Anālayo, Bhikkhu. “The Ekottarika-āgama Parallel to the Saccavibhaṅga-sutta and the Four (Noble) Truths”, Buddhist Studies Review 23, no. 2 (2006): 145-153.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
|
According to Anālayo the Chinese parallel to the Saccavibhaṅga-sutta in the Ekottarika-āgama was “probably translated by Zhu Fo-nian (竺佛念)” and “based on a text recited from memory by Dharmanandī.” He adds that it is not entirely clear if “the translation now extant in Chinese has only been revised by Gautama Saṅghadeva, or whether it is an actual retranslation undertaken by him, which then replaced the earlier translation by Dharmanandī and Zhu Fo-nian.” Anālayo cites evidence which attributes the Ekottarika-āgama translation to Dharmanandī and Zhu Fo-nian: “T 2145 at T LV 71b29; T 2146 at T LV 127c29; T 2153 at T LV 422b6; and T 2154 at T LV 511b15.” He also acknowledges arguments that Gautama Saṅghadeva retranslated the Ekottarika-āgama: “T 2034 at T XLIX 70c; cf. also Bagchi (1927: 159, 337); Enomoto (1986: 19); Lamotte (1967: 105); Lü (1963: 242); Mayeda (1985: 102); Waldschmidt (1980: 169 n. 168); and Yin-shun (1983: 91).” However, Anālayo writes that despite the latter claims it is not clear to him on what manuscript Saṅghadeva would have based such a retranslation, “since whereas in the case of the Madhyama-āgama his translation was based on a written original read out to him by Sangharakṣa … Zhu Fo-nian translated the Ekottarika-āgama based on an original Dharmanandī had memorized … and there is no indication that Gautama Saṅghadeva had also memorized this collection.” Furthermore, Anālayo considers a retranslation “unlikely” because the Madhyama-āgama and the Ekottarika-āgama collections “differ considerably from each other in their translation terminology.” For examples of these differences Anālayo cites the way that the texts express proper names such as Jeta’s Grove and Sāriputta , and “the way they translate a standard expression like ‘right intention’ (sammā saṅkappa).” He writes that these differences “are not isolated cases,” but “are common between these two collections.” Such differences appear to be more than the usual variation in terminology of a particular translator “during successive stages of his translation activities” thus Anālayo concludes that “it would be more natural to attribute the translation of these two collections to different translators.” |
According to Analayo the Chinese parallel to the Saccavibhanga-sutta in the Ekottarika-agama was “probably translated by Zhu Fo-nian (竺佛念)” and “based on a text recited from memory by Dharmanandi.” He adds that it is not entirely clear if “the translation now extant in Chinese has only been revised by Gautama Sanghadeva, or whether it is an actual retranslation undertaken by him, which then replaced the earlier translation by Dharmanandi and Zhu Fo-nian.” Analayo cites evidence which attributes the Ekottarika-agama translation to Dharmanandi and Zhu Fo-nian: “T 2145 at T LV 71b29; T 2146 at T LV 127c29; T 2153 at T LV 422b6; and T 2154 at T LV 511b15.” He also acknowledges arguments that Gautama Sanghadeva retranslated the Ekottarika-agama: “T 2034 at T XLIX 70c; cf. also Bagchi (1927: 159, 337); Enomoto (1986: 19); Lamotte (1967: 105); Lu (1963: 242); Mayeda (1985: 102); Waldschmidt (1980: 169 n. 168); and Yin-shun (1983: 91).” However, Analayo writes that despite the latter claims it is not clear to him on what manuscript Sanghadeva would have based such a retranslation, “since whereas in the case of the Madhyama-agama his translation was based on a written original read out to him by Sangharaksa ... Zhu Fo-nian translated the Ekottarika-agama based on an original Dharmanandi had memorized ... and there is no indication that Gautama Sanghadeva had also memorized this collection.” Furthermore, Analayo considers a retranslation “unlikely” because the Madhyama-agama and the Ekottarika-agama collections “differ considerably from each other in their translation terminology.” For examples of these differences Analayo cites the way that the texts express proper names such as Jeta’s Grove and Sariputta , and “the way they translate a standard expression like ‘right intention’ (samma sankappa).” He writes that these differences “are not isolated cases,” but “are common between these two collections.” Such differences appear to be more than the usual variation in terminology of a particular translator “during successive stages of his translation activities” thus Analayo concludes that “it would be more natural to attribute the translation of these two collections to different translators.” T0125; Ekottarikagama; 增壹阿含經 |