Source: Kawano 1991

Kawano Satoshi 河野訓. “Shoki Chūgoku Bukkyō no Butsuden o meguru shomondai: Shugyō hongi kyō ni kanren shite 初期中国佛教の仏伝をめぐる諸問題―『修行本起経』に関連して.” Tōyō bunka kenkyūjo kiyō 東洋文化研究所紀要 113 (1991): 127-176[L].

Assertions

Assertion	Argument	Place in source	Search
Texts: T0184; 修行本起經	Summarised in Nattier (2008): 107-109. The 太子瑞應本起經 T185, solidly attributed to Zhi Qian, is known to correspond in overall content to the 修行本起經 T184 and 中本起經 T196, which (in that order) comprise a continuous narrative (though the relation between the two texts, Nattier argues, is somewhat uncertain). Because T184 is sometimes ascribed to Kang Mengxiang in early catalogues, scholars have often assumed that T184 was used by Zhi Qian in preparing T185. However, Kawano Satoshi has shown that T184 is often more expansive and elegant than T185. This violates the normal pattern usually seen when Zhi Qian is revising works by others: "that Zhi Qian adheres quite closely to both the content and much of the wording of the older version, while 'upgrading' some of its Buddhist terminology and recasting it in a more polished and elegant style". Further, T184 has passages in verse which in T185 are entirely in prose, but there is no known case in which Zhi Qian replaces verse with prose; "on the contrary, the use of a wide variety of metric forms is one of the hallmarks of Zhi Qian's style." Nattier summarises: "It is impossible to explain the content and style of [T185] as the result of a revision by Zhi Qian of [T184] as we know it today." Kawano proposes, on the basis of Daoan's remarks, that T184 is a revision of an E. Jin version of an earlier text (reported by Dao'an under the title 小本起經), and Zhi Qian drew on an older (now lost) version of the same text. Edit		Summarised in Nattier (2008): 107-109. The 太子瑞應本起經 T185, solidly attributed to Zhi Qian, is known to correspond in overall content to the 修行本起經 T184 and 中本起經 T196, which (in that order) comprise a continuous narrative (though the relation between the two texts, Nattier argues, is somewhat uncertain). Because T184 is sometimes ascribed to Kang Mengxiang in early catalogues, scholars have often assumed that T184 was used by Zhi Qian in preparing T185. However, Kawano Satoshi has shown that T184 is often more expansive and elegant than T185. This violates the normal pattern usually seen when Zhi Qian is revising works by others: "that Zhi Qian adheres quite closely to both the content and much of the wording of the older version, while 'upgrading' some of its Buddhist terminology and recasting it in a more polished and elegant style". Further, T184 has passages in verse which in T185 are entirely in prose, but there is no known case in which Zhi Qian replaces verse with prose; "on the contrary, the use of a wide variety of metric forms is one of the hallmarks of Zhi Qian's style." Nattier summarises: "It is impossible to explain the content and style of [T185] as the result of a revision by Zhi Qian of [T184] as we know it today." Kawano proposes, on the basis of Daoan's remarks, that T184 is a revision of an E. Jin version of an earlier text (reported by Dao'an under the title 小本起經), and Zhi Qian drew on an older (now lost) version of the same text. T0184; 修行本起經

Assertion

Argument

Place in source

Texts: T0184; 修行本起經

Summarised in Nattier (2008): 107-109. The 太子瑞應本起經 T185, solidly attributed to Zhi Qian, is known to correspond in overall content to the 修行本起經 T184 and 中本起經 T196, which (in that order) comprise a continuous narrative (though the relation between the two texts, Nattier argues, is somewhat uncertain). Because T184 is sometimes ascribed to Kang Mengxiang in early catalogues, scholars have often assumed that T184 was used by Zhi Qian in preparing T185. However, Kawano Satoshi has shown that T184 is often more expansive and elegant than T185. This violates the normal pattern usually seen when Zhi Qian is revising works by others: "that Zhi Qian adheres quite closely to both the content and much of the wording of the older version, while 'upgrading' some of its Buddhist terminology and recasting it in a more polished and elegant style". Further, T184 has passages in verse which in T185 are entirely in prose, but there is no known case in which Zhi Qian replaces verse with prose; "on the contrary, the use of a wide variety of metric forms is one of the hallmarks of Zhi Qian's style." Nattier summarises: "It is impossible to explain the content and style of [T185] as the result of a revision by Zhi Qian of [T184] as we know it today." Kawano proposes, on the basis of Daoan's remarks, that T184 is a revision of an E. Jin version of an earlier text (reported by Dao'an under the title 小本起經), and Zhi Qian drew on an older (now lost) version of the same text.

Edit