Ñāṇatusita, Bhikkhu. "Translations or Adaptations? Chinese Hybrid Translations of Vinaya Texts", Journal of Buddhist Studies vol. XII (2014–2015): 123- 187.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
|
There are two editions of the Mahīśāsaka Prātimokṣasūtra in the Taishō Tripiṭaka which, according to Ñānatusita, “differ considerably.” 彌沙塞五分戒本 “Mahīśāsaka Five Part Prātimokṣa” is T1422a, and the second 五分戒本 “Five Part Prātimokṣa” or 彌沙塞戒本 “Mahīśāsaka Prātimokṣa” T1422b. Ñānatusita quotes Yuyama (Yuyama, Akira. Systematische Übersicht über die buddhistische Sanskrit-Literatur. Wiesbaden: 1979, 2 & 37) who argued that T1422a “was compiled from the Mś Vinayavibhaṅga” (T1421) while “T1422b probably was compiled from the Ten Recitation Vinaya of the Sarvāstivādins that later was wrongly qualified as a Mś text.” Ñānatusita adds that the rules in T1422a “indeed are identical to the ones in VinVibh(Mś) and are likely to have been extracted from it.” The rules in VinVibh(Mś) “appear to be partly recycled from the translation of PrMo(Sa). The introduction and conclusion as well as section introductions and conclusions correspond with only a few exceptions the Chinese translation of PrMo(Sa) (T1436).” Ñāṇatusita also extends Funayama's argument for a “third type of Chinese text” (Funayama 2006) into a typology which can account for a wide array of composites of mixed origins. For example he classifies T1422a as a “hybrid text type 1” and a “hybrid text type 2”. Type 1 refers to texts that are “hybrids and adaptations” in that they “contain passages or translations” which Ñāṇatusita claims are “copied from earlier Chinese translations of the canonical commentaries on the texts translated, rather than being new, direct translations.” He adds that since the text and commentaries are of the same school, “the passages in both the Indic texts likely were identical or almost identical too.” He asserts that T1422a can be considered as such since it includes translations of the Prātimokṣa rules from the “canonical commentary of the Prātimokṣa rules contained in the Vinayavibhaṅga of the Mahīśāsakas, rather than being a translation of the actual Mahīśāsaka Prātimokṣa sutra itself.” Type 2 refers to “hybrids and adaptations,” translations that “contain passages or sections copied from other, earlier Chinese translations of the same text ... [or] from a different version of the text of a different school.” Since T1422a appears to have “recycled” Prātimokṣa rules from an earlier translation of the Sarvāstivāda Prātimokṣa, and has “copied” Kumārajīva's introduction and conclusion, according to Ñāṇatusita it can be classified as a hybrid text type 2. |
There are two editions of the Mahisasaka Pratimoksasutra in the Taisho Tripitaka which, according to Nanatusita, “differ considerably.” 彌沙塞五分戒本 “Mahisasaka Five Part Pratimoksa” is T1422a, and the second 五分戒本 “Five Part Pratimoksa” or 彌沙塞戒本 “Mahisasaka Pratimoksa” T1422b. Nanatusita quotes Yuyama (Yuyama, Akira. Systematische Ubersicht uber die buddhistische Sanskrit-Literatur. Wiesbaden: 1979, 2 & 37) who argued that T1422a “was compiled from the Ms Vinayavibhanga” (T1421) while “T1422b probably was compiled from the Ten Recitation Vinaya of the Sarvastivadins that later was wrongly qualified as a Ms text.” Nanatusita adds that the rules in T1422a “indeed are identical to the ones in VinVibh(Ms) and are likely to have been extracted from it.” The rules in VinVibh(Ms) “appear to be partly recycled from the translation of PrMo(Sa). The introduction and conclusion as well as section introductions and conclusions correspond with only a few exceptions the Chinese translation of PrMo(Sa) (T1436).” Nanatusita also extends Funayama's argument for a “third type of Chinese text” (Funayama 2006) into a typology which can account for a wide array of composites of mixed origins. For example he classifies T1422a as a “hybrid text type 1” and a “hybrid text type 2”. Type 1 refers to texts that are “hybrids and adaptations” in