Ōminami Ryūshō 大南龍昇 and Hirai Yūkei 平井宥慶. Taishi zuiō honki kyō, Busshogyō san 太子瑞応本起経・仏所行讃. Shin kokuyaku daizōkyō hon'en bu 1 新国訳大蔵経 本縁部 1, Tokyo: Daizōshuppan, 2002.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Ōminami and Hirai discuss problems with the received attribution of the Fo suoxing zan 佛所行讚 T192 to *Dharkakṣema, and conclude that this is in fact a translation by Baoyun 寶雲. Their discussion is based primarily on the external evidence of the catalogues. Various titles are reported in historical catalogues, and equivalences are sometimes drawn between multiple titles; there is therefore reason to believe that titles, and accompanying attributions, may have become confused with the passage of time. The ascription of a title like that of T192 to *Dharmakṣema dates from LDSBJ, and was accepted by Zhisheng in KYL, whence it most probably was also accepted into T. A very similar title, Fo suoxing zan zhuan 佛所行讚傳, is reported in Fajing, and DTNDL and reports the same title alongside a Fo suoxing zan jing 佛所行讚經, with the report that this information was taken from LDSBJ. By the time of KYL, this has become Fo suoxing zan jing zhuan 佛所行讚經傳, and Zhisheng adds a comment about the variability of the title. Matters are confused still further by the fact that just as DTNDL says, LDSBJ also reports a Fo suoxing zan jing 佛所行讚經, which it ascribes to Baoyun. This ascription was followed by DZKZM, and then also by KYL. Matters are clearer when we go back to CSZJJ. There, Sengyou ascribes two titles to Baoyun: the Fo suoxing zan, and the "new" Sukhāvatīvyūha [cf. T360]. The biography of Baoyun in CSZJJ also indicates that he translated a Fo suoxing zan. The attribution of such a title to Baoyun is then followed by a string of catalogues: Fajing, Yancong, Jingtai, DTNDL, etc. The authors also discuss information that indicates that this translation is likely to have been produced in the period ca . 420-422, though the date ultimately remains uncertain. Meanwhile, the title Fo benxing jing 佛本行經, which is borne by T193, and in the present T is ascribed to Baoyun, is treated as anonymous in CSZJJ. With a fluctuating number of fascicles, and some variation in titles, some such text is then attributed to Baoyun in various catalogues beginning with Fajing. The authors report that Hikata Ryūshō had already pointed out this series of errors, and further, on the basis of style, had surmised that T193 should date sometime after Zhi Qian and before Kumārajīva. They then list a series of translation terms from both T192 and T193, representing the same underlying meaning or Indic proper name, and argue that the differences are so systematic that it is extremely unlikely that both texts could stem from the same hand. The authors conclude by arguing that on the basis of the external evidence they have surveyed, it is most likely that T192 is to be ascribed to Baoyun, but they also note that a more confident judgement must await finer analysis of the translation terminology and style of the text. |
139-145 |
Ominami and Hirai discuss problems with the received attribution of the Fo suoxing zan 佛所行讚 T192 to *Dharkaksema, and conclude that this is in fact a translation by Baoyun 寶雲. Their discussion is based primarily on the external evidence of the catalogues. Various titles are reported in historical catalogues, and equivalences are sometimes drawn between multiple titles; there is therefore reason to believe that titles, and accompanying attributions, may have become confused with the passage of time. The ascription of a title like that of T192 to *Dharmaksema dates from LDSBJ, and was accepted by Zhisheng in KYL, whence it most probably was also accepted into T. A very similar title, Fo suoxing zan zhuan 佛所行讚傳, is reported in Fajing, and DTNDL and reports the same title alongside a Fo suoxing zan jing 佛所行讚經, with the report that this information was taken from LDSBJ. By the time of KYL, this has become Fo suoxing zan jing zhuan 佛所行讚經傳, and Zhisheng adds a comment about the variability of the title. Matters are confused still further by the fact that just as DTNDL says, LDSBJ also reports a Fo suoxing zan jing 佛所行讚經, which it ascribes to Baoyun. This ascription was followed by DZKZM, and then also by KYL. Matters are clearer when we go back to CSZJJ. There, Sengyou ascribes two titles to Baoyun: the Fo suoxing zan, and the "new" Sukhavativyuha [cf. T360]. The biography of Baoyun in CSZJJ also indicates that he translated a Fo suoxing zan. The attribution of such a title to Baoyun is then followed by a string of catalogues: Fajing, Yancong, Jingtai, DTNDL, etc. The authors also discuss information that indicates that this translation is likely to have been produced in the period ca . 420-422, though the date ultimately remains uncertain. Meanwhile, the title Fo benxing jing 佛本行經, which is borne by T193, and in the present T is ascribed to Baoyun, is treated as anonymous in CSZJJ. With a fluctuating number of fascicles, and some variation in titles, some such text is then attributed to Baoyun in various catalogues beginning with Fajing. The authors report that Hikata Ryusho had already pointed out this series of errors, and further, on the basis of style, had surmised that T193 should date sometime after Zhi Qian and before Kumarajiva. They then list a series of translation terms from both T192 and T193, representing the same underlying meaning or Indic proper name, and argue that the differences are so systematic that it is extremely unlikely that both texts could stem from the same hand. The authors conclude by arguing that on the basis of the external evidence they have surveyed, it is most likely that T192 is to be ascribed to Baoyun, but they also note that a more confident judgement must await finer analysis of the translation terminology and style of the text. Baoyun, 寶雲 T0192; 佛所行讚 |
