Funayama Tōru 船山徹. Butten wa dō Kan’yaku sareta no ka: sūtora ga kyōten ni naru toki 仏典はどう漢訳されたのか スートラが経典になるとき. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten: 2013.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source |
|---|---|---|
|
Funayama mentions the Puti fu zang fa hua sanmei jing 菩提福藏法化三昧經 as part of a list of texts identified by Sengyou (CSZJJ) as "apocrypha" for which the author was known. In this case, the claim was that the text was authored in the South, during the Qi 齊, under the rein of Emperor Wu 武帝, by the monk Daobei 道備, who later changed his name to Daohuan 道歡; 齊武帝時。比丘道備所撰(備易名道歡), T2145:55.39b2. |
133 |
|
Funayama mentions this text an example of a category of "apocrypha" identified by Makita, namely texts "resembling simple superstition, for the purpose of curing illness, attracting good fortune, etc." 療病、迎福などのために単なる迷信に類するもの. |
131 |
Funayama discusses some of the evidence that has led scholars to conclude that the text is apocryphal, including five phases 五行 thinking. |
125-127 |
|
|
Funayama discusses the evidence that has led scholars to regard the text as apocryphal, including mention of Laozi and Confucius, classical Chinese texts, and mention of China 真丹. |
127-130 |
|
Funayama argues that the "biography of Vasubandhu" 婆藪槃豆法師傳 T2049 is most likely not a straight translation, but a work composed by Paramārtha’s disciples on the basis of information that their master brought with him [e.g. in his memory] from India, concerning the life of its subject. |
167 |
|
Funayama briefly mentions the Dizang pusa benyuan jing 地藏菩薩本願經 T412 as a probable apocryphon, exemplifying a type of apocryphon that features Chinese folk beliefs. |
142 |
|
Funayama mentions in passing that the 北斗七星延命經 T1307 is an apocryphon, which contains discussion of birth year in relation to the twelve "[earthly] branches" 十二支, and folk belief accompanied by Daoist zhoufu 呪符. |
140 |
|
Funayama mentions this text as an example of "apocrypha" based upon folk belief, in this case in order to avoid the suffering of rebirth in hell and ensure rebirth in a pure land instead. The text describes a Chinese-style Yama and hells. |
142 |
|
Funayama briefly mentions the Dizang pusa shi zhairi 地藏菩薩十齋日 T2850 as a probably apocryphon, exemplifying a type of apocryphon that features Chinese folk beliefs. |
142 |
|
The "biography of Aśvaghoṣa 馬鳴菩薩傳 T2046, ascribed to Kumārajīva, is extant in two main versions, belonging to print and manuscript canons. The woodblock transmission lineages show signs of revision under the Tang or N. Song, as is revealed by comparison with the manuscript versions preserved at Nanatsu-dera. This manuscript version, however, is possibly also not a translation, but rather, something that Sengrui 僧叡 compiled on the basis of teachings from Kumārajīva. Funayama cites Ochiai (2000). |
167 |
|
Funayama mentions this text as part of a list of texts composed in China designed to "stimulate a certain type of doctrinal belief" 特定の教義信仰を鼓吹するもの, in this case referring to beliefs about the endtimes of the Dharma. |
130 |
Funayama notes that the Shi shuo xin yu 世說新語 asserts that Śrīmitra could not speak any Chinese. This would obviously call into question all attributions that claim he "translated" any text, at least in any ordinary sense in which the word "translate" is understood in modern contexts. |
90 |
|
|
Funayama mentions this text an example of a category of "apocrypha" identified by Makita, namely texts "resembling simple superstition, for the purpose of curing illness, attracting good fortune, etc." 療病、迎福などのために単なる迷信に類するもの. |
131 |
|
Funayama summarises prior scholarship which argues that the 法句譬喻經 T211 is not a full and direct translation of a single source. Sources have been identified in earlier Chinese works such as the Zhong benqi jing 中本起經 T196, which has itself been shown in turn to have portions that possible date later than the original Han translation by Tanguo 曇果 and Kang Mengxiang 康孟詳, perhaps dating as late as the Jin 晉. T211 has also been shown to have relations to the Zi'ai jing 自愛經 T742, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra 佛般泥洹經 T5, and the *Udānavarga 出曜經 T212. Funayama refers to Enomoto (1994), Tanabe (2000), and Kamitsuka (2001). |
