Source: Legittimo 2010

Legittimo, Elsa. "Reopening the Maitreya-files – Two Almost Identical Early Maitreya Sutra Translations in the Chinese Canon: Wrong Attributions and Text-historical Entanglements." Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies 31, no. 1/2 (2010): 251–294.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

Legittimo writes, "The attribution [of 摩鄧女經 T551] to An Shigao 安世高 is doubtful", referring to an unpublished list of An Shigao translations by Zacchetti, which does not list it. Legittimo notes that T551 and the 摩登女解形中六事經 T552 only differ minimally from one another, so that "the two texts cannot be said to represent two different translations".

Edit

265

 Legittimo writes, "The attribution [of 摩鄧女經 T551] to An Shigao 安世高 is doubtful", referring to an unpublished list of An Shigao translations by Zacchetti, which does not list it. Legittimo notes that T551 and the 摩登女解形中六事經 T552 only differ minimally from one another, so that "the two texts cannot be said to represent two different translations". T0551; 佛說摩鄧女經; 阿難爲蠱道所呪經; *Matangi-sutra, *Sardulakarnavadana; 阿難爲蠱道女惑經; 摩登女經; 阿難爲蠱道呪經 T0552; 阿難爲蠱道所呪經; 阿難爲蠱道女惑經; 阿難爲蠱道呪經; 佛說摩登女解形中六事經; 摩登女經

Legittimo writes, "On several occasions I have detected...that the Chinese version [sic!] of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, the Da zhidu lun 大智度論 [T1509], that has always and exclusively been attributed to Kumārajīva, bears in fact considerable traces of [Zhu Fonian's 竺佛念] terminology." "There is no reason why Kumārajīva should not have adopted vocabulary and termini used by...preceding translators, but ordinary usage of preexisting vocabulary cannot explain why certain translations attributed to Kumārajīva contain a...higher number of expressions characteristic of [Zhu Fonian]." [Legittimo seems to be referring to unpublished results: she gives no examples, and cites no other publications, to support this suggestion---MR.]

Edit

260 and n. 24

 Legittimo writes, "On several occasions I have detected...that the Chinese version [sic!] of the Mahaprajnaparamitopadesa, the Da zhidu lun 大智度論 [T1509], that has always and exclusively been attributed to Kumarajiva, bears in fact considerable traces of [Zhu Fonian's 竺佛念] terminology." "There is no reason why Kumarajiva should not have adopted vocabulary and termini used by...preceding translators, but ordinary usage of preexisting vocabulary cannot explain why certain translations attributed to Kumarajiva contain a...higher number of expressions characteristic of [Zhu Fonian]." [Legittimo seems to be referring to unpublished results: she gives no examples, and cites no other publications, to support this suggestion---MR.] T1509; 大智度論

Summarising earlier work in 2006, Legittimo argues that the Ekottarikāgama 增壹阿含經 T125 is in fact the translation by Zhu Fonian 竺佛念. She states that her hypothesis is based mainly on translation terminology, and notes (256 n. 24) that Nattier independently arrived at a similar judgement, also on the basis of terminology. Legittimo argues that her study of the translation terminology of the 彌勒下生經 T453 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, which is virtually identical to EĀ 48.3 (T125:787c2 ff.), also adds further evidence in support of this ascription of T125 to Zhu Fonian.

Edit

255-257

 Summarising earlier work in 2006, Legittimo argues that the Ekottarikagama 增壹阿含經 T125 is in fact the translation by Zhu Fonian 竺佛念. She states that her hypothesis is based mainly on translation terminology, and notes (256 n. 24) that Nattier independently arrived at a similar judgement, also on the basis of terminology. Legittimo argues that her study of the translation terminology of the 彌勒下生經 T453 ascribed to Dharmaraksa 竺法護, which is virtually identical to EA 48.3 (T125:787c2 ff.), also adds further evidence in support of this ascription of T125 to Zhu Fonian. Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 T0125; Ekottarikagama; 增壹阿含經

The 彌勒下生經 T453 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa 竺法護 is virtually identical to EĀ 48.3 (T125:787c2 ff.), as was already noticed by Matsumoto Bunzaburō in 1911. There is no Pali equivalent. KYL also states that T453 is excerpted from EĀ. Sugi 守其 also expressed reservations about the ascription to Dharmarakṣa. Legittimo argues that the vocabulary suggests that the text is not by Dharmarakṣa. Legittimo notes that Zürcher, “Prince Moonlight”, 13 n. 16, also points out that T453 is a "literal reproduction" of the EĀ version of the story.

Legittimo aims to establish the authorship of T453, with the idea that this study will also contribute to the study of the authorship of T125. Her method is to study intensively the vocabulary of the first 22 lines of the text. Her Appendix II presents this evidence in detail, and in all, her argument rests upon the characteristic patterns of occurrence of 19 terms (272). Legittimo sets aside terms that appear more than sixty times, because she believes that "their connection with a particular translator or group of translators cannot be established" (257, 272) [in my view, this assumption is incorrect---MR]. Legittimo argues, on the basis of this evidence, that T453 is by Zhu Fonian.

Edit

 The 彌勒下生經 T453 ascribed to Dharmaraksa 竺法護 is virtually identical to EA 48.3 (T125:787c2 ff.), as was already noticed by Matsumoto Bunzaburo in 1911. There is no Pali equivalent. KYL also states that T453 is excerpted from EA. Sugi 守其 also expressed reservations about the ascription to Dharmaraksa. Legittimo argues that the vocabulary suggests that the text is not by Dharmaraksa. Legittimo notes that Zurcher, “Prince Moonlight”, 13 n. 16, also points out that T453 is a "literal reproduction" of the EA version of the story. Legittimo aims to establish the authorship of T453, with the idea that this study will also contribute to the study of the authorship of T125. Her method is to study intensively the vocabulary of the first 22 lines of the text. Her Appendix II presents this evidence in detail, and in all, her argument rests upon the characteristic patterns of occurrence of 19 terms (272). Legittimo sets aside terms that appear more than sixty times, because she believes that "their connection with a particular translator or group of translators cannot be established" (257, 272) [in my view, this assumption is incorrect---MR]. Legittimo argues, on the basis of this evidence, that T453 is by Zhu Fonian. Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 T0453; 佛說彌勒下生經