Source: Radich 2017a

Radich, Michael. “On the Ekottarikāgama 增壹阿含經 T 125 as a Work of Zhu Fonian 竺佛念.” Journal of Chinese Buddhist Studies 30 (2017): 1-31.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

On the basis of a large set of diverse stylistic markers, Radich argues that the Ekottarikāgama T125 was translated by Zhu Fonian, and not by Saṃghadeva, as the received ascription would have it. He also considers implications of his findings for the broader corpus of texts ascribed to Zhu Fonian. Radich presents a total of 137 markers which never appear in the Madhyamāgama T26, the benchmark text for Saṃghadeva, but occur a total of over 6,200 times in the Ekottarikāgama, and approx. 15,520 times further in the core Zhu Fonian corpus (DĀ T1, T212, T656, T1428 and T1464). In combination with the external evidence, Radich claims, this internal evidence provides extremely strong support for Zhu Fonian’s translatorship (or perhaps partial authorship) of the text. Radich's study is intended to work in concert with Radich and Anālayo (2017), which presents further evidence in support of the same reascription.

Edit

 On the basis of a large set of diverse stylistic markers, Radich argues that the Ekottarikagama T125 was translated by Zhu Fonian, and not by Samghadeva, as the received ascription would have it. He also considers implications of his findings for the broader corpus of texts ascribed to Zhu Fonian. Radich presents a total of 137 markers which never appear in the Madhyamagama T26, the benchmark text for Samghadeva, but occur a total of over 6,200 times in the Ekottarikagama, and approx. 15,520 times further in the core Zhu Fonian corpus (DA T1, T212, T656, T1428 and T1464). In combination with the external evidence, Radich claims, this internal evidence provides extremely strong support for Zhu Fonian’s translatorship (or perhaps partial authorship) of the text. Radich's study is intended to work in concert with Radich and Analayo (2017), which presents further evidence in support of the same reascription. Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 T0125; Ekottarikagama; 增壹阿含經

In the course of a study whose primary focus is an attempt to argue in favour of reascription of the *Ekottarikāgama T125 to Zhu Fonian, Radich mentions that the numerous markers of Zhu Fonian style he uncovered in the course of that study (137 markers, occurring a total of 6,200 times in the Ekottarikāgama, and approx. 15,520 times further in the core Zhu Fonian corpus of DĀ, T212, T656, T1428 and T1464) appear very seldom, if ever, in T226, T1485, and T388. This provides further, unsystematic support for arguments in prior scholarship that these three texts are in fact not by Zhu Fonian, despite traditional ascriptions or (in the case of T388), suggestions by other scholars.

Edit

23-24

 In the course of a study whose primary focus is an attempt to argue in favour of reascription of the *Ekottarikagama T125 to Zhu Fonian, Radich mentions that the numerous markers of Zhu Fonian style he uncovered in the course of that study (137 markers, occurring a total of 6,200 times in the Ekottarikagama, and approx. 15,520 times further in the core Zhu Fonian corpus of DA, T212, T656, T1428 and T1464) appear very seldom, if ever, in T226, T1485, and T388. This provides further, unsystematic support for arguments in prior scholarship that these three texts are in fact not by Zhu Fonian, despite traditional ascriptions or (in the case of T388), suggestions by other scholars. T0226; 摩訶般若鈔經; Mohe boluore boluomi jing chao 摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經抄 T0388; 大雲無想經卷第九 T1485; 菩薩瓔珞本業經; Pusa yingluo jing 菩薩瓔珞經

In the course of a study whose primary focus is an attempt to argue in favour of reascription of the *Ekottarikāgama T125 to Zhu Fonian, Radich mentions that the numerous markers of Zhu Fonian style he uncovered in the course of that study (137 markers, occurring a total of 6,200 times in the Ekottarikāgama, and approx. 15,520 times further in the core Zhu Fonian corpus of DĀ, T212, T656, T1428 and T1464) appear far more numerous in T1543 than markers of Saṃghadeva, despite the fact that the text is traditionally ascribed to the two translators working in concert.

Edit

24

 In the course of a study whose primary focus is an attempt to argue in favour of reascription of the *Ekottarikagama T125 to Zhu Fonian, Radich mentions that the numerous markers of Zhu Fonian style he uncovered in the course of that study (137 markers, occurring a total of 6,200 times in the Ekottarikagama, and approx. 15,520 times further in the core Zhu Fonian corpus of DA, T212, T656, T1428 and T1464) appear far more numerous in T1543 than markers of Samghadeva, despite the fact that the text is traditionally ascribed to the two translators working in concert. T1543; 阿毘曇八犍度論

Radich briefly surveys a range of scholarship suggesting that T226 may not be by Zhu Fonian, and T309, T384, and T385 are probably Chinese compositions, and so probably should be (at least provisionally) excluded from Zhu Fonian's authentic translation corpus.

Edit

5-6

 Radich briefly surveys a range of scholarship suggesting that T226 may not be by Zhu Fonian, and T309, T384, and T385 are probably Chinese compositions, and so probably should be (at least provisionally) excluded from Zhu Fonian's authentic translation corpus. T0226; 摩訶般若鈔經; Mohe boluore boluomi jing chao 摩訶鉢羅若波羅蜜經抄 T0309; 最勝問菩薩十住除垢斷結經 T0384; 菩薩從兜術天降神母胎說廣普經 T0385; 中陰經

Radich summarises a range of external evidence that might lead us to suspect that T194, T1505, T1549 and T2045 are in fact by Zhu Fonian, despite traditional ascriptions for each text.

Edit

6-7

 Radich summarises a range of external evidence that might lead us to suspect that T194, T1505, T1549 and T2045 are in fact by Zhu Fonian, despite traditional ascriptions for each text. T0194; 僧伽羅剎所集經 T1505; 四阿鋡暮抄解 T1549; 尊婆須蜜菩薩所集論 T2045; 阿育王息壞目因緣經