Source: Fujita 1981

Fujita Kōtatsu 藤田宏達. "Muryōju kyō no yakusha mondai hosetsu 『無量寿経』の訳者問題補説." In Daijō Bukkyō kara mikkyō e: Katsumata Shinkyō hakase kokikinenronshū 大乗仏教から密教へ：勝又俊教博士古稀記念論集, edited by the Katsumata Shinkyō hakase kokikinenronshū kankōkai 勝又俊教博士古稀記念論文集刊行会, 691-700[R]. Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1981.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

Cites a postface to T376 六卷泥洹記, preserved in CSZJJ T2145:55.60b2-11, which states that Baoyun was the one who actually did the work of translation: 禪師佛大跋陀。手執胡本。寶雲傳譯。于時坐有二百五十人.

Edit

692, 698 n. 6

 Cites a postface to T376 六卷泥洹記, preserved in CSZJJ T2145:55.60b2-11, which states that Baoyun was the one who actually did the work of translation: 禪師佛大跋陀。手執胡本。寶雲傳譯。于時坐有二百五十人. Baoyun, 寶雲 T0376; 佛說大般泥洹經

Fujita briefly mentions that T1775 in fact collects the comments of four commentators: Kumārajīva, Sengzhao 僧肇, Daosheng 道生, and Daorong 道融. He also mentions that it has been shown to contain a reference to the *Dharmakṣema version of MPNMS (T374, or perhaps T375, its "Southern" revision; however, the wording of this reference is loose, and according to the Taishō apparatus, this citation is missing from the Heian manuscript of the text with the siglum 甲). Fujita cites Usuda (1977). Fujita follows the traditional dating of *Dharmakṣema's activity, and therefore dates T374 as completed in 421 [but cf. Chen (2004)---MR].

Edit

696-697

Fujita briefly mentions that T1775 in fact collects the comments of four commentators: Kumarajiva, Sengzhao 僧肇, Daosheng 道生, and Daorong 道融. He also mentions that it has been shown to contain a reference to the *Dharmaksema version of MPNMS (T374, or perhaps T375, its "Southern" revision; however, the wording of this reference is loose, and according to the Taisho apparatus, this citation is missing from the Heian manuscript of the text with the siglum 甲). Fujita cites Usuda (1977). Fujita follows the traditional dating of *Dharmaksema's activity, and therefore dates T374 as completed in 421 [but cf. Chen (2004)---MR]. Daorong 道融 Daosheng, 竺道生 Kumarajiva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 Sengzhao, 僧肇 T1775; 注維摩詰經

Fujita argues against Gotō (1978), who proposed on the basis of computational philology and translation terms and style that T360 was translated by Dharmarakṣa. Fujita reaffirms the attribution to Buddhabhadra & Baoyun. According to Fujita, Gotō's study was based upon three main sets of evidence, which he refutes respectively as follows.

1. Gotō calculated the relative frequency of 42 common characters in a sample of 26 works by 13 early translators, and upon that basis, determined that the stylistic signature of T360 is closest to Dharmarakṣa. Fujita objects that in his short study, Gotō does not explain how these 42 characters were selected; that they make no allowance for transcription terms; and that we have no reason to be sure that this test can accurately identify translators. He also notes that Gotō uses, as his benchmark for Buddhabhadra-Baoyun, only "Faxian's" MPNMS T376 and the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya T1425. Fujita notes that a much larger number of texts is ascribed to both Buddhabhadra and Baoyun, and argues that these two texts are not sufficient to establish a translation style for them. He also notes that the "five evils" section of T360 should be excluded from such tests, because of the possibility that it is of a different provenance [may have been added in China, etc.].

2. According to Fujita, Gotō takes it almost as a consensus view that the translation terms of T360 are very similar to those of Dharmarakṣa's Lalitavistara 普曜經 T186, though Fujita himself had argued in earlier work that there are in fact large differences in this respect between T360 and Dharmarakṣa's Saddharmapuṇḍarīka. Fujita shows that the ten epithets of the Tathāgata vary significantly between T186 and a set of translation terms common to Buddhabhadra-Baoyun's *Buddhāvataṃsaka, MPNMS, and Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra. He also shows that in other texts in the Buddhabhadra-Baoyun corpus (出生無量門持經 T1012, the Śrīmālādevī T353, and the “Ocean Samādhi” T643 [but for T643, cf. Yamabe's arguments that the text might not be a straight translation---MR]) the ten epithets vary, and on the basis of this [single!] example, argues that it is dangerous to make arguments about attribution on the basis of translation terms.

