Saitō Takanobu [Qiteng Longxin] 斉藤隆信. “Zhi Qian suoyi jingdian zhong jiesong de yanjiu: sibu jingdian zhong de Hanyizhe 支謙所译经典中偈颂的研究―四部经典中的汉译者.” Zhongguo Foxueyuan xuebao “Fayuan” 中国佛学院学报《法源》 19 (2001): 63-73.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source |
|---|---|---|
|
As part of a larger series of studies of rhyming verse in Chinese Buddhist texts (especially but not exclusively translation texts), Saitō argues that because it contains such verse, which is unusual, the Yan su dao ye jing 演道俗業經 T820 is in fact by Zhi Qian. However, for details, Saitō actually refers readers to his own earlier study (Saitō 2000). |
|
|
As part of a larger series of studies of rhyming verse in Chinese Buddhist texts (especially but not exclusively translation texts), Saitō argues that because it contains such verse, which is unusual, the Dhammapada 法句經 T210 is in fact by Zhi Qian. Saitō notes that CSZJJ and GSZ give conflicting reports about the translatorship of the text, CSZJJ ascribing it to Zhi Qian and Jiangyan 將炎, but GSZ ascribing it to *Vighna and Jiangyan. He argues that both *Vighna and Jiangyan would have known too little Chinese to have produced the text, let alone such intricate, rule-bound rhyming verse. He notes that an anonymous preface to the text (T210 [IV] 566b14-c26) reports that the author of the preface 僕 had a disagreement about the translation with others involved in the process, arguing that it was too rough. This same author states that Indic gāthās are similar to Chinese shi 詩, an attitude which Saitō holds was rare in Chinese Buddhist translation history. Saitō argues that it is most plausible that Zhi Qian, whom he has shown elsewhere to have produced verse translations obeying the rhyming rules of the shi 詩 genre, would have held such attitudes, and Zhi Qian is therefore the likely author of the preface; and that the preface gives us reason to believe that Zhi Qian, dissatisfied with the initial product of the translation process, made his own polished revision, one of the hallmarks of which was precisely the rhyming verse we find in the text as extant. |
64-67 |
|
As part of a larger series of studies of rhyming verse in Chinese Buddhist texts (especially but not exclusively translation texts), Saitō argues that because it contains such verse, which is unusual, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra 般泥洹經 T6 is in fact by Zhi Qian. In other studies, Saitō had already argued that rhyming verse of this type is characteristic of Zhi Qian. Referring to earlier studies by Iwamatsu Asao, he notes that prior scholars have propounded two main theories about the translatorship of the text, one ascribing it to Zhi Qian, and the other to Dharmarakṣa. He writes somewhat dismissively of the hope that other, more usual methods, based on either the external evidence of the catalogues or the internal evidence of translation terminology and phraseology, can resolve this question, and argues that his own method, using rhyming verse as a touchstone, is therefore our best hope. In his own earlier studies, Saitō had found that only four texts ascribed to Dharmarakṣa contained rhyming verse (T154, T182a/b, T186, and T623 --- note that Saitō confusingly gives the title of T623, 如來獨證自*誓*三昧經, incorrectly as 如來獨證自*制*三昧經, and of the alternate translation ascribed to An Shigao, 自*誓*三昧經 T622, as 自*制*三昧經). In each case, he holds that there is reason to believe that at least the verse portions may in fact derive from earlier Zhi Qian translations. He therefore argues that such verse is not characteristic of Dharmarakṣa, and its presence in T6 allows us to determine that the text is in fact due to Zhi Qian. He argues further that records exist indicating that a fanbai 梵唄 ("Sanskrit-style hymn") was composed on the theme of the MPNS by Kang Senghui 康僧會, based upon the reported translation by Zhi Qian. Although Kang Senghui's text has been lost, Saitō argues that we can find in the present T6 a set of verses which are likely to have formed the basis for this fanbai. Given that Kang Senghui is almost certainly too early to have worked on the basis of a text by Dharmarakṣa, this is additional support for the ascription of T6 to Zhi Qian. |
67-70 |
|
As part of a larger series of studies of rhyming verse in Chinese Buddhist texts (especially but not exclusively translation texts), Saitō argues that because it contains such verse, which is unusual, the Lu mu jing 鹿母經 182a/b is in fact by Zhi Qian. In his own earlier studies, Saitō had found that only four texts ascribed to Dharmarakṣa contained rhyming verse (T154, T182a/b, T186, and T623 --- note that Saitō confusingly gives the title of T623, 如來獨證自*誓*三昧經, incorrectly as 如來獨證自*制*三昧經, and of the alternate translation ascribed to An Shigao, 自*誓*三昧經 T622, as 自*制*三昧經). In each case, he holds that there is reason to believe that at least the verse portions may in fact derive from earlier Zhi Qian translations. He therefore argues that such verse is not characteristic of Dharmarakṣa, and its presence allows us to determine that T182 (at least the verse portions) is in fact due to Zhi Qian. Saitō notes further that T182 appears in two versions in the Taishō, T182a (based upon the Korean edition of the canon) and T182b (based upon the Song, Ming and Yuan editions). Both are ascribed in the Taishō to Dharmarakṣa. T182a is only about half the length of T182b. Jingtai, the Dazhou kanding zhongjing mulu, and other catalogues which stipulate the length of texts sighted, only ever give evidence of having seen the shorter of these two texts, T182a. CSZJJ contains a record that Zhi Qian also translated a text with a similar title, Lu zi jing 鹿子經. This text is not listed as lost by Sengyou, which Saitō interprets to mean that Sengyou saw the text. The ascription of the Lu zi jing/Lu mu jing to Zhi Qian was overturned by Zhisheng in KYL: 鹿子經一卷: 右一經。與鹿母經文同名異。據其文義合從母立名。長房錄云。鹿子經吳代優婆塞支謙譯者謬也, T2154 (LV) 664b6-9 (cf. also T2154 [LV] 604b22-23). This led to the ascription of T182a/b to Dharmarakṣa currently carried in the Taishō. Saitō states that although the Lu zi jing is supposed to be lost, it is in fact cited in full in the Jing lü yi xiang經律異相 T2121. Comparison shows that this text is virtually identical to T182a (the shorter version of the text). He therefore argues that the same text circulated under two titles. He suggests that the longer version, T182b, was a later revision of T182a. He notes that whoever made this revision in fact fixed faulty rhymes from the earlier version. (The improvement in rhyme of T182b over T182a is one of Saitō’s grounds for his conclusion that T182b is the later of the two, since he assumes that nobody would revise a text to make the rhymes worse). On these grounds, Saitō argues that T182b is Dharmarakṣa’s later revision of T182a, which was originally a text by Zhi Qian. He further supports this claim by citing a single term characteristic of Dharmarakṣa in T182b, 僧那僧涅 (which, however, also appears earlier in *Lokakṣema). [I do not understand how Saitō reconciles his theory with his claims elsewhere that production of rhyming verse is atypical of Dharmarakṣa’s team, nor how he reconciles his claims that there is no evidence for the longer version of the text down to Tang catalogues with his ascription of the revisions in T186b to Dharmarakṣa – MR.] |
70-73 |