that they “contain passages or translations” which Nanatusita claims are “copied from earlier Chinese translations of the canonical commentaries on the texts translated, rather than being new, direct translations.” He adds that since the text and commentaries are of the same school, “the passages in both the Indic texts likely were identical or almost identical too.” He asserts that T1422a can be considered as such since it includes translations of the Pratimoksa rules from the “canonical commentary of the Pratimoksa rules contained in the Vinayavibhanga of the Mahisasakas, rather than being a translation of the actual Mahisasaka Pratimoksa sutra itself.” Type 2 refers to “hybrids and adaptations,” translations that “contain passages or sections copied from other, earlier Chinese translations of the same text ... [or] from a different version of the text of a different school.” Since T1422a appears to have “recycled” Pratimoksa rules from an earlier translation of the Sarvastivada Pratimoksa, and has “copied” Kumarajiva's introduction and conclusion, according to Nanatusita it can be classified as a hybrid text type 2. T1422; 彌沙塞五分戒本; 五分戒本 | |
There are two editions of the Mahīśāsaka Prātimokṣasūtra in the Taishō Tripiṭaka which, according to Ñānatusita, “differ considerably.” 彌沙塞五分戒本 “Mahīśāsaka Five Part Prātimokṣa” is T1422a, and the second 五分戒本 “Five Part Prātimokṣa” or 彌沙塞戒本 “Mahīśāsaka Prātimokṣa” is T1422b. Ñānatusita quotes Yuyama (Yuyama, Akira, Systematische Übersicht über die buddhistische Sanskrit-Literatur, Wiesbaden: 1979, 2 & 37) who argued that T1422a “was compiled from the Mś Vinayavibhaṅga” (T1421) while “T1422b probably was compiled from the Ten Recitation Vinaya of the Sarvāstivādins that later was wrongly qualified as a Mś text.” Ñānatusita adds that the rules in T1422a “indeed are identical to the ones in VinVibh(Mś) and are likely to have been extracted from it.” The rules in VinVibh(Mś) “appear to be partly recycled from the translation of PrMo(Sa) [= T1436]. The introduction and conclusion as well as section introductions and conclusions correspond with only a few exceptions the Chinese translation of PrMo(Sa) (T1436).” However, he writes that “the origin of T 1422b is less clear.” Although T 1422b is “identical in parts with PrMo(Sa)”, this is not always the case. Many of the passages that Ñānatusita examines do “not match any other version”, or “match[es] the PrMo(Mś) [T1422a] and Vinaya.” In at least one case it matches the PrMo(Mā) and in another case the VinVibh(Sa) but not PrMo(Sa). The order of rules in the pātayantikā section (at least in the first 25 rules) and the śaikṣa section generally agrees with the PrMo(Sa), not with PrMo(Mś).” Ñānatusita concludes that “the school affiliation of this text can not be ascertained.” It certainly is an anomaly and appears to be a composite hybrid text made up of parts taken from other Chinese translations and abridged and adapted to make a superior, more readable text. He speculates that it might be “a heavily adapted version of Kumārajīva’s translation of the Sarvāstivāda Prātimokṣa”, but claims that it is “more likely it is a composite of materials from earlier translations of various Prātimokṣas.” |
There are two editions of the Mahisasaka Pratimoksasutra in the Taisho Tripitaka which, according to Nanatusita, “differ considerably.” 彌沙塞五分戒本 “Mahisasaka Five Part Pratimoksa” is T1422a, and the second 五分戒本 “Five Part Pratimoksa” or 彌沙塞戒本 “Mahisasaka Pratimoksa” is T1422b. Nanatusita quotes Yuyama (Yuyama, Akira, Systematische Ubersicht uber die buddhistische Sanskrit-Literatur, Wiesbaden: 1979, 2 & 37) who argued that T1422a “was compiled from the Ms Vinayavibhanga” (T1421) while “T1422b probably was compiled from the Ten Recitation Vinaya of the Sarvastivadins that later was wrongly qualified as a Ms text.” Nanatusita adds that the rules in T1422a “indeed are identical to the ones in VinVibh(Ms) and are likely to have been extracted from it.” The rules in VinVibh(Ms) “appear to