Fang Yixin 方一新 and Lu Lu 盧鹭. “Jin shiyu nian cong yuyan jiaodu kaobian keyi Fojing chengguo de huigu yu zhanwang” 近十余年從語言角度考辨可疑佛經成果的回顧與展望.” Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences Online Edition), Jan. 2023: 1–24.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source |
|---|---|---|
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Lu Qiaoqin argues that the Zhuan ji baiyuan jing 撰集百緣經 T200 was translated in the North or Gaochang 高昌. They refer to Lu Qiaoqin 盧巧琴. DongHan Wei Jin Nanbeichao yijing yuliao de jianbie 東漢魏晉南北朝譯經語料的鑒別. Hangzhou: Zhejiang daxue, 2011: 131–144. |
8 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Shi Guanghui argues that from the linguistic perspective, the Da mingdu jing 大明度經 T225 is closer to Zhi Qian’s translations, rather than to the Fa jing jing 法鏡經 ascribed to An Xuan. The refer to 史光輝 Shi Guanghui. “Da mingdu jing yizhe kao” 《大明度經》譯者考. Hunan keji daxue xuebao (shehui kexue ban) 湖南科技大學學報（社會科學版） 2 (2013): 164–166. |
8-9 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Li Zhouyuan argues that the Da mingdu jing 大明度經 T225 is closely related to Zhi Qian’s translations. They refer to Li Zhouyuan 李周淵. “Sanguo Zhi Qian yijing yanjiu” 三國支謙譯經研究. PhD diss., Fagu wenli xueyuan 法鼓文理學院, 2020: 94–145. |
9 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Su Jinkun has responded to Harrison (1997). Su argues that texts 2–29 and 32–47 in the Qi chu san guan jing 七處三觀經 T150A may not be the Zajing sishisi pian 雜經四十四篇 translated by An Shigao. They refer to Su Jinkun 蘇錦坤. “Qichu sanguan jing de jiegou yu yizhe — jian dui Paul Harrison lunwen (1997) de huiying” 《七處三觀經》的結構與譯者——兼對 Paul Harrison 論文 (1997) 的回應. Zhengguan 正觀 62 (2012): 99–192. |
|
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Makita argues that the Fenbie shan’e suoqi jing 分別善惡所起經 T729 was not translated by An Shigao, but rather composed in China during the Six Dynasties period. They refer to: Makita Tairyō 牧田諦亮. Gikyō Kenkyū 疑經研究. Kyoto: Kyōto Daigaku Jinbun Kagaku Kenkyūsho, 1976: 336–344. |
5 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Karashima argues that only 我 is used as the personal pronoun in the Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra 阿彌陀三耶三佛薩樓佛檀過度人道經 T362, which is consistent with translations reliably ascribed to *Lokakṣema. They refer to Karashima Seishi 辛島靜志. “Zaoqi Hanyi Fodian de yuyan yanjiu—yi Zhiloujiachen ji Zhi Qian de yijing duibi wei zhongxin” 早期漢譯佛典的語言研究——以支婁迦讖及支謙的譯經對比為中心. In Hanyu shi xuebao 漢語史學, edited by Zhejiang daxue Hanyu shi yanjiu zhongxin 浙江大學漢語史研究中心, 225–237. Shanghai: Shanghai jiaoyu chubanshe, 2010. |
9 |
|
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Wang Haolei argues that the ascription of the Dao shenzu wuji bianhua jing 道神足無極變化經 T816 to An Faqin is unreliable. Wang also argues, on the basis of phraseology, that the translation of the Ayuwang zhuan 阿育王傳 T2042 postdates the Eastern Jin. They refer to Wang Haolei 王浩壘. “Yiming de guilü xing yu wuti jing yizhe de panding–‘Ayuwang zhuan wei Xi Jin An Faqin yi’ xianyi” 譯名的規律性與誤題經譯者的判定——“《阿育王傳》為西晉安法欽譯”獻疑. In Hanyu shi xuebao 漢語史學報, vol. 20, edited by Zhejiang daxue Hanyu shi yanjiu zhongxin 浙江大學漢語史研究中心, 64–74. Shanghai: Shanghai jiaoyu, 2018. |
