|
|
Mizuno studies external evidence suggesting that both EĀ and MĀ were translated twice each, once by “Dharmanandi” [= Zhu Fonian --- SC] and once by Saṅghadeva, and attempts to identify vestiges of the lost second translation of each text in the transmitted canon. This entry covers Mizuno's arguments for the (largely) lost EĀ (arguments for the lost MĀ are treated in a separate entry).
Records attesting to a possible second EĀ translation (hereafter "EĀ-alt") are quite messy. In CSZJJ and Fajing’s ZJML, only “Dharmanandi’s” [Zhu Fonian's] version is attested. LDSBJ is the first extant record we have that mentions the second translation by Saṅghadeva. In the next two catalogues, DTNDL and DYKYM, both versions are recorded, while in KYL, Zhisheng identified the version he had access to as Saṅghadeva’s. Thereafter, the Korean edition inherits the attribution of T125 to Saṅghadeva, while the SYM editions attribute it to “Dharmanandi” [Zhu Fonian]. However, the two lines of transmission in fact preserve the same text.
Mizuno asserts that the extant T26 and T125 should both be considered as Saṅghadeva’s second translations. This judgement is based upon the contrast with another set of sūtras. Mizuno surveys the single sūtras in the MĀ section and EĀ section of the Taishō (T27-98 for MĀ and T126-151 for EĀ), and proposes that the following texts all share a uniform style that he regards as characteristic of "Dharmanandi" [Zhu Fonian]:
EĀ-alt: T29, T39, T89, T106, T119, T122, T123, T127, T131, T133, T134, T136, T138, T139, T140, T149, T215, T216, T508, T684.
(Mizuno also regards the following texts as comprising "MĀ-alt", and evincing the same style: T47, T49, T50, T51, T53, T55, T56, T58, T60, T64, T65, T66, T70, T73, T75, T77, T79, T82, T83, T90, T91, T92, T93, T94.)
Mizuno bases his judgment of style largely on opening and ending formulas. [However, his own quotations sometimes bear discrepancies with all editions recorded in CBETA --- SC.]
Among the 20 EĀ-alt sūtras, 19 are recorded as anonymous in Sengyou’s own „Shiyi zajing lu” 失譯雜經錄in CSZJJ, while 1 was recorded in Dao’an’s “Angong guyijing lu” 安公古異經錄. Mizuno rejects all of the current ascriptions in the Taishō for these works as false information inherited from LDSBJ.
Next, Mizuno also examines the excerpts in the Jinglü yixiang 經律異相 T2121 that are attributed to MĀ and EĀ by Baochang. Mizuno lists 15 from EĀ. However, only one of them has correspondence in the extant canon, specifically T119, which is one of the EĀ-alt sūtras Mizuno ascribes to “Dharmanandi” [Zhu Fonian]. In Mizuno’s opinion, Baochang was quite faithful in his practice of quotation (based on comparison of his SĀ excerpts with T99); therefore, Mizuno argues that the rest of the EĀ entries in T2121 must also represent the now lost first EĀ translation by “Dharmanandi” [Zhu Fonian].
[A big pitfall in Mizuno’s method is that he mis-ascribes T125 to Saṅghadeva. Thus, his observation that the EĀ-alt and MĀ-alt sūtras share one uniform style warrants further investigation, and it is questionable how it fits back into the larger picture --- MR, SC.]
Edit
|
passim |
Mizuno studies external evidence suggesting that both EA and MA were translated twice each, once by “Dharmanandi” [= Zhu Fonian --- SC] and once by Sanghadeva, and attempts to identify vestiges of the lost second translation of each text in the transmitted canon. This entry covers Mizuno's arguments for the (largely) lost EA (arguments for the lost MA are treated in a separate entry).
Records attesting to a possible second EA translation (hereafter "EA-alt") are quite messy. In CSZJJ and Fajing’s ZJML, only “Dharmanandi’s” [Zhu Fonian's] version is attested. LDSBJ is the first extant record we have that mentions the second translation by Sanghadeva. In the next two catalogues, DTNDL and DYKYM, both versions are recorded, while in KYL, Zhisheng identified the version he had access to as Sanghadeva’s. Thereafter, the Korean edition inherits the attribution of T125 to Sanghadeva, while the SYM editions attribute it to “Dharmanandi” [Zhu Fonian]. However, the two lines of transmission in fact preserve the same text.