be partly recycled from the translation of PrMo(Sa) [= T1436]. The introduction and conclusion as well as section introductions and conclusions correspond with only a few exceptions the Chinese translation of PrMo(Sa) (T1436).” However, he writes that “the origin of T 1422b is less clear.” Although T 1422b is “identical in parts with PrMo(Sa)”, this is not always the case. Many of the passages that Nanatusita examines do “not match any other version”, or “match[es] the PrMo(Ms) [T1422a] and Vinaya.” In at least one case it matches the PrMo(Ma) and in another case the VinVibh(Sa) but not PrMo(Sa). The order of rules in the patayantika section (at least in the first 25 rules) and the saiksa section generally agrees with the PrMo(Sa), not with PrMo(Ms).” Nanatusita concludes that “the school affiliation of this text can not be ascertained.” It certainly is an anomaly and appears to be a composite hybrid text made up of parts taken from other Chinese translations and abridged and adapted to make a superior, more readable text. He speculates that it might be “a heavily adapted version of Kumarajiva’s translation of the Sarvastivada Pratimoksa”, but claims that it is “more likely it is a composite of materials from earlier translations of various Pratimoksas.” T1422b; Mishasai jie ben 彌沙塞戒本; Mahisasaka pratimoksa ; Wu fen jie ben 五分戒本 | ||
|
Bhikkhu Ñāṇatusita examines the Shanjian lü piposha 善見律毘婆沙 T1462 (otherwise referred to as Yiqie shanjian lü piposha 一切善見律毘婆沙) in considerable detail. He concludes that the text is a "partial, abridged translation of the Samantapāsādikā, the Vinaya commentary of the Mahāvihāra Theravādins of Sri Lanka, into which the translator inserted materials from other Pāli texts (perhaps from earlier, now lost Chinese translations) and also adapted it in parts to fit the Chinese translation of the Vinaya of another Buddhist school, the Dharmaguptakas." |
Bhikkhu Nanatusita examines the Shanjian lu piposha 善見律毘婆沙 T1462 (otherwise referred to as Yiqie shanjian lu piposha 一切善見律毘婆沙) in considerable detail. He concludes that the text is a "partial, abridged translation of the Samantapasadika, the Vinaya commentary of the Mahavihara Theravadins of Sri Lanka, into which the translator inserted materials from other Pali texts (perhaps from earlier, now lost Chinese translations) and also adapted it in parts to fit the Chinese translation of the Vinaya of another Buddhist school, the Dharmaguptakas." He then addresses previous arguments about the school affiliation of the text translated and concludes that T1462 "basically is a translation of the Samantapasadika.” Nanatusita cites here: Bapat, P. V. and A. Karashima. "Shan-Chien-P’i-P’o-Sha, A Chinese Version of the Samantapasadika." Poona, 1970.; Guruge, Ananda W.P. “Shan-Jian-Lu-Piposha as an Authentic Source on the Early History of Buddhism and Asoka”, in Dhamma-Vinaya: Essays in Honor of Venerable Professor Dhammavihari (Jotiya Dhirasekera). Ed. Asanga Guruge, Toschiichi Endo, G.A. Somaratne, and Sanath Nanayakkara. Sri Lanka Association for Buddhist Studies (SLABS), 2005: 92–110. Nanatusita also extends Funayama's argument for a “third type of Chinese text” (Funayama 2006) into a typology which can account for a wide array of composites of mixed origins. For example he classifies T1462 as a “hybrid text type 5” as well as a “hybrid text type 2”. Type 5 refers to texts that are “not translations of the complete Indic work but only of parts of it.” Nanatusita calls these texts “pick and choose” or “best of” translations. He asserts that T1462 can be considered as such since it is is a “heavily abridged” text. Type 2 refers to “hybrids and adaptations,” translations that “contain passages or sections copied from other, earlier Chinese translations of the same text ... from a different version of the text of a different school.” Since T1462 contains “interpolations and passages copied from other translations” it can be classified as a hybrid text type 2. T1462; 善見律毘婆沙; 毘婆沙律; 善見毘婆沙律 |