Source: Edgerton 1953

Edgerton, Franklin. Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953. Volume 1. Grammar.

Assertions

Assertion	Argument	Place in source	Search
Texts: T0190; 佛本行集經	Edgerton writes: "To the kindness of my colleague Professor Johannes Rahder I owe the following note. A Japanese work called Bombun-butsuden-bungaku no Kenkyü (Studies in Sanskrit biographies of Buddha), by Taiken Kimura (died 1930) and (his pupil) Tsūshō Byōdō (799 pp., Tokyo 1930), deals extensively with the Mahāvastu on pp. 565-668. Particularly noteworthy is a comparison of the contents of Mv i and ii (vol. iii is not treated only 'for lack of time', not because of lack of parallels) with the contents, especially, of the Chinese Fo-pen-hsing-chi-ching (not later than the end of the 6th century). This work seems to follow rather closely the outline of Mv, omitting a great deal, much of which is suspected on other grounds of having been added to Mv in late times. Byōdō believes that it is either a translation of an older version of Mv, or that both it and Mv were based on an older Indian work. Fuller knowledge may possibly compel us to qualify the usual statement that the Mv was 'never translated into Chinese' (so e. g. Lin Li-kouang, L'Aide-memoire, 174). Edit	1 (Grammar): 10 n. 20:	Edgerton writes: "To the kindness of my colleague Professor Johannes Rahder I owe the following note. A Japanese work called Bombun-butsuden-bungaku no Kenkyu (Studies in Sanskrit biographies of Buddha), by Taiken Kimura (died 1930) and (his pupil) Tsusho Byodo (799 pp., Tokyo 1930), deals extensively with the Mahavastu on pp. 565-668. Particularly noteworthy is a comparison of the contents of Mv i and ii (vol. iii is not treated only 'for lack of time', not because of lack of parallels) with the contents, especially, of the Chinese Fo-pen-hsing-chi-ching (not later than the end of the 6th century). This work seems to follow rather closely the outline of Mv, omitting a great deal, much of which is suspected on other grounds of having been added to Mv in late times. Byodo believes that it is either a translation of an older version of Mv, or that both it and Mv were based on an older Indian work. Fuller knowledge may possibly compel us to qualify the usual statement that the Mv was 'never translated into Chinese' (so e. g. Lin Li-kouang, L'Aide-memoire, 174). T0190; 佛本行集經

Assertion

Argument

Place in source

Texts: T0190; 佛本行集經

Edgerton writes:

"To the kindness of my colleague Professor Johannes Rahder I owe the following note. A Japanese work called Bombun-butsuden-bungaku no Kenkyü (Studies in Sanskrit biographies of Buddha), by Taiken Kimura (died 1930) and (his pupil) Tsūshō Byōdō (799 pp., Tokyo 1930), deals extensively with the Mahāvastu on pp. 565-668. Particularly noteworthy is a comparison of the contents of Mv i and ii (vol. iii is not treated only 'for lack of time', not because of lack of parallels) with the contents, especially, of the Chinese Fo-pen-hsing-chi-ching (not later than the end of the 6th century). This work seems to follow rather closely the outline of Mv, omitting a great deal, much of which is suspected on other grounds of having been added to Mv in late times. Byōdō believes that it is either a translation of an older version of Mv, or that both it and Mv were based on an older Indian work. Fuller knowledge may possibly compel us to qualify the usual statement that the Mv was 'never translated into Chinese' (so e. g. Lin Li-kouang, L'Aide-memoire, 174).

Edit

1 (Grammar): 10 n. 20: