Source: Qiu 2009

Qiu Bing 邱冰. “Cong yuyan shang kan ‘Fo suoxing zan’ de yizhe" 从语言上看《佛所行赞》的译者. Yuwen zhishi 语文知识 (2009): 37-40.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

Qiu Bing identifies the the Fo suoxing zan 佛所行贊 T192 as a translation of Aśvaghoṣa’s Buddhacarita. She acknowledges that, following the attribution in the Taishō, most scholars uncritically assume that *Dharmakṣema/ Ta n Wuchen 曇無讖 was the translator of T192. On the other hand, Sengyou's CSZJJ and Fei Zhangfang’s LDSBJ attribute the translation to Baoyun. Qiu Bing notes that the earliest attribution of the Fo suoxing zan 佛所行贊/T192 to Dharmakṣema is found in the Kaiyuan Shijiao lu 開元釋教錄 (37). She adopts the Jin guanming jing 金光明經 (T663, Suvarṇabhāsottama) as the benchmark for Dharmakṣema’s translation style, and justifies her choice by explaining that T192 and T663 are of similar length, and for both we still have an extant Sanskrit source (38). Qiu Bing’s study takes into account the use of adverbial plural markers, adverbs of time, the formation of plural forms, the formation of the perfective aspect of verbs, and the translations of a set of 12 specific Sanskrit expressions, to conclude that the translation style of T192 is too different from that of T633, and that the two texts cannot be ascribed to the same person. Thus, if Dharmakṣema was the translator of T663, he cannot be considered the translator of T192. On the basis of external evidence (from the earlier catalogues), Qiu Bing suspects that the translator of T192 is in fact Baoyun (40).

Edit

 Qiu Bing identifies the the Fo suoxing zan 佛所行贊 T192 as a translation of Asvaghosa’s Buddhacarita. She acknowledges that, following the attribution in the Taisho, most scholars uncritically assume that *Dharmaksema/ Ta n Wuchen 曇無讖 was the translator of T192. On the other hand, Sengyou's CSZJJ and Fei Zhangfang’s LDSBJ attribute the translation to Baoyun. Qiu Bing notes that the earliest attribution of the Fo suoxing zan 佛所行贊/T192 to Dharmaksema is found in the Kaiyuan Shijiao lu 開元釋教錄 (37). She adopts the Jin guanming jing 金光明經 (T663, Suvarnabhasottama) as the benchmark for Dharmaksema’s translation style, and justifies her choice by explaining that T192 and T663 are of similar length, and for both we still have an extant Sanskrit source (38). Qiu Bing’s study takes into account the use of adverbial plural markers, adverbs of time, the formation of plural forms, the formation of the perfective aspect of verbs, and the translations of a set of 12 specific Sanskrit expressions, to conclude that the translation style of T192 is too different from that of T633, and that the two texts cannot be ascribed to the same person. Thus, if Dharmaksema was the translator of T663, he cannot be considered the translator of T192. On the basis of external evidence (from the earlier catalogues), Qiu Bing suspects that the translator of T192 is in fact Baoyun (40). Baoyun, 寶雲 T0192; 佛所行讚