151 |
|
Citing the preface by Huiguan 慧觀 preserved in CSZJJ, Funayama argues that the actual "translator, in the literal sense" of T353 was Baoyun (譯為宋語). Funayama also notes that Guṇabhadra’s biography records that he had worries about not being able to speak Chinese. |
72 |
|
Funayama mentions this text as part of a list of texts composed in China designed to "stimulate a certain type of doctrinal belief" 特定の教義信仰を鼓吹するもの, "reflecting the actual state of the Avalokiteśvara cult in China" 中国における観世音信仰の実態反映する. |
130 |
Funayama mentions this text as part of a list of texts composed in China designed to "stimulate a certain type of doctrinal belief" 特定の教義信仰を鼓吹するもの. This text expounds the miraculous powers of Avalokiteśvara, while mentioning the name of a known historical individual of the N. Wei 北魏, Gao Huan 高歡 (later Emperor Shenwu 神武 of the N. Qi 北齊). |
130-131 |
|
|
Funayama mentions this text as part of a list of texts characterised by Makita as composed in China to "stimulate a certain type of doctrinal belief" 特定の教義信仰を鼓吹するもの, in this case meaning that the text propounds the virtues of confession of sins. XGSZ asserts that the place in which the text was composed was known, namely, the Jingxiang 荊襄 region; T2060:50.699c15. |
130, 132 |
|
Funayama mentions this text as part of a list of texts composed in China designed to "stimulate a certain type of doctrinal belief" 特定の教義信仰を鼓吹するもの, "reflecting the actual state of the Avalokiteśvara cult in China" 中国における観世音信仰の実態反映する. |
130 |
|
Funayama very briefly reports that Hirakawa concluded that the Za jiemo 雜羯磨 T1432 ascribed to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 could not possibly be from the Wei, and is a digest of the Dharmagupta-vinaya 四分律 T1428, which was translated in the first half of the fifth century. He cites Hirakawa (1960). |
166 |
|
Funayama very briefly reports that Hirakawa concluded that the Jiemo 羯磨 T1433 ascribed to Tandi 曇諦 could not possibly be from the Wei, and is a digest of the Dharmagupta-vinaya 四分律 T1428, which was translated in the first half of the fifth century. He cites Hirakawa (1960). |
166 |
|
The Devadatta chapter was translated by Fayi 法意 in 490, from a text acquired by Faxian while he was in Khotan; CSZJJ 13b, GSZ 411c. This makes the full text, as we now have it, a composite product of two translators. |
29 |
|
Funayama discusses the case of Miaoguang's 妙光 forgery of the Saporetuo juanshu zhuangyan jing 薩婆若陀眷屬莊嚴經, and gives an extended translation of Sengyou's account of the matter. |
142-145 |
|
Briefly surveying prior scholarship on the Sishi'er zhang jing 四十二章經 T784, Funayama opines that "at least in the form of the presently extant text, it certainly must have been finalised in the early fifth century or thereafter," because it includes phrasing very similar to that of the Ekottarikāgama T125 ascribed to Saṃghadeva, the Saṃyuktāgama T99 of Guṇabhadra, and the Daoist Zhen gao 真誥, which were therefore among the sources of the Sishi’er zhang jing. Other sources mentioned by Funayama include the Liu di ji jing 六度集經 T152 and the Faju piyu jing 法句譬喻經 T211. Funayama cites Okabe (1972). |
23, 152 |
|
Funayama mentions the Baoche jing 寶車經 as part of a list of texts identified by Sengyou (CSZJJ) as "apocrypha" for which the author was known. In this case, the claim was that it was compiled by the monk Tanbian 曇辨, and revised by the monk Daoshi 道侍 under the N. Wei 北魏 (北國淮州比丘曇辯撰。青州比丘道侍改治, T2145:55.39a27-28. Manuscripts of the text have been recovered from Dunhuang. Funayama refers to Lin [Mei] (2005) and Cao (2011). |
133 |
|
In 490 the Devadatta chapter was translated by Fayi 法意 from a text acquired by Faxian while he was in Khotan; CSZJJ 13b, GSZ 411c. |
29 |
|
Funayama mentions in passing that this is an apocryphon, citing Osabe (1971). |
140 |
|
