Fukushima Kennō 福島謙應. "Yakugo kara mita Butsu hatsunaion kyō to Hatsunaion kyō no yakukyōsha 訳語からみた「佛般泥洹経」と 「般泥洹経」の訳経者." Tōyō bunka kenkyūjo shohō 東洋文化研究所所報 8 (2004): 1-26.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Fukushima attempts to determine the translatorship of the Fo bannihuan jing 佛般泥洹經 T5 and the Bannihuan jing 般泥洹經 T6 on the basis of internal stylistic evidence. Possible candidates for the translatorship of these texts are Zhi Qian 支謙, Bo Fazu 白法祖, and Dharmarakṣa 竺法護. Fukushima notes that T5 and T6 share similar style and terminology, and 16-18% of both texts are the same. In T5 and T6, proper names are translated 意訳 rather than transliterated approx. 60% of the time, which forms a contrast with the parallel in DĀ T1(2) 遊行經, where the ratio is less than 10 %: e.g. 鷂山 for Gṛdhrakūṭa in T5 and T6, but 耆闍崛山 in T1. Fukushima proposes a chronology of words for "village": 聚 > 邑 > 村 (old > new), and notes that T5 mostly uses 聚, while T6 uses 邑 twice as frequently as 聚. T1 and T6 always employ 轉輪聖王 for *cakravartirāja. T5 always uses 飛行皇帝 [which is rare --- MR]. Fukushima holds that pace Ui Hakuju 宇井伯寿, the quartet of terms 溝港, 頻來, 不還, 應真 (for the four types of arhat, viz. śrotaāpanna, sākṛdāgain, anāgamin, arhat) are not unique to Zhi Qian, but are attested among other authors in the Taishō [NOTE: Fukushima must be accepting other dubious ascriptions; computer searching shows in fact that the combination of all four of these terms in a single text is extremely rare outside Zhi Qian, with the striking exception of T152 --- MR]. On the basis of a statistical analysis of 50 ordinary terms 一般的用語 in T5 and T6, Fukushima concludes that it is far less probable that T5 and T6 were translated by Bo Fazu. Fukushima thus concludes that T5 was translated earlier than T6; that both T5 and T6 were translated by Zhi Qian; and that Zhi Qian might have used T5 as reference material when he was translating T6. |
Fukushima attempts to determine the translatorship of the Fo bannihuan jing 佛般泥洹經 T5 and the Bannihuan jing 般泥洹經 T6 on the basis of internal stylistic evidence. Possible candidates for the translatorship of these texts are Zhi Qian 支謙, Bo Fazu 白法祖, and Dharmaraksa 竺法護. Fukushima notes that T5 and T6 share similar style and terminology, and 16-18% of both texts are the same. In T5 and T6, proper names are translated 意訳 rather than transliterated approx. 60% of the time, which forms a contrast with the parallel in DA T1(2) 遊行經, where the ratio is less than 10 %: e.g. 鷂山 for Grdhrakuta in T5 and T6, but 耆闍崛山 in T1. Fukushima proposes a chronology of words for "village": 聚 > 邑 > 村 (old > new), and notes that T5 mostly uses 聚, while T6 uses 邑 twice as frequently as 聚. T1 and T6 always employ 轉輪聖王 for *cakravartiraja. T5 always uses 飛行皇帝 [which is rare --- MR]. Fukushima holds that pace Ui Hakuju 宇井伯寿, the quartet of terms 溝港, 頻來, 不還, 應真 (for the four types of arhat, viz. srotaapanna, sakrdagain, anagamin, arhat) are not unique to Zhi Qian, but are attested among other authors in the Taisho [NOTE: Fukushima must be accepting other dubious ascriptions; computer searching shows in fact that the combination of all four of these terms in a single text is extremely rare outside Zhi Qian, with the striking exception of T152 --- MR]. On the basis of a statistical analysis of 50 ordinary terms 一般的用語 in T5 and T6, Fukushima concludes that it is far less probable that T5 and T6 were translated by Bo Fazu. Fukushima thus concludes that T5 was translated earlier than T6; that both T5 and T6 were translated by Zhi Qian; and that Zhi Qian might have used T5 as reference material when he was translating T6. Zhi Qian 支謙 T0005; 佛般泥洹經 T0006; 般泥洹經 |