|
Ōminami and Hirai discuss problems with the received attribution of the Fo suoxing zan 佛所行讚 T192 to *Dharkakṣema, and conclude that this is in fact a translation by Baoyun 寶雲. Their discussion is based primarily on the external evidence of the catalogues. Various titles are reported in historical catalogues, and equivalences are sometimes drawn between multiple titles; there is therefore reason to believe that titles, and accompanying attributions, may have become confused with the passage of time. The ascription of a title like that of T192 to *Dharmakṣema dates from LDSBJ, and was accepted by Zhisheng in KYL, whence it most probably was also accepted into T. A very similar title, Fo suoxing zan zhuan 佛所行讚傳, is reported in Fajing, and DTNDL and reports the same title alongside a Fo suoxing zan jing 佛所行讚經, with the report that this information was taken from LDSBJ. By the time of KYL, this has become Fo suoxing zan jing zhuan 佛所行讚經傳, and Zhisheng adds a comment about the variability of the title. Matters are confused still further by the fact that just as DTNDL says, LDSBJ also reports a Fo suoxing zan jing 佛所行讚經, which it ascribes to Baoyun. This ascription was followed by DZKZM, and then also by KYL. Matters are clearer when we go back to CSZJJ. There, Sengyou ascribes two titles to Baoyun: the Fo suoxing zan, and the "new" Sukhāvatīvyūha [cf. T360]. The biography of Baoyun in CSZJJ also indicates that he translated a Fo suoxing zan. The attribution of such a title to Baoyun is then followed by a string of catalogues: Fajing, Yancong, Jingtai, DTNDL, etc. The authors also discuss information that indicates that this translation is likely to have been produced in the period ca . 420-422, though the date ultimately remains uncertain. Meanwhile, the title Fo benxing jing 佛本行經, which is borne by T193, and in the present T is ascribed to Baoyun, is treated as anonymous in CSZJJ. With a fluctuating number of fascicles, and some variation in titles, some such text is then attributed to Baoyun in various catalogues beginning with Fajing. The authors report that Hikata Ryūshō had already pointed out this series of errors, and further, on the basis of style, had surmised that T193 should date sometime after Zhi Qian and before Kumārajīva. They then list a series of translation terms from both T192 and T193, representing the same underlying meaning or Indic proper name, and argue that the differences are so systematic that it is extremely unlikely that both texts could stem from the same hand. The authors conclude by arguing that on the basis of the external evidence they have surveyed, it is most likely that T192 is to be ascribed to Baoyun, but they also note that a more confident judgement must await finer analysis of the translation terminology and style of the text. |
139-145 |
Ominami and Hirai discuss problems with the received attribution of the Fo suoxing zan 佛所行讚 T192 to *Dharkaksema, and conclude that this is in fact a translation by Baoyun 寶雲. Their discussion is based primarily on the external evidence of the catalogues. Various titles are reported in historical catalogues, and equivalences are sometimes drawn between multiple titles; there is therefore reason to believe that titles, and accompanying attributions, may have become confused with the passage of time. The ascription of a title like that of T192 to *Dharmaksema dates from LDSBJ, and was accepted by Zhisheng in KYL, whence it most probably was also accepted into T. A very similar title, Fo suoxing zan zhuan 佛所行讚傳, is reported in Fajing, and DTNDL and reports the same title alongside a Fo suoxing zan jing 佛所行讚經, with the report that this information was taken from LDSBJ. By the time of KYL, this has become Fo suoxing zan jing zhuan 佛所行讚經傳, and Zhisheng adds a comment about the variability of the title. Matters are confused still further by the fact that just as DTNDL says, LDSBJ also reports a Fo suoxing zan jing 佛所行讚經, which it ascribes to Baoyun. This ascription was followed by DZKZM, and then also by KYL. Matters are clearer when we go back to CSZJJ. There, Sengyou ascribes two titles to Baoyun: the Fo suoxing zan, and the "new" Sukhavativyuha [cf. T360]. The biography of Baoyun in CSZJJ also indicates that he translated a Fo suoxing zan. The attribution of such a title to Baoyun is then followed by a string of catalogues: Fajing, Yancong, Jingtai, DTNDL, etc. The authors also discuss information that indicates that this translation is likely to have been produced in the period ca . 420-422, though the date ultimately remains uncertain. Meanwhile, the title Fo benxing jing 佛本行經, which is borne by T193, and in the present T is ascribed to Baoyun, is treated as anonymous in CSZJJ. With a fluctuating number of fascicles, and some variation in titles, some such text is then attributed to Baoyun in various catalogues beginning with Fajing. The authors report that Hikata Ryusho had already pointed out this series of errors, and further, on the basis of style, had surmised that T193 should date sometime after Zhi Qian and before Kumarajiva. They then list a series of translation terms from both T192 and T193, representing the same underlying meaning or Indic proper name, and argue that the differences are so systematic that it is extremely unlikely that both texts could stem from the same hand. The authors conclude by arguing that on the basis of the external evidence they have surveyed, it is most likely that T192 is to be ascribed to Baoyun, but they also note that a more confident judgement must await finer analysis of the translation terminology and style of the text. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0193; 佛本行經 |