Gotō Gijō 後藤義乗. "Butsu hongyō kyō, Shi tennō kyō no Kan'yakusha 仏本行経・四天王経の漢訳者." IBK 55, no. 2 (2007): 982-978[L].
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
|
In the course of a computer-assisted stylometric examination of T193, Gotō examines the distribution of markers (2grams) predominantly characteristic of Buddhabhadra and Baoyun versus those predominantly characteristic of Dharmarakṣa in T192. Gotō seems to assume that T192 is a Buddhabhadra-Baoyun work, despite the conventional ascription to *Dharmakṣema; for instance, he includes it twice in speaking of "other Buddhabhadra-Baoyun sūtras" [his reasoning in so doing is obscure to me---MR]. He finds the following ratio: Buddhabhadra-Baoyun 589 markers : Dharmarakṣa 259 markers. [Note that, as far as I can understand his method, these markers are significant only in terms of the direct comparison between Buddhabhadra-Baoyun and Dharmarakṣa, i.e. there is no claim that either set of markers is *unique* to either side of the comparison; on the |
In the course of a computer-assisted stylometric examination of T193, Goto examines the distribution of markers (2grams) predominantly characteristic of Buddhabhadra and Baoyun versus those predominantly characteristic of Dharmaraksa in T192. Goto seems to assume that T192 is a Buddhabhadra-Baoyun work, despite the conventional ascription to *Dharmaksema; for instance, he includes it twice in speaking of "other Buddhabhadra-Baoyun sutras" [his reasoning in so doing is obscure to me---MR]. He finds the following ratio: Buddhabhadra-Baoyun 589 markers : Dharmaraksa 259 markers. [Note that, as far as I can understand his method, these markers are significant only in terms of the direct comparison between Buddhabhadra-Baoyun and Dharmaraksa, i.e. there is no claim that either set of markers is *unique* to either side of the comparison; on the Buddhabhadra-Baoyun/*Dharmaksema side, then, I can see nothing preventing these markers from possibly being characteristic of the period of the early 400s more broadly---MR.] T0192; 佛所行讚 | |
|
Gotō argues on the basis of computer-assisted stylometric analysis that it is more likely that T193, in particular, was translated by Dharmarakṣa, rather than Baoyun. Note similar work, in Gotō 2006, on the relative strength of the attribution of the "new" Sukhāvatīvyūha T360 to Dharmarakṣa and Buddhabhadra-Baoyun respectively, to which the present study seems linked. One of the main reasons that scholars have thought the "new" Sukhāvatīvyūha is due to Buddhabhadra & Baoyun is translation terminology. However, Gotō claims that this judgement has rested on flawed premises and benchmarks, in particular, ideas about the difference between "archaic" and "recent" (post-Kumārajīva) terminology derived from Sengyou's (CSZJJ) list of contrasting terms, the so-called Qianhou chu jing yi ji 前後出經異記 T2145:55.5a13 ff. Gotō adduces Ui Hakuju's 宇井伯寿 "Bosatsu, Butsu no onyaku ni tsuite 菩薩・仏の音訳について" to argue, first, that the supposed "recent" terminology is in fact sometimes evinced even in the oldest texts, such as *Lokakṣema’s Aṣṭa; and, second, that in "important" scriptures, we must reckon with the possibility that in the wake of the N. Zhou persecution of the 570s and the restoration of Buddhism under the early Sui, learned monks revised the texts to bring them into line with the newer terminological standards. For this reason, Gotō cautions that we cannot use the translation terminology (at least that of Sengyou's list) as a criterion in determining the likelihood of Dharmarakṣa's authorship, because these [hypothetical] revisions might have erased the traces of his actual usage. Gotō supports this suggestion by an examination of the distribution of Sengyou's "archaic" and "recent" terms in a corpus of texts reliably ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, and a (liberal, i.e. inclusive) corpus of 16 texts that he regards as due to Baoyun on the basis of external evidence in biographies, etc. (he does not provide the actual list of the texts comprised in this corpus). He shows that in many cases, it is in fact Sengyou's "recent" terms that appear in Dharmarakṣa. For him, this indicates that Sengyou saw versions of Dharmarakṣa's texts that included the "archaic" terminology, but our extant versions have been doctored, precisely in line with Ui's theory of early Sui revision. [It at least seems to show that this particular list of terms is unreliable as markers of the distinction between Dharmarakṣa's and "Baoyun's" style---MR.] Gotō then examines the question by studying the distribution of 2grams either far more frequent in Dharmarakṣa than in Buddhabhadra-Baoyun (760 such markers), or vice versa (304 such markers), in particular texts. On this basis (though space precludes him showing the detail), he argues that T193 looks more like Dharmarakṣa than Buddhabhadra-Baoyun; but he also notes that there are also markers that would seem more characteristic of the latter style [note his conclusion, in Gotō 2006, that T360 is probably a Buddhabhadra-Baoyun revision of an earlier Dharmarakṣa text---MR]. Gotō then asks whether the same phenomenon occurs with "other Buddhabhadra-Baoyun scriptures", and examines 佛所行讚 T192 [ascribed to *Dharmakṣema---not sure of his reasoning, but he says it is "strongly related to T193"---MR] and 廣博嚴淨不退轉輪經 T268 [ascribed in T to Zhiyan 智嚴, but the apparatus records that SYM and Palace all say "and Baoyun"---MR], which is "the same size as [T193]". 1. T268: Buddhabhadra-Baoyun 424 markers : Dharmarakṣa 54 markers Gotō interprets this evidence to mean that 佛所行讚 [=T192] is characteristic of Buddhabhadra-Baoyun [?], but "closer than T268 to Dharmarakṣa". He then suggests that "the fact that 佛所行讚 [=T192] is closer than **other Buddhabhadra-Baoyun sūtras to Dharmarakṣa** [sic, my emphasis: at this point his logic escapes me---he seems to be assuming that T192 is a Buddhabhadra-Baoyun work? upon what basis?---MR] is that translation proceeded on the basis of consultation of 佛本行經 [=T193]." Gotō concludes that it is more likely that T193, in particular, was translated by Dharmarakṣa, rather than Baoyun. [Despite the fact that he names T590 in his title, it is not clear what he intends this to imply for T590---MR.] |
