Fujita Kōtatsu 藤田宏達. "Muryōju kyō no yakusha wa dare ka 無量寿経の訳者は誰か." IBK 15, no. 2 (1967): 22-31.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Fujita argues for Buddhabhadra and Baoyun as translators of the "new" Sukhāvatīvyūha T360. His main target in doing so is the argument of Nogami (1950) that this ascription is rendered impossible by the Dunhuang manuscript of the text held at Ōtani University, which bears a date of Shenrui 神瑞 2 = 415. A second possible problem for the ascription to BhBh-BY is the claim advanced by some scholars that works of Zhi Dun 支遁 and Xi Chao 郄超 show traces of wording due to T360. These arguments have led some scholars to prefer an attribution to Dharmarakṣa. Fujita argues that the dated colophon to the Dunhuang manuscript is suspicious, on several grounds: paleographers are not certain that the hand is the same as that of the text itself; the layout of the page (23 lines of 17 characters each) is atypical for such an early date, and otherwise earliest attested in the Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya manuscript of 479; there exists a similar manuscript of the *Buddhāvataṃsaka, for which the colophon is dated 413, which would also be anachronistic (the text was translated 418-420), which leads to the conclusion that the colophon, in that case, is fake; and first-hand examination of physical details of the T360 Ōtani manuscript show other inconsistencies. On various paleographic grounds, he suggests that the body of the manuscript is more likely to date from the late fifth or early sixth century. He then appeals to Sengyou's (CSZJJ) list of contrasting terms in "archaic" and "recent" (post-Kumārajīva) style, the so-called Qianhou chu jing yi ji 前後出經異記 (T2145:55.5a13 ff.), to argue that the style of T360 is also atypical of Dharmarakṣa’s period and work; and he suggests that it matches the style of Baoyun's Buddhacarita 佛本行經 T193 and Buddhabhadra's *Buddhāvataṃsaka 大方廣佛華嚴經 T278. In an aside, he argues that the "five evils" section was added in China, and contains traces of Confucian and Daoist ideology and phrasing (he promises to follow up on this point in other work); and he notes that similar material is also found in the 四天王經 T590 (he does not go into detail). Finally, he briefly refutes the idea that Zhi Dun and Xi Chao show phrasing indebted to T360, and in fact, we also do not see any traces in the generation of Kumārajīva and Huiyuan; the first place we do see clear evidence of such wording is in Xie Lingyun 謝靈運. This would then mean that the text appeared sometime between the death of Huiyuan in 417 and Xie's execution in 433, which fits perfectly with the date reported for the Buddhabhadra and Baoyun's translation. |
Fujita argues for Buddhabhadra and Baoyun as translators of the "new" Sukhavativyuha T360. His main target in doing so is the argument of Nogami (1950) that this ascription is rendered impossible by the Dunhuang manuscript of the text held at Otani University, which bears a date of Shenrui 神瑞 2 = 415. A second possible problem for the ascription to BhBh-BY is the claim advanced by some scholars that works of Zhi Dun 支遁 and Xi Chao 郄超 show traces of wording due to T360. These arguments have led some scholars to prefer an attribution to Dharmaraksa. Fujita argues that the dated colophon to the Dunhuang manuscript is suspicious, on several grounds: paleographers are not certain that the hand is the same as that of the text itself; the layout of the page (23 lines of 17 characters each) is atypical for such an early date, and otherwise earliest attested in the Samyuktabhidharmahrdaya manuscript of 479; there exists a similar manuscript of the *Buddhavatamsaka, for which the colophon is dated 413, which would also be anachronistic (the text was translated 418-420), which leads to the conclusion that the colophon, in that case, is fake; and first-hand examination of physical details of the T360 Otani manuscript show other inconsistencies. On various paleographic grounds, he suggests that the body of the manuscript is more likely to date from the late fifth or early sixth century. He then appeals to Sengyou's (CSZJJ) list of contrasting terms in "archaic" and "recent" (post-Kumarajiva) style, the so-called Qianhou chu jing yi ji 前後出經異記 (T2145:55.5a13 ff.), to argue that the style of T360 is also atypical of Dharmaraksa’s period and work; and he suggests that it matches the style of Baoyun's Buddhacarita 佛本行經 T193 and Buddhabhadra's *Buddhavatamsaka 大方廣佛華嚴經 T278. In an aside, he argues that the "five evils" section was added in China, and contains traces of Confucian and Daoist ideology and phrasing (he promises to follow up on this point in other work); and he notes that similar material is also found in the 四天王經 T590 (he does not go into detail). Finally, he briefly refutes the idea that Zhi Dun and Xi Chao show phrasing indebted to T360, and in fact, we also do not see any traces in the generation of Kumarajiva and Huiyuan; the first place we do see clear evidence of such wording is in Xie Lingyun 謝靈運. This would then mean that the text appeared sometime between the death of Huiyuan in 417 and Xie's execution in 433, which fits perfectly with the date reported for the Buddhabhadra and Baoyun's translation. Baoyun, 寶雲 Buddhabhadra, 佛陀跋陀羅, 覺賢 "Five Evils" section; Sukhavativyuha-sutra T0360; 佛說無量壽經; Sukhavativyuha-sutra |