Radich, Michael. “Was the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra 大般涅槃經 T7 Translated by ‘Faxian’? An Exercise in the Computer-Assisted Assessment of Attributions in the Chinese Buddhist Canon.” Hualin International Journal of Buddhist Studies: E-journal 2, no. 1 (2019): 229-279.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Abstract: "In the Taishō canon, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra 大般涅槃經 T no. 7 is attributed to Faxian 法顯. However, on the basis of an examination of reports in the catalogues about various Chinese versions of the ‘mainstream’ Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, Iwamatsu Asao 岩松浅夫 once questioned whether Faxian ever translated any such text. Iwamatsu argued further, on the basis of unspecified features of translation terminology and phraseology, that T no. 7 should instead be reascribed to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅. This paper will examine the problem of the attribution of T no. 7 on the basis of a detailed examination of its language." Radich concludes (266-267): "The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra T no. 7 is much closer to the style of certain texts ascribed to ‘Guṇabhadra’ than it is to ‘Faxian’ .... We should, therefore, overturn the ascription to Faxian carried by ‘FX’-MPNS in the Taishō. At the same time, however, it is not safe to follow Iwamatsu and simply re-ascribe the text to ‘Guṇabhadra’. In fact, markers distinguishing ‘FX’-MPNS from the ‘Faxian’ corpus are found much more densely in the Guoqu xianzai yinguo jing [T189] than in any other ‘Guṇabhadra’ text. Further, a range of highly specific markers associate ‘FX’-MPNS [T7] and Guoqu [T189] very closely with two further bodies of material, the *Mahāmāyā-sūtra [T383], and the Buddhacarita T no. 192 and/or the Fo benxing jing T no. 193. Stylistically speaking, these four (or five) texts comprise a tightly interrelated group, which are also connected by common themes and content." Radich followed this work up with a further examination of internal evidence for close intertextual relations between T7, T189, and T383 [publication actually appeared chronologically earlier], Radich 2018a (see separate CB@ entry). |
Abstract: "In the Taisho canon, the Mahaparinirvana-sutra 大般涅槃經 T no. 7 is attributed to Faxian 法顯. However, on the basis of an examination of reports in the catalogues about various Chinese versions of the ‘mainstream’ Mahaparinirvana-sutra, Iwamatsu Asao 岩松浅夫 once questioned whether Faxian ever translated any such text. Iwamatsu argued further, on the basis of unspecified features of translation terminology and phraseology, that T no. 7 should instead be reascribed to Gunabhadra 求那跋陀羅. This paper will examine the problem of the attribution of T no. 7 on the basis of a detailed examination of its language." Radich concludes (266-267): "The Mahaparinirvana-sutra T no. 7 is much closer to the style of certain texts ascribed to ‘Gunabhadra’ than it is to ‘Faxian’ .... We should, therefore, overturn the ascription to Faxian carried by ‘FX’-MPNS in the Taisho. At the same time, however, it is not safe to follow Iwamatsu and simply re-ascribe the text to ‘Gunabhadra’. In fact, markers distinguishing ‘FX’-MPNS from the ‘Faxian’ corpus are found much more densely in the Guoqu xianzai yinguo jing [T189] than in any other ‘Gunabhadra’ text. Further, a range of highly specific markers associate ‘FX’-MPNS [T7] and Guoqu [T189] very closely with two further bodies of material, the *Mahamaya-sutra [T383], and the Buddhacarita T no. 192 and/or the Fo benxing jing T no. 193. Stylistically speaking, these four (or five) texts comprise a tightly interrelated group, which are also connected by common themes and content." Radich followed this work up with a further examination of internal evidence for close intertextual relations between T7, T189, and T383 [publication actually appeared chronologically earlier], Radich 2018a (see separate CB@ entry). Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0007; 大般涅槃經 T0189; 過去現在因果經 T0192; 佛所行讚 T0193; 佛本行經 T0383; 摩訶摩耶經; Moye jing 摩耶經 |