Goto argues on the basis of computer-assisted stylometric analysis that it is more likely that T193, in particular, was translated by Dharmaraksa, rather than Baoyun. Note similar work, in Goto 2006, on the relative strength of the attribution of the "new" Sukhavativyuha T360 to Dharmaraksa and Buddhabhadra-Baoyun respectively, to which the present study seems linked. One of the main reasons that scholars have thought the "new" Sukhavativyuha is due to Buddhabhadra & Baoyun is translation terminology. However, Goto claims that this judgement has rested on flawed premises and benchmarks, in particular, ideas about the difference between "archaic" and "recent" (post-Kumarajiva) terminology derived from Sengyou's (CSZJJ) list of contrasting terms, the so-called Qianhou chu jing yi ji 前後出經異記 T2145:55.5a13 ff. Goto adduces Ui Hakuju's 宇井伯寿 "Bosatsu, Butsu no onyaku ni tsuite 菩薩・仏の音訳について" to argue, first, that the supposed "recent" terminology is in fact sometimes evinced even in the oldest texts, such as *Lokaksema’s Asta; and, second, that in "important" scriptures, we must reckon with the possibility that in the wake of the N. Zhou persecution of the 570s and the restoration of Buddhism under the early Sui, learned monks revised the texts to bring them into line with the newer terminological standards. For this reason, Goto cautions that we cannot use the translation terminology (at least that of Sengyou's list) as a criterion in determining the likelihood of Dharmaraksa's authorship, because these [hypothetical] revisions might have erased the traces of his actual usage. Goto supports this suggestion by an examination of the distribution of Sengyou's "archaic" and "recent" terms in a corpus of texts reliably ascribed to Dharmaraksa, and a (liberal, i.e. inclusive) corpus of 16 texts that he regards as due to Baoyun on the basis of external evidence in biographies, etc. (he does not provide the actual list of the texts comprised in this corpus). He shows that in many cases, it is in fact Sengyou's "recent" terms that appear in Dharmaraksa. For him, this indicates that Sengyou saw versions of Dharmaraksa's texts that included the "archaic" terminology, but our extant versions have been doctored, precisely in line with Ui's theory of early Sui revision. [It at least seems to show that this particular list of terms is unreliable as markers of the distinction between Dharmaraksa's and "Baoyun's" style---MR.] Goto then examines the question by studying the distribution of 2grams either far more frequent in Dharmaraksa than in Buddhabhadra-Baoyun (760 such markers), or vice versa (304 such markers), in particular texts. On this basis (though space precludes him showing the detail), he argues that T193 looks more like Dharmaraksa than Buddhabhadra-Baoyun; but he also notes that there are also markers that would seem more characteristic of the latter style [note his conclusion, in Goto 2006, that T360 is probably a Buddhabhadra-Baoyun revision of an earlier Dharmaraksa text---MR]. Goto then asks whether the same phenomenon occurs with "other Buddhabhadra-Baoyun scriptures", and examines 佛所行讚 T192 [ascribed to *Dharmaksema---not sure of his reasoning, but he says it is "strongly related to T193"---MR] and 廣博嚴淨不退轉輪經 T268 [ascribed in T to Zhiyan 智嚴, but the apparatus records that SYM and Palace all say "and Baoyun"---MR], which is "the same size as [T193]". 1. T268: Buddhabhadra-Baoyun 424 markers : Dharmaraksa 54 markers 2. T192: Buddhabhadra-Baoyun 589 markers : Dharmaraksa 259 markers. Goto interprets this evidence to mean that 佛所行讚 [=T192] is characteristic of Buddhabhadra-Baoyun [?], but "closer than T268 to Dharmaraksa". He then suggests that "the fact that 佛所行讚 [=T192] is closer than **other Buddhabhadra-Baoyun sutras to Dharmaraksa** [sic, my emphasis: at this point his logic escapes me---he seems to be assuming that T192 is a Buddhabhadra-Baoyun work? upon what basis?---MR] is that translation proceeded on the basis of consultation of 佛本行經 [=T193]." Goto concludes that it is more likely that T193, in particular, was translated by Dharmaraksa, rather than Baoyun. [Despite the fact that he names T590 in his title, it is not clear what he intends this to imply for T590---MR.] Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 T0193; 佛本行經 T0590; 佛說四天王經 | |
|
In the course of a computer-assisted stylometric examination of the authorship of T193, Gotō compares markers predominantly characteristic of Buddhabhadra-Baoyun to markers predominantly characteristic of Dharmarakṣa in T268, and finds the ratio T268: Buddhabhadra-Baoyun 424 markers : Dharmarakṣa 54 markers. |
In the course of a computer-assisted stylometric examination of the authorship of T193, Goto compares markers predominantly characteristic of Buddhabhadra-Baoyun to markers predominantly characteristic of Dharmaraksa in T268, and finds the ratio T268: Buddhabhadra-Baoyun 424 markers : Dharmaraksa 54 markers. T0268; 佛說廣博嚴淨不退轉輪經 |