Source: Boucher 2000

Boucher, Daniel. "On Hu and Fan Again: The Transmission of 'Barbarian' Manuscripts to China." JIABS 23, no. 1 (2000): 7-28.

Assertions

Assertion	Argument	Place in source	Search
Texts: T0186; 普曜大方等典; Vaitulya-nidāna; Fangdeng yuanqi 方等本起; Lalitavistara-mahāvaitulya-dharmaparyāya; 普曜經	Boucher cites Brough, who has argued that Dharmarakṣa’s 普曜經 Lalitavistara T186 was translated from a Gāndhārī manuscript. Brough reconstructed pronunciations of a few of the headwords to its “arapacana formulary” which is known to be the “syllabic order of Gāndhārī in the Kharoṣṭhī text.” Boucher adds that the colophon to Dharmarakṣa’s translation describes the text as a hu ben 胡本, which ties into his larger argument for a connection between the term “hu” and a Kharoṣṭhī manuscript. Citing Brough (1977). Edit	15	Boucher cites Brough, who has argued that Dharmaraksa’s 普曜經 Lalitavistara T186 was translated from a Gandhari manuscript. Brough reconstructed pronunciations of a few of the headwords to its “arapacana formulary” which is known to be the “syllabic order of Gandhari in the Kharosthi text.” Boucher adds that the colophon to Dharmaraksa’s translation describes the text as a hu ben 胡本, which ties into his larger argument for a connection between the term “hu” and a Kharosthi manuscript. Citing Brough (1977). T0186; 普曜大方等典; Vaitulya-nidana; Fangdeng yuanqi 方等本起; Lalitavistara-mahavaitulya-dharmaparyaya; 普曜經
Texts: T0263; 正法華方等; 正法華方等經典; 法華方等正經; 正法華經方等典詔; 正法華經	Boucher argues that Dharmarakṣa’s Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra T263 was translated from a Kharoṣṭhī manuscript. He argues that this is evident from “confusions in the Chinese renderings.” In the first chapter there are several instances where Maitreya is referred to as Ajita. There are two references to Ajita in the Sanskrit passage, but only one in the Chinese; furthermore, Dharmarakṣa translates “eighty tathāgatas” in one line, and in the next, writes of twenty thousand. However, there is no mention of “eighty tathāgatas” in the Indic passage. Boucher suggests that if Dharmarakṣa had been working from a Kharoṣṭhī text, ajita would likely have read *ayita (due to a Prakrit development of “intervocalic j replaced by y”) which leaves the possibility that Dharmarakṣa misread ya as śa and understood aśīti (eighty). The second confusion also involves graphically similar akṣaras, the mistranslation from putrā to sūtra (jingli) suggests that Dharmarakṣa misread “pu” for “su” (this confusion could have been compounded by the lack of long vowels in Kharoṣṭhī). The colophon to this text describes the text as a hu jing 胡經 (Hu sūtra), which connects this example to Boucher’s wider argument for a connection between the term “hu” and Kharoṣṭhī manuscripts. Boucher cites Seishi Karashima, The Textual Study of the Chinese Versions of the Saddharmapuṇḍarikasūtra in light of the Sanskrit and Tibetan Versions (Tokyo: The Sankibo Press, 1992). Edit	12-14	Boucher argues that Dharmaraksa’s Saddharmapundarika-sutra T263 was translated from a Kharosthi manuscript. He argues that this is evident from “confusions in the Chinese renderings.” In the first chapter there are several instances where Maitreya is referred to as Ajita. There are two references to Ajita in the Sanskrit passage, but only one in the Chinese; furthermore, Dharmaraksa translates “eighty tathagatas” in one line, and in the next, writes of twenty thousand. However, there is no mention of “eighty tathagatas” in the Indic passage. Boucher suggests that if Dharmaraksa had been working from a Kharosthi text, ajita would likely have read *ayita (due to a Prakrit development of “intervocalic j replaced by y”) which leaves the possibility that Dharmaraksa misread ya as sa and understood asiti (eighty). The second confusion also involves graphically similar aksaras, the mistranslation from putra to sutra (jingli) suggests that Dharmaraksa misread “pu” for “su” (this confusion could have been compounded by the lack of long vowels in Kharosthi). The colophon to this text describes the text as a hu jing 胡經 (Hu sutra), which connects this example to Boucher’s wider argument for a connection between the term “hu” and Kharosthi manuscripts. Boucher cites Seishi Karashima, The Textual Study of the Chinese Versions of the Saddharmapundarikasutra in light of the Sanskrit and Tibetan Versions (Tokyo: The Sankibo Press, 1992). T0263; 正法華方等; 正法華方等經典; 法華方等正經; 正法華經方等典詔; 正法華經

Assertion

Argument

Place in source

Texts: T0186; 普曜大方等典; *Vaitulya-nidāna; Fangdeng yuanqi 方等本起; *Lalitavistara-mahāvaitulya-dharmaparyāya; 普曜經

Boucher cites Brough, who has argued that Dharmarakṣa’s 普曜經 Lalitavistara T186 was translated from a Gāndhārī manuscript. Brough reconstructed pronunciations of a few of the headwords to its “arapacana formulary” which is known to be the “syllabic order of Gāndhārī in the Kharoṣṭhī text.” Boucher adds that the colophon to Dharmarakṣa’s translation describes the text as a hu ben 胡本, which ties into his larger argument for a connection between the term “hu” and a Kharoṣṭhī manuscript. Citing Brough (1977).

Edit

Texts: T0263; 正法華方等; 正法華方等經典; 法華方等正經; 正法華經方等典詔; 正法華經

Boucher argues that Dharmarakṣa’s Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra T263 was translated from a Kharoṣṭhī manuscript. He argues that this is evident from “confusions in the Chinese renderings.” In the first chapter there are several instances where Maitreya is referred to as Ajita. There are two references to Ajita in the Sanskrit passage, but only one in the Chinese; furthermore, Dharmarakṣa translates “eighty tathāgatas” in one line, and in the next, writes of twenty thousand. However, there is no mention of “eighty tathāgatas” in the Indic passage. Boucher suggests that if Dharmarakṣa had been working from a Kharoṣṭhī text, ajita would likely have read *ayita (due to a Prakrit development of “intervocalic j replaced by y”) which leaves the possibility that Dharmarakṣa misread ya as śa and understood aśīti (eighty). The second confusion also involves graphically similar akṣaras, the mistranslation from putrā to sūtra (jingli) suggests that Dharmarakṣa misread “pu” for “su” (this confusion could have been compounded by the lack of long vowels in Kharoṣṭhī). The colophon to this text describes the text as a hu jing 胡經 (Hu sūtra), which connects this example to Boucher’s wider argument for a connection between the term “hu” and Kharoṣṭhī manuscripts. Boucher cites Seishi Karashima, The Textual Study of the Chinese Versions of the Saddharmapuṇḍarikasūtra in light of the Sanskrit and Tibetan Versions (Tokyo: The Sankibo Press, 1992).

Edit

12-14