notion), Unebe proposes that it is more reasonable to think in terms of an initial translation, and then a subsequent revision of that translation (he extends this argument to the Madhyamāgama as well). For Unebe, the texts regarded by Mizuno as the "alternative" translations of EĀ and MĀ (which Mizuno believes were due to Zhu Fonian) were probably the pre-revision (actual) translations, produced in both cases by Zhu Fonian. In support of this hypothesis, Unebe cites four texts from Mizuno's "alternate MĀ", and two from his "alternate EĀ", which feature (some of) the same terms with deng- that are typical of Zhu Fonian: respectively, T66, T70, T75, and T83 (MĀ); and T127 and T140 (EĀ). This inference implies that Saṅghadeva is the most likely candidate for the layer of revision preserved in the extant EA T125—but Unebe notes that this is only a possibility, and the reviser need not have been Saṅghadeva.

Edit

Mizuno Kogen had argued that a number of individual Agama discourses scattered through the canon are vestiges of second translations of the Ekottarikagama and Madhyamagama [Mizuno also ascribed both of these otherwise lost collections to Zhu Fonian, while supporting the traditional ascriptions of the extant full collections T125 and T26 respectively to Sanghadeva --- though Unebe does not address this aspect of Mizuno's argument directly]. Unebe notes that in fact, prefaces credit Zhu Fonian as the actual translator of EA (like a range of other texts), and also document other collaborations with *Dharmanandin (the reported "translator" of the supposedly lost "second EA"). On this basis, Unebe explores the hypothesis that in fact, the extant EA T125 was translated by Zhu Fonian. He bases his argument primarily on internal evidence, viz., the close study of a limited set of interrelated stylistic markers, though he also pays ample attention to external evidence (in the biographies, catalogues, and primary documents of CSZJJ, etc.). In fact, Unebe also presents his study in part as a methodological model and overt manifesto for better attention to internal evidence in attribution studies. Unebe first surveys external evidence to identify all the works that are ascribed to ZFn as the real translator in one source or another: T1, T125, T194, T212, T309, T384, T385, T656, T1505, T1543, T1549, and T2045. He then explains his method for the treatment of internal evidence using the example of translations of samyaksambuddha, on which he had already published previously. The core of Unebe's argument about Zhu Fonian's works centers on terms for the members of the eightfold path of the noble ones (*aryastangamarga). Unebe compares translations of these terms in translators from An Shigao down to Zhu Fonian, Sanghadeva and Kumarajiva (results tabulated, 26-27). From the ZFn corpus, Unebe examines translations of individual members of this eightfold set in T1, T125, T194, T309, T1505, T1543, T1549. He finds that generally speaking, Zhu Fonian consistently renders samyak- (in samyagdrsti, samyaksamkalpa, etc.) as deng 等: e.g. 等見、等治、等語、等業/等行、等命、等方便、等念、等定/等三昧 (with some interesting variation in both order and two individual terms, 等行 vs. 等業 and 等定 vs. 等三昧; 11). This is in striking contrast to the usual practice of all other translators in the same period, who use zheng 正. The terms with deng- therefore constitute a strong marker of Zhu Fonian's style and corpus. Unebe finds two exceptions to this pattern in Zhu Fonian's corpus. First, the Dirghagama T1 never uses terms with deng-, but always uses zheng-. Second, the pattern in EA T125 is even more peculiar. There, we find two groups: both deng- and zheng-. Renditions with deng-, moreover, are only found in six times, in a small group of EA discourses: 10.2, 19.2, 23.9 (twice), 24.5, 42.3 (see p. 11). Unebe deduces that the zheng-type renderings point to revision of EA at some time after it was originally produced. Since the deng-type renderings are more typical of Zhu Fonian, Unebe proposes that they preserve traces of the original “Dharmanandin translation”, for which Zhu Fonian served as the actual translator, and which has generally been considered lost. Unebe argues that this evidence allows us to draw several inferences about our extant EA T125 (28-29). First, it shows clearly that Zhu Fonian was involved in the production of the text in some form, at some stage of its history. Second, it shows that the text includes a layer reflecting revision. Third, it allows Unebe to nuance the very notion of ascription and translatorship for this case. Against the traditional notion of two (independent) translations (and against Mizuno, who accepts this notion), Unebe proposes that it is more reasonable to think in terms of an initial translation, and then a subsequent revision of that translation (he extends this argument to the Madhyamagama as well). For Unebe, the texts regarded by Mizuno as the "alternative" translations of EA and MA (which Mizuno believes were due to Zhu Fonian) were probably the pre-revision (actual) translations, produced in both cases by Zhu Fonian. In support of this hypothesis, Unebe cites four texts from Mizuno's "alternate MA", and two from his "alternate EA", which feature (some of) the same terms with deng- that are typical of Zhu Fonian: respectively, T66, T70, T75, and T83 (MA); and T127 and T140 (EA). This inference implies that Sanghadeva is the most likely candidate for the layer of revision preserved in the extant EA T125—but Unebe notes that this is only a possibility, and the reviser need not have been Sanghadeva. *Dharmanandi(n) 曇摩難提, Dharmananda? *Samghadeva, *Gautama Samghadeva, 僧迦提婆, 瞿曇僧伽提婆 Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 T0125; Ekottarikagama; 增壹阿含經

The main aim of Unebe's study is to address the translatorship of the extant Ekottarikāgama T125. Unebe bases his argument on a combination of rigorous scrutiny of external evidence, and the analysis of one restricted set of stylistic markers (internal evidence), viz., terms for the members of the eightfold path of the noble ones. Unebe discovers that translators down to the time of Zhu Fonian and Kumārajīva generally translated saṃyak-, as it enters into these terms (in saṃyagdr̥ṣṭi, saṃyaksaṃkalpa, etc.) as zheng 正. Zhu Fonian, however, renders the same element as deng 等: e.g. 等見、等治、等語、等業/等行、等命、等方便、等念、等定/等三昧 (with some interesting variation in both order and two individual terms, 等行 vs. 等業 and 等定 vs. 等三昧; 11).

Unebe also discovers that four texts from Mizuno's "alternate MĀ", and two from his "alternate EĀ" feature (some of) the same terms with deng- that are typical of Zhu Fonian: respectively, T66, T70, T75, and T83 (MĀ); and T127 and T140 (EĀ). This implies that these texts, too, were originally translated by a team that included Zhu Fonian.

Edit

Texts: T0194; 僧伽羅剎所集經 ; T0309; 最勝問菩薩十住除垢斷結經 ; T1505; 四阿鋡暮抄解 ; T1543; 阿毘曇八犍度論 ; T1549; 尊婆須蜜菩薩所集論
People: Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 (translator 譯)

Aside from EĀ T125 itself, Unebe finds (some of) these rare translation terms in T194, T309, T1505, T1543, and T1549. This reinforces the inference available from external evidence, that the real work of translation for all of these works was performed by Zhu Fonian (against the indications we find in the present Taishō for T194, T1505, and T1549 in particular).

Edit

26-27