Source: Nattier 2010

Nattier, Jan. "Re-evaluating Zhu Fonian's Shizhu duanjie jing (T309): Translation or Forgery?" Annual Report of The International Research Insitute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University 13 (2010): 256.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

Nattier agrees with Legittimo (2006) that the EĀ 增壹阿含經 T125 is actually the version translated by Zhu Fonian 竺佛念, or a slightly revised version thereof.

Edit

233 n. 8

Nattier agrees with Legittimo (2006) that the EA 增壹阿含經 T125 is actually the version translated by Zhu Fonian 竺佛念, or a slightly revised version thereof. Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 T0125; Ekottarikagama; 增壹阿含經

Nattier points out that in his CSZJJ and GSZ bios, Zhu Fonian is attributed with a text very much like this, and that the real work of translation would probably have been done by him. [Unsystematic exploration of internal evidence (stylistic indications) in comparison with texts such as EĀ, DĀ, T212 etc. supports this possibility --- MR].

Edit

 Nattier points out that in his CSZJJ and GSZ bios, Zhu Fonian is attributed with a text very much like this, and that the real work of translation would probably have been done by him. [Unsystematic exploration of internal evidence (stylistic indications) in comparison with texts such as EA, DA, T212 etc. supports this possibility --- MR]. Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 T1649; 三彌底部論

Nattier points out that in his CSZJJ and GSZ bios, Fonian is attributed with a text very much like this, and that the real work of translation would probably have been done by him.

Edit

 Nattier points out that in his CSZJJ and GSZ bios, Fonian is attributed with a text very much like this, and that the real work of translation would probably have been done by him. T2045; 阿育王息壞目因緣經

Nattier shows that Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 composed 最勝問菩薩十住除垢斷結經 T309 on the basis of Chinese materials, rather than translating it from an Indic source. This makes the text a relatively unusual case of an "apocryphon" for which we can identify the author by name, and an "apocryphon" composed by an author who is also known to have engaged in genuine translation work. From a small sample of this large text, Nattier identifies three passages featuring extensive verbatim borrowing or paraphrases from already existing texts. Nattier terms Fonian’s method here as “creative appropriation”, meaning that rather than "plagiarising" outright, Fonian has arranged passages borrowed from a variety of earlier Chinese texts into an original composition.

Edit

 Nattier shows that Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 composed 最勝問菩薩十住除垢斷結經 T309 on the basis of Chinese materials, rather than translating it from an Indic source. This makes the text a relatively unusual case of an "apocryphon" for which we can identify the author by name, and an "apocryphon" composed by an author who is also known to have engaged in genuine translation work. From a small sample of this large text, Nattier identifies three passages featuring extensive verbatim borrowing or paraphrases from already existing texts. Nattier terms Fonian’s method here as “creative appropriation”, meaning that rather than "plagiarising" outright, Fonian has arranged passages borrowed from a variety of earlier Chinese texts into an original composition. T0309; 最勝問菩薩十住除垢斷結經

Probably composed in China. Some of the connections between T309 and T630 had already been partially studied before Nattier by Pu (2008). Nattier also refers to Nattier (2008): 96-102. The terminology of the text does not show up anywhere again for a long time after the Han. It enjoyed a lot of attention during the late fourth century, and then disappeared from view again. Nishiwaki has studied a fragment of a commentary on the text at DH. It seems to draw on material from Mokṣala, and Nishiwaki argues that it must have been produced after Mokṣala but before KJ. He dates the DH ms on paleographic grounds to the early 4C. T309 incorporates passages from the text, also testifying to its importance in this period. Internal evidence suggests that it is unlikely that the text could have been written in India. It contains various elements that Nattier has otherwise been unable to find in Indian texts.

Edit

241-242 n. 26

 Probably composed in China. Some of the connections between T309 and T630 had already been partially studied before Nattier by Pu (2008). Nattier also refers to Nattier (2008): 96-102. The terminology of the text does not show up anywhere again for a long time after the Han. It enjoyed a lot of attention during the late fourth century, and then disappeared from view again. Nishiwaki has studied a fragment of a commentary on the text at DH. It seems to draw on material from Moksala, and Nishiwaki argues that it must have been produced after Moksala but before KJ. He dates the DH ms on paleographic grounds to the early 4C. T309 incorporates passages from the text, also testifying to its importance in this period. Internal evidence suggests that it is unlikely that the text could have been written in India. It contains various elements that Nattier has otherwise been unable to find in Indian texts. T0630; 佛說成具光明定意經