Source: Sasaki 1972

Sasaki Takanori 佐々木孝憲. “Jiku Hōgo no yakkyō ni tsuite: Shō hoke kyō kaidoku no tame no kisoteki kenkyū 竺法護の訳経について―正法華経解読のための基礎的考察.” In Hoke kyō no Chūgokuteki tenkai 法華経の中国的展開, edited by Sakamoto Yukio 坂本幸男, 471-506[R]. Kyoto: Heirakuji shoten, 1972.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

Sasaki regards as dubious the very existence of this supposed version of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka.

Edit

471-472

 Sasaki regards as dubious the very existence of this supposed version of the Saddharmapundarika. Fentuoli jing 分陀利經; Sayun fentuoli jing 薩芸芬陀利經

Because T222 did not reach the centre (Daoan’s circle) until ninety years after it was translated, Sasaki is suspicious that it may have undergone some kind of modification or revision in the interim (490). He states that its translation terminology and phraseology is unlike that of texts translated in the same period of Dharmarakṣa’s career (according to the dates given in CSZJJ), and closest to the Aśokadattavyākaraṇa 阿闍貰王女阿術達菩薩經 T337. Sasaki does not specify the terminology and phraseology he has in mind. Sasaki seems to based his judgement in part on the mix of transcription and translation terms in the text, saying that translation terms are not so anomalous for the period, but transcriptions are; the mix of transcription and translation seen in T222 is also seen elswhere, but is rare in texts of this period. Sasaki says that Ch. 3 begins with a similar mix of transcription and translation terms to that seen elsewhere, but the latter portion of the chapter does not use transcriptions at all, and he suggests that it might have been revised on the basis of *Mokṣala’s T221. That is to say, even transcription terms that do appear in other sūtras of this period are here missing. Sasaki adds that although T222 is close to T263 in date, it is far removed from it in style.

Edit

490

 Because T222 did not reach the centre (Daoan’s circle) until ninety years after it was translated, Sasaki is suspicious that it may have undergone some kind of modification or revision in the interim (490). He states that its translation terminology and phraseology is unlike that of texts translated in the same period of Dharmaraksa’s career (according to the dates given in CSZJJ), and closest to the Asokadattavyakarana 阿闍貰王女阿術達菩薩經 T337. Sasaki does not specify the terminology and phraseology he has in mind. Sasaki seems to based his judgement in part on the mix of transcription and translation terms in the text, saying that translation terms are not so anomalous for the period, but transcriptions are; the mix of transcription and translation seen in T222 is also seen elswhere, but is rare in texts of this period. Sasaki says that Ch. 3 begins with a similar mix of transcription and translation terms to that seen elsewhere, but the latter portion of the chapter does not use transcriptions at all, and he suggests that it might have been revised on the basis of *Moksala’s T221. That is to say, even transcription terms that do appear in other sutras of this period are here missing. Sasaki adds that although T222 is close to T263 in date, it is far removed from it in style. T0222; “Larger Prajnaparamita”; 光讚經

Sasaki sees an inconsistent alternation between translation and transcription terminology as characteristic of the early period in Dharmarakṣa’s career. On this basis, he says if the Sayun fentuoli jing 薩芸分陀利經 is indeed by Dharmarakṣa, it is most likely early.

Edit

493

 Sasaki sees an inconsistent alternation between translation and transcription terminology as characteristic of the early period in Dharmaraksa’s career. On this basis, he says if the Sayun fentuoli jing 薩芸分陀利經 is indeed by Dharmaraksa, it is most likely early. Fentuoli jing 分陀利經; Sayun fentuoli jing 薩芸芬陀利經

Referring to Zhisheng's critical remarks in KYL, Sasaki mentions briefly that the style of T310(4) is atypical of Dharmarakṣa, and that the attribution of the text to him is "difficult to accept".

Edit

506 n. 1

 Referring to Zhisheng's critical remarks in KYL, Sasaki mentions briefly that the style of T310(4) is atypical of Dharmaraksa, and that the attribution of the text to him is "difficult to accept". T310(4); Jingju taizi hui 淨居天子會; Svapna-nirdesa