Mizuno asserts that the extant T26 and T125 should both be considered as Sanghadeva’s second translations. This judgement is based upon the contrast with another set of sutras. Mizuno surveys the single sutras in the MA section and EA section of the Taisho (T27-98 for MA and T126-151 for EA), and proposes that the following texts all share a uniform style that he regards as characteristic of "Dharmanandi" [Zhu Fonian]:
EA-alt: T29, T39, T89, T106, T119, T122, T123, T127, T131, T133, T134, T136, T138, T139, T140, T149, T215, T216, T508, T684.
(Mizuno also regards the following texts as comprising "MA-alt", and evincing the same style: T47, T49, T50, T51, T53, T55, T56, T58, T60, T64, T65, T66, T70, T73, T75, T77, T79, T82, T83, T90, T91, T92, T93, T94.)
Mizuno bases his judgment of style largely on opening and ending formulas. [However, his own quotations sometimes bear discrepancies with all editions recorded in CBETA --- SC.]
Among the 20 EA-alt sutras, 19 are recorded as anonymous in Sengyou’s own „Shiyi zajing lu” 失譯雜經錄in CSZJJ, while 1 was recorded in Dao’an’s “Angong guyijing lu” 安公古異經錄. Mizuno rejects all of the current ascriptions in the Taisho for these works as false information inherited from LDSBJ.
Next, Mizuno also examines the excerpts in the Jinglu yixiang 經律異相 T2121 that are attributed to MA and EA by Baochang. Mizuno lists 15 from EA. However, only one of them has correspondence in the extant canon, specifically T119, which is one of the EA-alt sutras Mizuno ascribes to “Dharmanandi” [Zhu Fonian]. In Mizuno’s opinion, Baochang was quite faithful in his practice of quotation (based on comparison of his SA excerpts with T99); therefore, Mizuno argues that the rest of the EA entries in T2121 must also represent the now lost first EA translation by “Dharmanandi” [Zhu Fonian].
[A big pitfall in Mizuno’s method is that he mis-ascribes T125 to Sanghadeva. Thus, his observation that the EA-alt and MA-alt sutras share one uniform style warrants further investigation, and it is questionable how it fits back into the larger picture --- MR, SC.] *Dharmanandi(n) 曇摩難提, Dharmananda? Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 T0029; 鹹水喻經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0039; *Murdhagata-sutra?; *Murdata-sutra?; 頂生王故事經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0089; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama"; 八關齋經 T0106; 佛說水沫所漂經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0119; 佛說鴦崛髻經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0122; 佛說波斯匿王太后崩塵土坌身經; 波耶匿王經, 波斯匿王經, 波斯匿王喪母經, 波斯匿王太后崩塵土坌身經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0123; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama"; 佛說放牛經 T0127; 佛說四人出現世間經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0131; 佛說婆羅門避死經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0133; 頻毘娑羅王詣佛供養經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0134; 佛說長者子六過出家經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0136; 佛說四未曾有法經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0138; 佛說十一想思念如來經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0139; 佛說四泥犁經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0140; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama"; 阿那邠邸化七子經 T0149; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama"; 佛說阿難同學經 T0215; 群牛譬經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0216; 大魚事經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0508; 阿闍世王問五逆經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0684; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama"; 佛說父母恩難報經 |
|
|
External evidence suggests that both EĀ and MĀ were translated twice each, once by “Dharmanandi” [= Zhu Fonian --- SC] and once by Saṅghadeva. Mizuno reports that both the external records and the extant T26 align, and on that basis, confirms that T26 is the second translation of MĀ by Saṅghadeva. Mizuno then attempts to find vestiges of the "lost" second translation for each collection, and determine their relation with the extant, transmitted, intact full collections (see separate CBC@ entries).
Edit
|
|
External evidence suggests that both EA and MA were translated twice each, once by “Dharmanandi” [= Zhu Fonian --- SC] and once by Sanghadeva. Mizuno reports that both the external records and the extant T26 align, and on that basis, confirms that T26 is the second translation of MA by Sanghadeva. Mizuno then attempts to find vestiges of the "lost" second translation for each collection, and determine their relation with the extant, transmitted, intact full collections (see separate CBC@ entries). *Samghadeva, *Gautama Samghadeva, 僧迦提婆, 瞿曇僧伽提婆 T0026; 中阿含經; Madhyama-agama |
|
|
External evidence suggests that both EĀ and MĀ were translated twice each, once by “Dharmanandi” [= Zhu Fonian --- SC] and once by Saṅghadeva. Mizuno attempts to find vestiges of the "lost" second translation for each collection, and determine their relation with the extant, transmitted, intact full collections. This entry covers Mizuno's arguments for MĀ (arguments for EĀ are treated in a separate entry).
