Source: Suzuki 1930

Suzuki, D.T. Studies in the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. London: George Routledge and Sons, 1930.

Assertions

Assertion	Argument	Place in source	Search
Texts: T0671; 入楞伽經	Suzuki argues that Bodiruci’s Chinese rendition of the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, 入楞伽經 T671, is not a "direct translation", as it includes many explanatory glosses not paralleled in the received Sanskrit text or the two Tibetan translations (D107, Peking 775; D108, Peking 776). Suzuki writes: “It may not be quite fair to say that Bodhiruci put in his own words to help the reading of the text; the fact may be, perhaps, that his original was largely mixed with gloss and that he was not discriminating enough to reject it as such.” [BB: Suzuki appears to leave open the possibility that Bodiruci was working with a different recension of the original Sanskrit sutra than the Tibetan translators, which could account for some of the additional glosses appearing in T671.] Edit	7	Suzuki argues that Bodiruci’s Chinese rendition of the Lankavatarasutra, 入楞伽經 T671, is not a "direct translation", as it includes many explanatory glosses not paralleled in the received Sanskrit text or the two Tibetan translations (D107, Peking 775; D108, Peking 776). Suzuki writes: “It may not be quite fair to say that Bodhiruci put in his own words to help the reading of the text; the fact may be, perhaps, that his original was largely mixed with gloss and that he was not discriminating enough to reject it as such.” [BB: Suzuki appears to leave open the possibility that Bodiruci was working with a different recension of the original Sanskrit sutra than the Tibetan translators, which could account for some of the additional glosses appearing in T671.] T0671; 入楞伽經

Assertion

Argument

Place in source

Texts: T0671; 入楞伽經

Suzuki argues that Bodiruci’s Chinese rendition of the Laṅkāvatārasūtra, 入楞伽經 T671, is not a "direct translation", as it includes many explanatory glosses not paralleled in the received Sanskrit text or the two Tibetan translations (D107, Peking 775; D108, Peking 776). Suzuki writes: “It may not be quite fair to say that Bodhiruci put in his own words to help the reading of the text; the fact may be, perhaps, that his original was largely mixed with gloss and that he was not discriminating enough to reject it as such.” [BB: Suzuki appears to leave open the possibility that Bodiruci was working with a different recension of the original Sanskrit sutra than the Tibetan translators, which could account for some of the additional glosses appearing in T671.]

Edit