12 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Okayama argues that the Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra 阿彌陀三耶三佛薩樓佛檀過度人道經 T362 is most probably a translation by Zhi Qian, or a Zhi Qian revision of a translation originally by Lokakẹma. They refer to Okayama Hajime 丘山新. “Dai amida kyō yakusha ni kan suru ichi kasetsu” 『大阿彌陀経』訳者に関する一仮説. IBK 28, no. 2 (1980): 735. Okayama Hajime 丘山新. “Amida kado jindō kyō: kyōdai to sono shisō” 『阿彌陀過度人道経』：経題とその思想. IBK 35, no. 1 (1986): 68–71. |
9 |
|
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Fang and Lu argue that the Aṅgulimālīya-sūtra 鴦崛髻經 T119 differs from the typical language of Faju’s translations at the levels of both prose and verse. They refer to Fang Mei 方梅 and Lu Qiaoqin 盧巧琴. “Han Wei Liuchao shiyi wuti zhi jing yu tong shiqi queqie yijing wenti zhi bijiao––yi Yangjueji jing yu Faju queqie yijing bijiao wei li” 漢魏六朝失譯、誤題之經與同時期確切譯經文體之比較——以《鴦崛髻經》與法炬確切譯經比較為例. Changjiang daxue xuebao (she ke ban) 長江大學學報（社科版） 10 (2015): 49–51. |
12 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Fang and Gao have argued that the Taizi Mupo jing 太子慕魄經 T167 was translated by Dharmarakṣa, instead of An Shigao, while the Taizi Mupo jing 太子墓魄經 T168, ascribed in the Taishō to Dharmarakṣa, could be an anonymous translation produced after the Southern Liang Dynasty. They refer to Fang Yixin 方一新 and Gao Lieguo 高列過. Donghan yi wei Fojing de yuyanxue kaobian yanjiu 東漢疑偽佛經的語言學考辨研究. Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 2012. pp.148–171. Fang Yixin 方一新 and Gao Lieguo 高列過. “Jiuti An Shigao yi Taizi Mupo jing fanyi niandai kaobian — jian lun ti Zhu Fahu yi Taizi Mupo jing de niandai wenti” 舊題安世高譯《太子慕魄經》翻譯年代考辨——兼論題竺法護譯《太子墓魄經》的年代問題. Wenshi 3 (2008): 77–99. |
4 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Fujita argues that the Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra 阿彌陀三耶三佛薩樓佛檀過度人道經 T362 should be a Zhi Qian translation, or an original translation by Lokakẹma, later revised by Zhi Qian. They refer to Fujita Kōtatsu 藤田宏達. Jōdo san bu kyō no kenkyū 浄土三部経の研究. Kyoto: Iwanami shoten, 2007: 39–46. |
9 |
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Fang and Gao argue that some terms in the Modengnü jing 摩鄧女經 (*Mātaṅgī-sūtra) T551 do not conform to the customary wording in An Shigao's translations. Therefore, T551 was likely translated after the Eastern Jin period and before the Southern Liang period. They refer to: Fang Yixin 方一新 and Gao Lieguo 高列過. “Dengmonü fanyi niandai lice”《摩鄧女經》翻譯年代蠡測. In Wu Yue Fojiao 吳越佛教, vol 10, edited by Guangquan 光泉, 238–246. Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 2015. |
4 |
|
|
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Lin Jia’an argues that the translation of some of the terms in the *Ekottarikāgama 増一阿含 T125 is closer to that in Zhu Fonian’s translations [that to that of Saṅghadeva]. They refer to Lin Jia’an 林家安. “Xiancun Han yi Zengyi ahan jing zhi yizhe kao” 現存漢譯《增一阿含經》之譯者考. MA thesis, Yuanguang foxue yanjiu suo 圓光佛學研究所 (2009). |
13 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Fang, writing alone, and Fang and Gao, publishing together, have argued that the translation of the Nainü qiyu yinyuan jing 㮈女祇域因緣經 T553 postdates the Western Jin period. They refer to Fang Yixin 方一新. “Foshuo Nainü qiyu yinyuan jing fanyi niandai kaobian” 《佛說㮈女祇域因緣經》翻譯年代考辨. In Hanyu shi xuebao 漢語史學報, vol 7, edited by Zhejiang daxue Hanyu shi yanjiu zhongxin 浙江大學漢語史研究中心, 238–261. Shanghai: Shanghai jiaoyu chubanshe, 2008; Fang Yixin 方一新 and Gao Lieguo 高列過. Donghan yi wei Fojing de yuyan xue kaobian yanjiu 東漢疑偽佛經的語言學考辨研究. Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 2012: 121–148. |
4 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Li Yan argues that certain wordings used in the Chuchu jing 處處經 T730 differ from that in reliable translations by An Shigao. They refer to Li Yan 李妍. “An Shigao yijing cihui yanjiu” 安世高譯經詞匯研究. MA thesis, Zhejiang University, 2013. |
5 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Li Zhouyuan argues that it is impossible to ascertain the translators of the Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra 無量清淨平等覺經 T361 and the Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra 阿彌陀三耶三佛薩樓佛檀過度人道經 T362. They refer to Li Zhouyuan 李周淵. “Sanguo Zhi Qian yijing yanjiu” 三國支謙譯經研究. PhD diss., Fagu wenli xueyuan 法鼓文理學院, 2020: 79–82. |
9 |
|
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Chen Hong argues that the Baiyu jing 百喻經 in ten fascicles translated by *Guṇavṛddhi 求那毗地 has been lost, and that the extant Baiyu jing 百喻經 T209 is an anonymous translation. They refer to Chen Hong 陳洪. “Bai yu jing banben jiaokan yiwen deng wenti kaolun” 《百喻經〉版本校勘佚文等問題考論. Foxue yanjiu 佛學研究 1 (2003): 193–203. |
13 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Tu Yanqiu questions Shi Guopu’s view that the translator of the Weimojie jing 維摩詰經 T474 is Dharmarakṣa, and argues from the perspective of the language and style that the ascription still debatable. They refer to Tu Yanqiu 塗艷秋. “Cong Zhi Qian yu Zhu Fahu de yijing fengge lice Dunhuang xiejuan P.3006 jingwen zhi yizhe” 從支謙與竺法護的譯經風格厘測敦煌寫卷 P.3006 經文之譯者. Hanxue yanjiu 漢學研究 1 (2013): 285–318. |
9 |
|
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Chen and Zhao argue that the Baiyu jing 百喻經 was introduced to China orally during the Cao Wei period of the Three Kingdoms at the latest, and that the lost Baiyu jing 百喻經 in ten fascicles was translated in the period from about 491 to 492. They refer to Chen Hong 陳洪 and Zhao Jibin 趙紀彬. “Yuanwen ben Bai yu jing chengshu shidai yiji chuanyi zhu kuanglüe kao” 原文本《百喻經》成書時代以及傳譯諸況略考. Guji zhengli yanjiu xuekan 古籍整理研究學刊 2 (2012): 6–9. |
13 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Gao and Meng argue that the usage of modal particles in the Nainü qiyu yinyuan jing 㮈女祇域因緣經 T553 differs from that in the translations reliably attributed to An Shigao. They refer to Gao Lieguo 高列過 and Meng Yichen 孟奕辰. “Jiyu yuqi zhuci de keyi An Shigao yijing kaobian” 基於語氣助詞的可疑安世高譯經考辨. In Hanyu shi yanjiu jikan 漢語史研究集刊, vol. 25, edited by Lei Hanqing 雷漢卿, 50–67. Chengdu: Sichuan daxue chubanshe, 2018. |
4 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Li Zhouyuan argues that the correlation between the Weimojie jing 維摩詰經 T474 and Dharmarakṣa’s translations in not significant. They refer to Li Zhouyuan 李周淵. “Sanguo Zhi Qian yijing yanjiu” 三國支謙譯經研究. PhD diss., Fagu wenli xueyuan 法鼓文理學院, 2020: 70–75. |
9 |
|
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Wang Haolei argues that the Ayu wang jing 阿育王經 T2043 was translated by *Saṃghavarman 僧伽婆羅 who was active in the Liang dynasty. They refer to Wang Haolei 王浩壘. “Tongben yiyi Ayuwang zhuan yu Ayuwang jing cihui bijiao yanjiu” 同本異譯《阿育王傳》與《阿育王經》詞匯比較研究. PhD diss., Zhejiang daxue (2012): 13–25; Wang Haolei 王浩壘. “Yiming de guilü xing yu wuti jing yizhe de panding–‘Ayuwang zhuan wei Xi Jin An Faqin yi’ xianyi” 譯名的規律性與誤題經譯者的判定——“《阿育王傳》為西晉安法欽譯”獻疑. In Hanyu shi xuebao 漢語史學報, vol. 20, edited by Zhejiang daxue Hanyu shi yanjiu zhongxin 浙江大學漢語史研究中心, 64–74. Shanghai: Shanghai jiaoyu chubanshe, 2018. |
13 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Gao and Meng argue that the usage of modal particles in the Da Anban shuoyi jing 大安般守意經 T602 differs from that in the translations reliably attributed to An Shigao. They refer to Gao Lieguo 高列過 and Meng Yichen 孟奕辰. “Jiyu yuqi zhuci de keyi An Shigao yijing kaobian” 基於語氣助詞的可疑安世高譯經考辨. In Hanyu shi yanjiu jikan 漢語史研究集刊, vol. 25, edited by Lei Hanqing 雷漢卿, 50–67. Chengdu: Sichuan daxue chubanshe, 2018. |
4 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Liang Xiaohong argues that the Jiu za piyu jing 舊雜譬喻經 T206 was not translated by Kang Senghui. They refer to Liang Xiaohong 梁曉虹. “Cong yuyanshang panding Jiu za piyu jing fei Kang Senghui suoyi” 從語言上判定《舊雜譬喻經》非康僧會所譯. Zhongguo yuwen tongxun 中國語文通訊 40 (1996): 62–68. |
10 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Gao and Meng argue that the usage of modal particles in the Foyin sanmei jing 佛印三昧經 T621 differs from that in the translations reliably attributed to An Shigao. They refer to Gao Lieguo 高列過 and Meng Yichen 孟奕辰. “Jiyu yuqi zhuci de keyi An Shigao yijing kaobian” 基於語氣助詞的可疑安世高譯經考辨. In Hanyu shi yanjiu jikan 漢語史研究集刊, vol. 25, edited by Lei Hanqing 雷漢卿, 50–67. Chengdu: Sichuan daxue chubanshe, 2018. |
4 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Yu and Cao argue that the Jiu za piyu jing 舊雜譬喻經 T206 was not translated by Kang Senghui. They refer to Yu Xiaorong 遇笑容 and Cao Guangshun 曹廣順. “Ye cong yuyan shang kan Liudu ji jing yu Jiu za piyu jing de yizhe wenti” 也從語言上看《六度集經》與《舊雜譬喻經》的譯者問題. Gu Hanyu yanjiu 古漢語研究 2 (1998): 4–7. |
10 |
|
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Xu and Huang argue on the basis of comparison of vocabulary and syntax with other translations attributed to *Saṃghavarman that the Ayu wang jing 阿育王經 T2043 was indeed translated by *Saṃghavarman 僧伽婆羅. They refer to Xu Zhengkao 徐正考 and Huang Na 黃娜. “Yuyan tezheng de kaocha yu ‘wuti’ yijing yizhe de queding––yi Ayuwang jing he Ayuwang zhuan wei li” 語言特征的考察與“誤題”譯經譯者的確定——以《阿育王經》和《阿育王傳》為例. Jilin daxue (Shehui kexue xuebao) 吉林大學（社會科學學報） 1 (2013): 160–167. |
13 |
|
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Zhang Guoliang argues that the *Kusumasaṃcaya-sūtra 稱揚諸佛功德經 T434 was translated before the Northern Wei dynasty. They refer to Zhang Guoliang 張國良. “Yuan Wei yijing yiwen yanjiu” 元魏譯經異文研究. PhD diss., Hunan shifan daxue 湖南師範大學 (2016): 205–211. |
14 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Karashima argues that either the Zishi sanmei jing 自誓三昧經 T622 or the Rulai duzheng zishi sanmei jing 如來獨證自誓三昧經 T623 is a translation by Dharmarakṣa, and the one that was not translated by him is a slightly modified version based on that by him. They refer to Karashima Seishi 辛島靜志. “Fahua jing de wenxianxue yanjiu –– Guanyin de yuyi jieshi” 《法華經》的文獻學研究——觀音的語義解釋. In Zhonghua wenshi luncong 中華文史論叢, edited by Zhonghua wenshi luncong bianji bu 中華文史論叢編輯部, 199–229. Shanghai: Shanghai guji, 2009. See 203-204 n. 3. |
4 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Gao and Meng argue that the usage of modal particles in the Zishi sanmei jing 自誓三昧經 T622 differs from that in the translations reliably attributed to An Shigao. They refer to Gao Lieguo 高列過 and Meng Yichen 孟奕辰. “Jiyu yuqi zhuci de keyi An Shigao yijing kaobian” 基於語氣助詞的可疑安世高譯經考辨. In Hanyu shi yanjiu jikan 漢語史研究集刊, vol. 25, edited by Lei Hanqing 雷漢卿, 50–67. Chengdu: Sichuan daxue chubanshe, 2018. |
4 |
|
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Wang Haolei argues that the Ayu wang jing 阿育王經 T2043 was translated in the south after the Eastern Jin period. They refer to Wang Haolei 王浩壘. “Tongben yiyi Ayuwang zhuan yu Ayuwang jing cihui bijiao yanjiu” 同本異譯《阿育王傳》與《阿育王經》詞匯比較研究. PhD diss., Zhejiang daxue (2012): 13–25. |
13 |
|
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Matsue argues that the language of the Jiu za piyu jing 舊雜譬喻經 T206 reflects the features of 3rd–4th century Chinese. They refer to Matsue Takashi 松 江 崇. “Tan Jiu za piyu jing zai Fojiao Hanyu fazhan shi shang de dingwei” 談《舊雜譬喻經》在佛教漢語發展史上的定位. In Zhongwen xueshu qianyan 中文學術前沿, vol. 17, edited by Zhongwen xueshu qianyan bianji weiyuan hui 中文學術前沿編輯委員會, 44–53. Hangzhou: Zhejiang daxue, 2014. |
10 |
|
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Zhang Guoliang argues that the Da jiyi shen zhou jing大吉義神呪經 T1335 is not Tanyao’s translation, but more likely to be an apocryphon composed in the Tang dynasty on the basis of two versions of the Kongque wang zhou jing 孔雀王咒經 T984 and T988. They refer to Zhang Guoliang 張國良. “Yuan Wei yijing yiwen yanjiu” 元魏譯經異文研究. PhD diss., Hunan shifan daxue 湖南師範大學 (2016): 212–216. |
14 |
|
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Chen Hong argues that the Jiu za piyu jing 舊雜譬喻經 T206 overlaps with stories in the Liudu jijing 六度集經 T152, and that T206 was created on the basis of T152. They refer to Chen Hong 陳洪. “Jiu Za piyu jing yanjiu” 《舊雜譬喻經》研究. Zongjiao xue yanjiu 宗教學研究 2 (2004): 131–136. |
10 |
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Guangxing argues that some of the Buddha’s names in the Fumu enzhong nanbao jing 父母恩重難報經 T684 have never appeared in An Shigao’s translation. They refer to Guang Xing 廣興. “Fumu en nanbao jing yu Fumu enzhong jing de yanjiu” 《父母恩難報經》與《父母恩重經》的研究. Zongjiao yanjiu 宗教研究 2 (2014): 13–50. |