Mizuno reports that both the external records and the extant T26 align, and on that basis, confirms that T26 is the second translation of MĀ by Saṅghadeva. In fact, Mizuno asserts that the extant T26 and T125 should both be considered as Saṅghadeva’s second translations, because we find elsewhere in the canon (in the sections spanning T27-98 for MĀ, and T126-151 for EĀ) scattered individual sūtras that evince a uniform style; according to Mizuno, this style is that of “Dharmanandi” [Zhu Fonian]. For MĀ, these sūtras are (hereafter "MĀ-alt"):
MĀ-alt: T47, T49, T50, T51, T53, T55, T56, T58, T60, T64, T65, T66, T70, T73, T75, T77, T79, T82, T83, T90, T91, T92, T93, T94.
(Mizuno also identifies as vestiges of "EĀ-alt" the following sūtras, which he holds share the same style as MĀ-alt: T29, T39, T89, T106, T119, T122, T123, T127, T131, T133, T134, T136, T138, T139, T140, T149, T215, T216, T508, T684.)
Mizuno bases his judgment of style largely on opening and ending formulas. [However, his own quotations sometimes bear discrepancies with all editions recorded in CBETA --- SC.]
Among the 24 MĀ-alt sūtras, 23 are found in Sengyou’s "Shiyi zajing lu" while one is recorded in the “Jing lü lunlu” 經律論錄 (but without ascription). Mizuno rejects all of the current ascriptions in the Taishō for these works as false information inherited from LDSBJ.
Next, Mizuno also examines excerpts in the Jinglü yixiang 經律異相 T2121 that are attributed by Baochang to MĀ and EĀ. Mizuno lists 5 from MĀ. However, only one of them has correspondence in the extant canon—specifically, T79, which is one of the MĀ-alt sūtras Mizuno ascribes to “Dharmanandi” [Zhu Fonian]. In Mizuno’s opinion, Baochang was quite faithful in his practice of quotation (based on comparison of his SĀ excerpts with T99); therefore, Mizuno argues that the rest of the MĀ entries in T2121 must also represent the now lost first MĀ translation by “Dharmanandi” [Zhu Fonian].
[A big pitfall in Mizuno’s method is that he mis-ascribes T125 to Saṅghadeva. Thus, his observation that the EĀ-alt and MĀ-alt sūtras share one uniform style warrants further investigation, and it is questionable how it fits back into the larger picture --- MR, SC.]
Edit
|
|
External evidence suggests that both EA and MA were translated twice each, once by “Dharmanandi” [= Zhu Fonian --- SC] and once by Sanghadeva. Mizuno attempts to find vestiges of the "lost" second translation for each collection, and determine their relation with the extant, transmitted, intact full collections. This entry covers Mizuno's arguments for MA (arguments for EA are treated in a separate entry).
Mizuno reports that both the external records and the extant T26 align, and on that basis, confirms that T26 is the second translation of MA by Sanghadeva. In fact, Mizuno asserts that the extant T26 and T125 should both be considered as Sanghadeva’s second translations, because we find elsewhere in the canon (in the sections spanning T27-98 for MA, and T126-151 for EA) scattered individual sutras that evince a uniform style; according to Mizuno, this style is that of “Dharmanandi” [Zhu Fonian]. For MA, these sutras are (hereafter "MA-alt"):
MA-alt: T47, T49, T50, T51, T53, T55, T56, T58, T60, T64, T65, T66, T70, T73, T75, T77, T79, T82, T83, T90, T91, T92, T93, T94.
(Mizuno also identifies as vestiges of "EA-alt" the following sutras, which he holds share the same style as MA-alt: T29, T39, T89, T106, T119, T122, T123, T127, T131, T133, T134, T136, T138, T139, T140, T149, T215, T216, T508, T684.)
Mizuno bases his judgment of style largely on opening and ending formulas. [However, his own quotations sometimes bear discrepancies with all editions recorded in CBETA --- SC.]
Among the 24 MA-alt sutras, 23 are found in Sengyou’s "Shiyi zajing lu" while one is recorded in the “Jing lu lunlu” 經律論錄 (but without ascription). Mizuno rejects all of the current ascriptions in the Taisho for these works as false information inherited from LDSBJ.
Next, Mizuno also examines excerpts in the Jinglu yixiang 經律異相 T2121 that are attributed by Baochang to MA and EA. Mizuno lists 5 from MA. However, only one of them has correspondence in the extant canon—specifically, T79, which is one of the MA-alt sutras Mizuno ascribes to “Dharmanandi” [Zhu Fonian]. In Mizuno’s opinion, Baochang was quite faithful in his practice of quotation (based on comparison of his SA excerpts with T99); therefore, Mizuno argues that the rest of the MA entries in T2121 must also represent the now lost first MA translation by “Dharmanandi” [Zhu Fonian].
