Source: Ishii 2012

Ishii Kōsei 石井公成. “Shintai kan’yo bunken no yōgo to gohō: NGSM ni yoru hikaku bunseki” 真諦關與文獻の用語と語法―NGSMによる比較分析 [The Vocabulary and Syntax of Paramārthan Texts: A Comparative Analysis Using NGSM]. In Shintai sanzō kenkyū ronshū 真諦三藏研究論集 [Studies of the Works and Influence of Paramartha], edited by Funayama Tōru 船山徹, 87-120. Kyoto: Kyōto daigaku jinbun kagaku kenkyūjo/Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University, 2012.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

Ishii mentions in passing that work by himself and Takasaki suggests that the vocabulary of AF is closer to that of Bodhiruci than of Paramārtha. He cites:

Takasaki Jikidō 高崎直道. "Daojō ki shin ron no gohō: e, i, ko tō no yōhō o megutte 『大乗起信論』の語法―「依」「以」「故」等の用法をめぐって." Waseda daigaku daigakuin bungaku kenkyūka kiyō (tetsugaku, shigaku hen) 早稲田大学大学院文学研究科紀要(哲学・史学編) 37 (1992).

Ishii Kōsei 石井公成. "Daijō ki shin ron no yōgo to gohō no keikō 『大乗起信論』の用語と語法の傾向.” IBK 42, no. 1 (2003): 287.

Edit

109, 119 n. 36, 37

 Ishii mentions in passing that work by himself and Takasaki suggests that the vocabulary of AF is closer to that of Bodhiruci than of Paramartha. He cites: Takasaki Jikido 高崎直道. "Daojo ki shin ron no goho: e, i, ko to no yoho o megutte 『大乗起信論』の語法―「依」「以」「故」等の用法をめくって." Waseda daigaku daigakuin bungaku kenkyuka kiyo (tetsugaku, shigaku hen) 早稲田大学大学院文学研究科紀要(哲学・史学編) 37 (1992). Ishii Kosei 石井公成. "Daijo ki shin ron no yogo to goho no keiko 『大乗起信論』の用語と語法の傾向.” IBK 42, no. 1 (2003): 287. T1666; 大乘起信論

Ishii cites Ōtake (2011): 400 to support the claim that the Yi jiao jing lun T1529 is in fact not by Paramārtha. Ōtake regards the text as probably by a Chinese Dilun author, familiar with the works of Vasubandhu, but ignorant of Sanskrit, who wrote in a manner that attempts to mimic the features of translation from Sanskrit.

Edit

88 and 116 n. 7

 Ishii cites Otake (2011): 400 to support the claim that the Yi jiao jing lun T1529 is in fact not by Paramartha. Otake regards the text as probably by a Chinese Dilun author, familiar with the works of Vasubandhu, but ignorant of Sanskrit, who wrote in a manner that attempts to mimic the features of translation from Sanskrit. T1529; 遺教經論

Ishii refers to Imanishi Junkichi 今西順吉, “Shi seitai to Budda 四聖諦とブッダ.” In Kokusai Bukkyōgaku daigakuin daigaku kenkyū kiyō 国際仏教学大学大学院研究紀要10 (2006): 41-84. Among the texts discovered in recent years at Kongōji 金剛寺 is a text entitled Si di jing 四諦經, to which the Si di lun 四諦論 T1647 ascribed to Paramārtha is a commentary. Ishii treats the root text as a possible translation by Paramārtha, on the basis of such terminological features as 僧伽藍 and 八分聖道.

Edit

88, 116 n. 8

 Ishii refers to Imanishi Junkichi 今西順吉, “Shi seitai to Budda 四聖諦とフッタ.” In Kokusai Bukkyogaku daigakuin daigaku kenkyu kiyo 国際仏教学大学大学院研究紀要10 (2006): 41-84. Among the texts discovered in recent years at Kongoji 金剛寺 is a text entitled Si di jing 四諦經, to which the Si di lun 四諦論 T1647 ascribed to Paramartha is a commentary. Ishii treats the root text as a possible translation by Paramartha, on the basis of such terminological features as 僧伽藍 and 八分聖道. Paramartha, 真諦 Fo shuo si di jing 佛說四諦經

In a study which is also of methodological interest, Ishii says that he noticed that in examinations of characteristic markers of Paramārtha's style, the Sanmidi bu lun 三彌底部論 T1649 kept popping up, and he therefore set out to examine the likelihood that it might have been translated by Paramārtha. In this article, his method is to divide texts into groups, and then examine the groups for 2-6grams that might bind them together and distinguish them from other texts. The markers that lead Ishii to suggest Paramārtha is the translator are: 復次何義, 諸部說, 部所執, 處受生若, 說言我聞, 難曰若爾, 此起愛, 阿羅漢五陰, 是其體, 種亦依, 前已說我, 何者二種, 欲受生, 法者是其, 故若如此, 死是無常, 根壞時, 度柯羅, 見諦煩惱, 思惟煩惱. Some of these markers occasionally appear in works outside the Paramārtha corpus, including works of the Tang, but they are for the most part concentrated heavily in Paramārtha, and in some cases, unique to his corpus among translation texts. For the most part, further, these markers appear predominantly in a small subset of the overall Paramārtha corpus: 佛性論 T1610, Si di lun 四諦論 T1647, Suixiang lun 隨相論 T1641, Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya T1559, Mahāyānasaṃgraha-bhāṣya T1595, and Sāṃkhya-kārikā T2137.

Edit

92, 104-108

 In a study which is also of methodological interest, Ishii says that he noticed that in examinations of characteristic markers of Paramartha's style, the Sanmidi bu lun 三彌底部論 T1649 kept popping up, and he therefore set out to examine the likelihood that it might have been translated by Paramartha. In this article, his method is to divide texts into groups, and then examine the groups for 2-6grams that might bind them together and distinguish them from other texts. The markers that lead Ishii to suggest Paramartha is the translator are: 復次何義, 諸部說, 部所執, 處受生若, 說言我聞, 難曰若爾, 此起愛, 阿羅漢五陰, 是其體, 種亦依, 前已說我, 何者二種, 欲受生, 法者是其, 故若如此, 死是無常, 根壞時, 度柯羅, 見諦煩惱, 思惟煩惱. Some of these markers occasionally appear in works outside the Paramartha corpus, including works of the Tang, but they are for the most part concentrated heavily in Paramartha, and in some cases, unique to his corpus among translation texts. For the most part, further, these markers appear predominantly in a small subset of the overall Paramartha corpus: 佛性論 T1610, Si di lun 四諦論 T1647, Suixiang lun 隨相論 T1641, Abhidharmakosa-bhasya T1559, Mahayanasamgraha-bhasya T1595, and Samkhya-karika T2137. Paramartha, 真諦 T1649; 三彌底部論