Kanakura Enshō 金倉円照. “Hoke kyō ni okeru Hōgo to Rajū no yakugo 法華経における法護と羅什の訳語.” In Hoke kyō no Chūgokuteki tenkai 法華経の中国的展開, edited by Sakamoto Yukio 坂本幸男, 445-470. Kyoto: Heirakuji shoten, 1972.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Kanakura mentions that T35 has a note appended (in the Korean version of the canon only, according to the apparatus in the Taishō) which says it is by Zhu Falan, and not Kumārajīva. Akanuma also supported this reascription. The basis for the ascription to Zhu Falan is LDSBJ, and is therefore probably unreliable. The text appears in CSZJJ, but as an anonymous text. It is missing from Fajing, Yancong, and Jingtai. The text circulated under two titles, which the catalogues treated as two separate texts. The ascription to Kumārajīva dates from Zhisheng's KYL, and Zhisheng cites as his basis the catalogue of Fashang 法上. |
459-461 |
Kanakura mentions that T35 has a note appended (in the Korean version of the canon only, according to the apparatus in the Taisho) which says it is by Zhu Falan, and not Kumarajiva. Akanuma also supported this reascription. The basis for the ascription to Zhu Falan is LDSBJ, and is therefore probably unreliable. The text appears in CSZJJ, but as an anonymous text. It is missing from Fajing, Yancong, and Jingtai. The text circulated under two titles, which the catalogues treated as two separate texts. The ascription to Kumarajiva dates from Zhisheng's KYL, and Zhisheng cites as his basis the catalogue of Fashang 法上. T0035; 八徳經; 海八德經 |
Kanakura discusses again (cf. Kanakura 1971) the (well-known) problem of T335 not fitting Kumārajīva’s style, and points out that it starts, atypically for Kumārajīva, with 聞如是. He cites Eda Toshio 江田俊雄 writing in the Bussho kaisetsu daijiten (Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936) for the observation of an exception to the overall close overlap between T334 and T335: a passage of approximately 800 characters in length apparently interpolated into T335 [T335 (XII) 80c15-81b7]. Kanakura also notes that there are differences in a few terms between T334 and T335, but these terms are also atypical of Kumārajīva. He therefore proposes that the text was composed by someone other than Kumārajīva, lightly revising Dharmarakṣa's text. |
454-457 |
Kanakura discusses again (cf. Kanakura 1971) the (well-known) problem of T335 not fitting Kumarajiva’s style, and points out that it starts, atypically for Kumarajiva, with 聞如是. He cites Eda Toshio 江田俊雄 writing in the Bussho kaisetsu daijiten (Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936) for the observation of an exception to the overall close overlap between T334 and T335: a passage of approximately 800 characters in length apparently interpolated into T335 [T335 (XII) 80c15-81b7]. Kanakura also notes that there are differences in a few terms between T334 and T335, but these terms are also atypical of Kumarajiva. He therefore proposes that the text was composed by someone other than Kumarajiva, lightly revising Dharmaraksa's text. T0335; *Sumatidarikapariprccha; 佛說須摩提菩薩經 | |
|
The 文殊師利般涅槃經 T463 is ascribed to Nie Daozhen 聶道真, but Kanakura points out that it starts, anachronistically, with 如是我聞 [only found in texts of solid ascription from Kumārajīva onward --- MR]. Kanakura's conclusion is that Nie Daozhen worked in a transitional period between the older formula 聞如是 and the new 如是我聞. |
458 |
The 文殊師利般涅槃經 T463 is ascribed to Nie Daozhen 聶道真, but Kanakura points out that it starts, anachronistically, with 如是我聞 [only found in texts of solid ascription from Kumarajiva onward --- MR]. Kanakura's conclusion is that Nie Daozhen worked in a transitional period between the older formula 聞如是 and the new 如是我聞. T0463; 佛說文殊師利般涅槃經 |
|
The Vimaladattāparipṛcchā 無垢施菩薩應辯會 T310(33) is ascribed to Nie Daozhen 聶道真, but Kanaoka points out that it starts, anachronistically, with 如是我聞 [only found in texts of solid ascription from Kumārajīva onward --- MR]. Kanakura's conclusion is that Nie Daozhen worked in a transitional period between the older formula 聞如是 and the new 如是我聞. |
458 |
The Vimaladattapariprccha 無垢施菩薩應辯會 T310(33) is ascribed to Nie Daozhen 聶道真, but Kanaoka points out that it starts, anachronistically, with 如是我聞 [only found in texts of solid ascription from Kumarajiva onward --- MR]. Kanakura's conclusion is that Nie Daozhen worked in a transitional period between the older formula 聞如是 and the new 如是我聞. T310(33); Vimaladattapariprccha, 無垢施菩薩應辯會 |
Kanakura points out problems with the attribution of the Svapna-nirdeśa 淨居天子會 T310(4) to Dharmarakṣa. The text opens (anachronistically) with 如是我聞; the ascription is missing in the Kunaishō version of the text (P), which reads instead 大譯出長房等錄; the text is treated as anonymous in Fajing. |
452-453 |
Kanakura points out problems with the attribution of the Svapna-nirdesa 淨居天子會 T310(4) to Dharmaraksa. The text opens (anachronistically) with 如是我聞; the ascription is missing in the Kunaisho version of the text (P), which reads instead 大譯出長房等錄; the text is treated as anonymous in Fajing. T310(4); Jingju taizi hui 淨居天子會; Svapna-nirdesa |