Reprising earlier scholarship, Funayama says of the Dasheng yuqie jingangxing hai manshushili qian bei qian bo ta jiao wang jing 大乘瑜伽金剛性海曼殊室利千臂千缽大教王經 T1177A that "both the preface placed at the head and the sūtra alike are apocryphal". Part of the evidence is that the text claims that 毘廬遮那 is the dharmakāya, whereas 廬遮那 is the sāṃbhogikakāya; it is not possible to distinguish between these “two Buddhas” Indic contexts [both are alternate transcriptions for the name of the same Buddha, Vairocana]. The text also speaks of the fourpart rubric of 見分, 相分, 自證分, and 證自證分, but these terms (especially the fourth) are characteristic of the doctrine of Xuanzang as based upon the ideas of Dharmapāla, and it does not make sense for them to come up in a sūtra context. The text also contains copious use of expressions typical of the "Brahma Net Sūtra". Funayama cites Ono (1920), Nagabe (1971), Gonda (1925), and Mochizuki (1946). |
139-140 |
|
Briefly summarising prior scholarship, Funayama mentions, among the identified prior Chinese sources of the text, *Dharmakṣema’s MPNMS T374 and Bodhisattvabhūmi T1581, Kumārajīva’s Zhong lun 中論 T1564, Guṇabhadra’s Bodhisattvabhūmi 菩薩善戒經 T1582/T1583, and the equally “apocryphal” Sūtra of Humane Kings T245. Funayama cites Ōno (1954) and Mochizuki (1946). |
85 |
|
Funayama argues that the *Tattvasiddhi/*Satyasiddhi 成實論 T1646 is not a literal, word-for-word translation of an Indic original, but the product of certain alterations and editorial decisions among Kumārajīva’s group. In this sense, it is an interesting sub-type of the overall set of genres Funayama characterises as lying "between translation and composition". However, Funayama is careful to state that in making this observation, he is not thereby impugning the authenticity of the text; rather, precisely because the content of the text is so authoritative and clearly derived from Indic sources, this case shows admirably some of the complexity involved in drawing the line between "Indic" and "Chinese" materials. Details regarding the process of composition of the text are recorded in Huijiao's (GSZ) biography of Tanying 曇影, T2059:50.364a1-13. The text was divided into five major sections, and the detailed ordering of the content was also changed (初出成實論。凡諍論問答皆次第往反。影恨其支離。乃結為五番。竟以呈什。什曰大善。深得吾意). |
149-151 |
|
T1566 was taken down by two different amanuenses 筆受: According to a second preface by Falin 法琳, preserved in Falin's Bian zheng lun, for Ch 1-16 (juan 1-9) it was Huiyi 慧賾, and for Ch. 17-27 (juan 10-15) was Falin. Funayama notes that differences can be detected between the two portions, for example in the formula used to introduce gāthās: 如偈曰/論者偈曰 vs. 故論偈言/如論偈說. This implies that amanuenses were possibly often those who bishou were probably often the people who decided translation terms, wording etc. [This has obvious implications for studies of ascription on stylistic grounds---whose style are we finding?----MR] |
75, 92-94 |
|
In line with the general consensus, Funayama treats the Da fangbian Fo bao'en jing 大方便佛報恩經 T156 as composed in China. He lists a number of known sources: 薩婆多毘尼毘婆沙 T1440; 法句譬喻經 T211; 太子須大拏經 T171; 六度集經 T152; 大智度論 T1509; 大般涅槃經 T374; 正法華經 T263. He notes that it is particularly interesting that in its use of T1440, which is a "lecture text", this Chinese sūtra turns words originally composed as commentary on the 十誦律 (Sarvāstivāda-vinaya) T1435 into buddhavacana. |
138-139 |
|
189-190 |
|
|
Funayama treats the Fan Fan yu 翻梵語 T2130 as a work of the Liang dynasty. He refers to prior studies, especially by Ono Genmyō, whom he says was the first to notice the importance of the work. Funayama himself points out that a section of the text on monastic robes (*kaṭhina) called Jiaxina yi fa 迦絺那衣法 (fascicle 3) is entirely a reproduction of the lost Chu yao lü yi 出要律儀, which slightly predates Fan Fan yu. The format of this section is clearly different from other parts of T2130. The Chu yao lü yi has been variously regarded as a work of Baochang 寶唱, or an imperial commission. It was highly regarded and frequently quoted by Vinaya masters of subsequent generations. In the Chu yao lü yi, a figure referred to as the "shenglunzhe" 聲論者 is often cited as a source of information; Funayama speculates that this was probably a Chinese scholar-monk of the Liang. Funayama gives as an example an entry on Rājagr̥ha 羅閱城 (1006a22). |
188-192 |