Saitō Takanobu 齊藤隆信. “Kango butten ni okeru ge no kenkyū: Jiku Hōgo yaku Ryūse bosatsu hongi kyō no shiritsu ni tsuite 漢語仏典に おける偈の研究−竺法護訳『龍施菩薩本起経』の詩律をめぐって [A Study of gāthās in the Chinese Buddhist Canon: On the meter in the Longshi nü pusa benqi jing translated by Dharmarakṣa].” Indogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度学仏教学研究 52, no. 1 (2003): 215-219.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
|
In the course of a more complex argument about T558, Saitō suggests that at either the entirety of MPNS 般泥洹經 T6, regarded in the canon as an "Anonymous E. Jin" 不載譯人附東晉錄 text, or at least the verse portions thereof, is in fact by Zhi Qian. |
218 |
In the course of a more complex argument about T558, Saito suggests that at either the entirety of MPNS 般泥洹經 T6, regarded in the canon as an "Anonymous E. Jin" 不載譯人附東晉錄 text, or at least the verse portions thereof, is in fact by Zhi Qian. Zhi Qian 支謙 T0006; 般泥洹經 |
|
In the course of a more complex argument about T558, Saitō suggests that at either the entirety of the 鹿母經 T182(a/b), currently ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, or at least the verse portions thereof, is in fact by Zhi Qian. |
218 |
In the course of a more complex argument about T558, Saito suggests that at either the entirety of the 鹿母經 T182(a/b), currently ascribed to Dharmaraksa, or at least the verse portions thereof, is in fact by Zhi Qian. Zhi Qian 支謙 T0182; 鹿母經 |
|
Saitō argues that the Nāgadatta-sūtra 龍施菩薩本起經 T558 ascribed to Dharmarakṣa is probably at least in part incorrectly ascribed. He bases his argument upon evidence in the catalogues, and the pattern of rhyme in the verses of the text. The base text of the Taishō, namely K[ŏryŏ], formats the entire text as if it is prose, but the second half is in fact in pentasyllabic verse. Saitō states that in an extensive comparison of the text in various printed editions of the canon, the verses turned out to be formatted as prose in about half of the cases. He argues further that the formatting as verse is in fact correct, as the even-numbered pentasyllabic lines can be shown to rhyme according to the Wei-Jin rhyme groups. (At a certain point, the rhyming appears to shift to odd-numbered lines, but Saitō argues that this is because either one or five lines got lost; the present text has 135 lines, but originally there should either have been 136 or 140.) Saitō also notes that in the first half of the text, in prose with four-syllable prosody, there are a certain number of rhymes. On this basis, Saitō challenges the received ascription of the text to Dharmarakṣa. Referring to his other studies on rhyme in Chinese Buddhist texts, he argues that the only other texts ascribed to Dharmarakṣa which contain deliberate rhyme are the Jātaka collection 生經 T154, Lalitavistara 普曜經 T186, 鹿母經 T182(a/b), and 如來獨證自誓三昧經 T623. However, in each case, he suggests that there exists (or existed) other full or partial versions by earlier translators, and the rhyming verse can be explained by the posit that the Dharmarakṣa group borrowed the verses from those earlier works. Conversely, the use of rhyming verse is characteristic of Zhi Qian. Moreover, Saitō adduces the testimony of the catalogues to show that the reported length of texts of similar titles ascribed to Zhi Qian and Dharmarakṣa is the reverse to what we should expect, based upon the length of extant texts with the same ascriptions, including the present T558. Claiming that the texts are both so short that the attempt to decide authorship on the basis of terminology and phraseology is "pointless" 徒労, Saitō argues that it is most likely that either T558 in its entirety, or at least that the verse portion of the text, is actually by Zhi Qian. This argument incidentally involves making associated claims that the "Anonymous E. Jin" 不載譯人附東晉錄 MPNS 般泥洹經 T6, which Saitō states some (unidentified) scholars sometimes argue is by Dharmarakṣa, and also the 鹿母經 T182(a/b), or at least its verse portions, are also in fact translations by Zhi Qian (218). |
Saito argues that the Nagadatta-sutra 龍施菩薩本起經 T558 ascribed to Dharmaraksa is probably at least in part incorrectly ascribed. He bases his argument upon evidence in the catalogues, and the pattern of rhyme in the verses of the text. The base text of the Taisho, namely K[oryo], formats the entire text as if it is prose, but the second half is in fact in pentasyllabic verse. Saito states that in an extensive comparison of the text in various printed editions of the canon, the verses turned out to be formatted as prose in about half of the cases. He argues further that the formatting as verse is in fact correct, as the even-numbered pentasyllabic lines can be shown to rhyme according to the Wei-Jin rhyme groups. (At a certain point, the rhyming appears to shift to odd-numbered lines, but Saito argues that this is because either one or five lines got lost; the present text has 135 lines, but originally there should either have been 136 or 140.) Saito also notes that in the first half of the text, in prose with four-syllable prosody, there are a certain number of rhymes. On this basis, Saito challenges the received ascription of the text to Dharmaraksa. Referring to his other studies on rhyme in Chinese Buddhist texts, he argues that the only other texts ascribed to Dharmaraksa which contain deliberate rhyme are the Jataka collection 生經 T154, Lalitavistara 普曜經 T186, 鹿母經 T182(a/b), and 如來獨證自誓三昧經 T623. However, in each case, he suggests that there exists (or existed) other full or partial versions by earlier translators, and the rhyming verse can be explained by the posit that the Dharmaraksa group borrowed the verses from those earlier works. Conversely, the use of rhyming verse is characteristic of Zhi Qian. Moreover, Saito adduces the testimony of the catalogues to show that the reported length of texts of similar titles ascribed to Zhi Qian and Dharmaraksa is the reverse to what we should expect, based upon the length of extant texts with the same ascriptions, including the present T558. Claiming that the texts are both so short that the attempt to decide authorship on the basis of terminology and phraseology is "pointless" 徒労, Saito argues that it is most likely that either T558 in its entirety, or at least that the verse portion of the text, is actually by Zhi Qian. This argument incidentally involves making associated claims that the "Anonymous E. Jin" 不載譯人附東晉錄 MPNS 般泥洹經 T6, which Saito states some (unidentified) scholars sometimes argue is by Dharmaraksa, and also the 鹿母經 T182(a/b), or at least its verse portions, are also in fact translations by Zhi Qian (218). Zhi Qian 支謙 T0558; 佛說龍施菩薩本起經; 龍施本經 |