Tsujimoto Toshirō 辻本俊郎. "Muryōju kyō ron to Bodhiruci" 『無量寿経論』とBodhiruci . Ajia gakka nenpō アジア学科年報 4, no. 2 (2011): 53-66.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
|
A commentary on the Sukhāvatīvyūha 無量壽經 is ascribed to Vasubandhu under the Chinese title Wuliangshou jing youpotishe 無量壽經優波提 T1524. The translation is ascribed to Bodhiruci (Bodhiruci I, working under the N. Wei). Tsujimoto points to problems raised by the existence in catalogues of two different datings for this translation, 531 or 529. This is perhaps related to a problem already noticed in prior scholarship, that the wording of the extant Taishō text of T1524 diverges from the wording of excerpts from the text as quoted in other works, especially in Tanluan. Tanluan 曇鸞 wrote a sub-commentary on T1524, the Wuliangshou jing youpotishe yuansheng jie 無量壽經優婆提舍願生偈 T1819. Tsujimoto reviews traditions about the encounter of Tanluan with Bodhiruci (entangled with a rather legendary-sounding account about Tanluan's prior account with Tao Hongjing 陶弘景 in search of elixirs of long or eternal life). Tsujimoto surmises that this must have been the occasion on which Tanluan received the root text of the Vasubandhu commentary from Bodhiruci. The problem is that these events are supposed to have taken place in 529 at the latest. If that is true, it would make the translation date of 531 impossible, because the root text would not yet have been translated when Tanluan met Bodhiruci. Some scholars have suggested, on the basis of this confusion, that T1524 might not in fact have been translated by Bodhiruci. Tsujimoto sets out to solve this problem based upon an investigation of external evidence (in catalogues etc.) and internal evidence (translation terms and style). Tsujimoto's conclusion is that T1524 is in fact by Bodhiruci. In relation to the problem of the two dates, and two (partly) transmitted versions of the text, he proposes that Bodhiruci in fact translated the root text twice, so that both dates are correct. In other words, Tanluan would have received in 529 a first version of the text, and cited it in his own work; Bodhiruci would then have revised his translation to produce the version of 531, attested in T and old manuscripts. In closing, Tsujimoto refers to (and argues against) early work by Takase Shōgon 高瀬承嚴 (in 1917), who had attempted to solve the puzzles presented by the same set of evidence, but proposed as a solution the idea that Bodhiruci's original translation had been revised by some later hand, not by Bodhiruci himself. |
A commentary on the Sukhavativyuha 無量壽經 is ascribed to Vasubandhu under the Chinese title Wuliangshou jing youpotishe 無量壽經優波提 T1524. The translation is ascribed to Bodhiruci (Bodhiruci I, working under the N. Wei). Tsujimoto points to problems raised by the existence in catalogues of two different datings for this translation, 531 or 529. This is perhaps related to a problem already noticed in prior scholarship, that the wording of the extant Taisho text of T1524 diverges from the wording of excerpts from the text as quoted in other works, especially in Tanluan. Tanluan 曇鸞 wrote a sub-commentary on T1524, the Wuliangshou jing youpotishe yuansheng jie 無量壽經優婆提舍願生偈 T1819. Tsujimoto reviews traditions about the encounter of Tanluan with Bodhiruci (entangled with a rather legendary-sounding account about Tanluan's prior account with Tao Hongjing 陶弘景 in search of elixirs of long or eternal life). Tsujimoto surmises that this must have been the occasion on which Tanluan received the root text of the Vasubandhu commentary from Bodhiruci. The problem is that these events are supposed to have taken place in 529 at the latest. If that is true, it would make the translation date of 531 impossible, because the root text would not yet have been translated when Tanluan met Bodhiruci. Some scholars have suggested, on the basis of this confusion, that T1524 might not in fact have been translated by Bodhiruci. Tsujimoto sets out to solve this problem based upon an investigation of external evidence (in catalogues etc.) and internal evidence (translation terms and style). Tsujimoto's conclusion is that T1524 is in fact by Bodhiruci. In relation to the problem of the two dates, and two (partly) transmitted versions of the text, he proposes that Bodhiruci in fact translated the root text twice, so that both dates are correct. In other words, Tanluan would have received in 529 a first version of the text, and cited it in his own work; Bodhiruci would then have revised his translation to produce the version of 531, attested in T and old manuscripts. In closing, Tsujimoto refers to (and argues against) early work by Takase Shogon 高瀬承嚴 (in 1917), who had attempted to solve the puzzles presented by the same set of evidence, but proposed as a solution the idea that Bodhiruci's original translation had been revised by some later hand, not by Bodhiruci himself. Bodhiruci, 菩提流支, 菩提留支 T1524; 無量壽經優波提舍 |