[A big pitfall in Mizuno’s method is that he mis-ascribes T125 to Sanghadeva. Thus, his observation that the EA-alt and MA-alt sutras share one uniform style warrants further investigation, and it is questionable how it fits back into the larger picture --- MR, SC.] *Dharmanandi(n) 曇摩難提, Dharmananda? Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 T0047; 離睡經 T0049; 求欲經 T0050; 受歲經 T0051; 梵志計水淨經 T0053; 苦陰經 T0055; 苦陰因事經 T0056; 樂想經 T0058; 阿耨風經 T0060; 瞿曇彌記果經 T0064; 瞻波比丘經; 瞻婆比丘經 T0065; 伏婬經 T0066; 魔試目連經; 弊魔試摩目連經; 魔嬈亂經; 魔王試目連經; 魔王入目連腹中經; 魔王入目犍蘭腹經 T0070; 數經 T0073; 須達經; Zhangzhe Xuda jing 長者須達經 T0075; 佛為黃竹園老婆羅門說學經 T0077; 尊上經 T0079; 鸚鵡經; Doutiao jing 兜調經 T0082; 意經 T0083; 應法經 T0090; 鞞摩肅經 T0091; 婆羅門子命終愛念不離經 T0092; 十支居士八城人經 T0093; 邪見經 T0094; 箭喻經 |
|
|
Mizuno studies external evidence suggesting that both EĀ and MĀ were translated twice each, once by “Dharmanandi” [= Zhu Fonian --- SC] and once by Saṅghadeva, He then attempts to identify vestiges of the lost second translation of each text in the transmitted canon, and discover evidence supporting the ascription of those (now fragmentary) alternate translations to "Dharmanandi"/Zhu Fonian. On this basis, Mizuno affirms the traditional ascription of EĀ T125 to Saṅghadeva.
Records attesting to a possible second EĀ translation (hereafter "EĀ-alt") are quite messy. In CSZJJ and Fajing’s ZJML, only “Dharmanandi’s” [Zhu Fonian's] version is attested. LDSBJ is the first extant record we have that mentions the second translation by Saṅghadeva. In the next two catalogues, DTNDL and DYKYM, both versions are recorded, while in KYL, Zhisheng identified the version he had access to as Saṅghadeva’s. Thereafter, the Korean edition inherits the attribution of T125 to Saṅghadeva, while the SYM editions attribute it to “Dharmanandi” [Zhu Fonian]. However, the two lines of transmission in fact preserve the same text.
Mizuno's argument about the ascription of the extant EĀ T125 is based upon a contrast with another set of sūtras, which Mizuno regards as vestiges of the otherwise lost second translation. Mizuno proposes that the texts in this second group share a uniform style, which he regards as characteristic of "Dharmanandi" [Zhu Fonian]. He also holds, further, that the same style characterises a further group of scattered sūtras which he thinks survived from a similarly lost MĀ. These texts are as follows (see separate entries for further details): "EĀ-alt": T29, T39, T89, T106, T119, T122, T123, T127, T131, T133, T134, T136, T138, T139, T140, T149, T215, T216, T508, T684; "MĀ-alt": T47, T49, T50, T51, T53, T55, T56, T58, T60, T64, T65, T66, T70, T73, T75, T77, T79, T82, T83, T90, T91, T92, T93, T94.
On the basis of the contrast with these texts, Mizuno argues that like the extant T26, the extant EĀ T125 should be considered as Saṅghadeva’s translation, as the tradition (eventually) affirms.
[Note, however, that this argument does not cover EĀ 50.4; see separate CBC@ entry.]
Edit
|
|
Mizuno studies external evidence suggesting that both EA and MA were translated twice each, once by “Dharmanandi” [= Zhu Fonian --- SC] and once by Sanghadeva, He then attempts to identify vestiges of the lost second translation of each text in the transmitted canon, and discover evidence supporting the ascription of those (now fragmentary) alternate translations to "Dharmanandi"/Zhu Fonian. On this basis, Mizuno affirms the traditional ascription of EA T125 to Sanghadeva.
Records attesting to a possible second EA translation (hereafter "EA-alt") are quite messy. In CSZJJ and Fajing’s ZJML, only “Dharmanandi’s” [Zhu Fonian's] version is attested. LDSBJ is the first extant record we have that mentions the second translation by Sanghadeva. In the next two catalogues, DTNDL and DYKYM, both versions are recorded, while in KYL, Zhisheng identified the version he had access to as Sanghadeva’s. Thereafter, the Korean edition inherits the attribution of T125 to Sanghadeva, while the SYM editions attribute it to “Dharmanandi” [Zhu Fonian]. However, the two lines of transmission in fact preserve the same text.
Mizuno's argument about the ascription of the extant EA T125 is based upon a contrast with another set of sutras, which Mizuno regards as vestiges of the otherwise lost second translation. Mizuno proposes that the texts in this second group share a uniform style, which he regards as characteristic of "Dharmanandi" [Zhu Fonian]. He also holds, further, that the same style characterises a further group of scattered sutras which he thinks survived from a similarly lost MA. These texts are as follows (see separate entries for further details): "EA-alt": T29, T39, T89, T106, T119, T122, T123, T127, T131, T133, T134, T136, T138, T139, T140, T149, T215, T216, T508, T684; "MA-alt": T47, T49, T50, T51, T53, T55, T56, T58, T60, T64, T65, T66, T70, T73, T75, T77, T79, T82, T83, T90, T91, T92, T93, T94.
On the basis of the contrast with these texts, Mizuno argues that like the extant T26, the extant EA T125 should be considered as Sanghadeva’s translation, as the tradition (eventually) affirms.
[Note, however, that this argument does not cover EA 50.4; see separate CBC@ entry.] *Samghadeva, *Gautama Samghadeva, 僧迦提婆, 瞿曇僧伽提婆 T0125; Ekottarikagama; 增壹阿含經 |
|
|
In his study of the extant MĀ and EĀ, i.e. T26 and T125, in parallel to their alternative translations, Mizuno asserts that both T26 and T125 should be considered as Saṅghdeva’s second translations. However, he singles out the current T125(50.4) as deviating from the rest of T125, while sharing the same style as the MĀ-alt and EĀ-alt sūtras. According to his main argument that these MĀ-alt and EĀ-alt sūtras are “Dharmanandi's” [Zhu Fonian’s] first translations of MĀ and EĀ, he argues that T125(50.4) should likewise be considered “Dharmanandi's” [Zhu Fonian’s] work.
Edit
|
|
In his study of the extant MA and EA, i.e. T26 and T125, in parallel to their alternative translations, Mizuno asserts that both T26 and T125 should be considered as Sanghdeva’s second translations. However, he singles out the current T125(50.4) as deviating from the rest of T125, while sharing the same style as the MA-alt and EA-alt sutras. According to his main argument that these MA-alt and EA-alt sutras are “Dharmanandi's” [Zhu Fonian’s] first translations of MA and EA, he argues that T125(50.4) should likewise be considered “Dharmanandi's” [Zhu Fonian’s] work. *Dharmanandi(n) 曇摩難提, Dharmananda? Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 T125(50.4); T0125 Second version Mahadeva tale |
|
|
Mizuno studies external evidence suggesting that EĀ ws translated twice (see separate CBC@ entry), and proposes that vestiges of the lost, second translation (which he ascribes to *Dharmanandin/Zhu Fonian) survive as a group of individual sūtras in the Taishō: T29, T39, T89, T106, T119, T122, T123, T127, T131, T133, T134, T136, T138, T139, T140, T149, T215, T216, T508, T684. This entry lists those texts as a group.
Edit
|
|
Mizuno studies external evidence suggesting that EA ws translated twice (see separate CBC@ entry), and proposes that vestiges of the lost, second translation (which he ascribes to *Dharmanandin/Zhu Fonian) survive as a group of individual sutras in the Taisho: T29, T39, T89, T106, T119, T122, T123, T127, T131, T133, T134, T136, T138, T139, T140, T149, T215, T216, T508, T684. This entry lists those texts as a group. Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0029; 鹹水喻經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0039; *Murdhagata-sutra?; *Murdata-sutra?; 頂生王故事經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0089; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama"; 八關齋經 T0106; 佛說水沫所漂經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0119; 佛說鴦崛髻經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0122; 佛說波斯匿王太后崩塵土坌身經; 波耶匿王經, 波斯匿王經, 波斯匿王喪母經, 波斯匿王太后崩塵土坌身經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0123; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama"; 佛說放牛經 T0127; 佛說四人出現世間經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0131; 佛說婆羅門避死經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0133; 頻毘娑羅王詣佛供養經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0134; 佛說長者子六過出家經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0136; 佛說四未曾有法經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0138; 佛說十一想思念如來經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0139; 佛說四泥犁經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0140; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama"; 阿那邠邸化七子經 T0149; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama"; 佛說阿難同學經 T0215; 群牛譬經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0216; 大魚事經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0508; 阿闍世王問五逆經; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama" T0684; Mizuno's "alternate *Ekottarikagama"; 佛說父母恩難報經 |