3. Finally, according to Fujita, Gotō argued that a line in "Sengzhao's" 僧肇 commentary on the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa 注維摩詰經 T1775 shows that Sengzhao must have been aware of the content of T360, and this makes the ascription of T360 to Buddhabhadra-Baoyun chronologically impossible. Against this, Fujita argues that in fact, T1775 collects the comments of four commentators, including Daosheng 道生, who died in 434, after Buddhabhadra-Baoyun's reported translation in 421. In addition, Fujita cites Usuda (1977) who has shown that T1775 contains a reference to the *Dharmakṣema version of MPNMS (T374, or perhaps T375, its "Southern" revision; however, the wording of this reference is loose, and according to the Taishō apparatus, this citation is missing from the Heian manuscript of the text with the siglum 甲). Fujita follows the traditional dating of *Dharmakṣema's activity, and therefore dates T374 as completed in 421 [but cf. Chen (2004)---MR].

Edit

 Fujita argues against Goto (1978), who proposed on the basis of computational philology and translation terms and style that T360 was translated by Dharmaraksa. Fujita reaffirms the attribution to Buddhabhadra & Baoyun. According to Fujita, Goto's study was based upon three main sets of evidence, which he refutes respectively as follows. 1. Goto calculated the relative frequency of 42 common characters in a sample of 26 works by 13 early translators, and upon that basis, determined that the stylistic signature of T360 is closest to Dharmaraksa. Fujita objects that in his short study, Goto does not explain how these 42 characters were selected; that they make no allowance for transcription terms; and that we have no reason to be sure that this test can accurately identify translators. He also notes that Goto uses, as his benchmark for Buddhabhadra-Baoyun, only "Faxian's" MPNMS T376 and the Mahasamghika-vinaya T1425. Fujita notes that a much larger number of texts is ascribed to both Buddhabhadra and Baoyun, and argues that these two texts are not sufficient to establish a translation style for them. He also notes that the "five evils" section of T360 should be excluded from such tests, because of the possibility that it is of a different provenance [may have been added in China, etc.]. 2. According to Fujita, Goto takes it almost as a consensus view that the translation terms of T360 are very similar to those of Dharmaraksa's Lalitavistara 普曜經 T186, though Fujita himself had argued in earlier work that there are in fact large differences in this respect between T360 and Dharmaraksa's Saddharmapundarika. Fujita shows that the ten epithets of the Tathagata vary significantly between T186 and a set of translation terms common to Buddhabhadra-Baoyun's *Buddhavatamsaka, MPNMS, and Tathagatagarbha-sutra. He also shows that in other texts in the Buddhabhadra-Baoyun corpus (出生無量門持經 T1012, the Srimaladevi T353, and the “Ocean Samadhi” T643 [but for T643, cf. Yamabe's arguments that the text might not be a straight translation---MR]) the ten epithets vary, and on the basis of this [single!] example, argues that it is dangerous to make arguments about attribution on the basis of translation terms. 3. Finally, according to Fujita, Goto argued that a line in "Sengzhao's" 僧肇 commentary on the Vimalakirti-nirdesa 注維摩詰經 T1775 shows that Sengzhao must have been aware of the content of T360, and this makes the ascription of T360 to Buddhabhadra-Baoyun chronologically impossible. Against this, Fujita argues that in fact, T1775 collects the comments of four commentators, including Daosheng 道生, who died in 434, after Buddhabhadra-Baoyun's reported translation in 421. In addition, Fujita cites Usuda (1977) who has shown that T1775 contains a reference to the *Dharmaksema version of MPNMS (T374, or perhaps T375, its "Southern" revision; however, the wording of this reference is loose, and according to the Taisho apparatus, this citation is missing from the Heian manuscript of the text with the siglum 甲). Fujita follows the traditional dating of *Dharmaksema's activity, and therefore dates T374 as completed in 421 [but cf. Chen (2004)---MR]. 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