4 |
|
|
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Zhang Guoliang argues that the language of the Yinse nü jing 銀色女經 T179 is close to that of the translations of Northern Wei, and it should be dated to the same period. They refer to Zhang Guoliang 張國良. “Yuan Wei yijing yiwen yanjiu” 元魏譯經異文研究. PhD diss., Hunan shifan daxue 湖南師範大學 (2016): 234–238. |
14 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Li Yan argues that the translation of the Fenbie shan’e suoqi jing 分別善惡所起經 T729 should postdate the Three kingdoms period. They refer to Li Yan 李妍. “An Shigao yijing cihui yanjiu” 安世高譯經詞匯研究. MA thesis, Zhejiang University, 2013; Li Yan 李妍. “Cong Fojiao shuyu kan yi wei jing bianbie” 從佛教術語看疑偽經辨別. Huibei shifan daxue xuebao (shehui kexue ban) 淮北師範大學學報 (社會科學版) 4 (2012): 194–195; Li Yan 李妍. “Fenbie shan’e suoqi jing fanyi niandai kao”《分別善惡所起經》翻譯年代考. Shenyang daxue xuebao (shehui kexue ban) 沈陽大學學報 (社會科學版) 2 (2017): 166–169; Li Yan 李妍. “Dong Han yijing yuyan yanjiu gaishu ji yiyi — yi Dong Han An Shigao yijing wei li” 東漢譯經語言研究概述及意義——以東漢安世高譯經為例. Qingnian wenxuejia 青年文學家 32 (2019): 168–169. |
5 |
|
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Jia and He argue that the translation of the Jiu za piyu jing 舊雜譬喻經 T206 may postdate the Han dynasty and predate the Jin dynasty, so that T206 and the Liudu jijing 六度集經 T152 should belong to the same period. They refer to Jia Junfang 賈君芳 and He Hongfeng 何洪峰. “Cong jieci jiaodu kan Liudu ji jing yu Jiu za piyu jing de fanyi shidai” 從介詞角度看《六度集經》與《舊雜譬喻經》的翻譯時代. Ningxia daxue xuebao (Renwen shehui kexue ban) 寧夏大學學報（人文社會科學版） 4 (2016): 35–39. |
10 |
|
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Zhang Guoliang argues the Anantuomuqia niheli tuolinni jing 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀隣尼經 T1015 is almost identical to the Anantuomuqia niheli tuo jing 阿難陀目佉尼呵離陀經 T1013, and that it was translated no later than the Later Qin period. They refer to Zhang Guoliang 張國良. “Yuan Wei yijing yiwen yanjiu” 元魏譯經異文研究. PhD diss., Hunan shifan daxue 湖南師範大學 (2016): 226–232. |
14 |
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Liu Zhe argues that the Ugra-paripṛcchā 郁伽長者會T310(19) should have been translated between the end of the 4th century and the beginning of the 5th century, since one-fifth of the entire scripture is accounted for by words appearing for the first time in the Three Kingdoms, the Western Jin Dynasty, and even after the Eastern Jin Dynasty (not counting repetitions). They refer to Liu Zhe 劉哲. “Cong ciyu jiaodu kan Yujia zhangzhe hui de fanyi shidai” 從詞語角度看《郁伽長者會》的翻譯時代. Xiandai yuwen 現代語文 9 (2020): 16–20. |
10 |
|
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Fang argues that the translation of the Chuchu jing 處處經 T730 should postdate Dharmarakṣa, or even date as late as the Eastern Jin dynasty and Sixteen Kingdoms period. They refer to Fang Yixin 方一新. “Fojiao ciyu de shijian niandai yu keyi Fojing de jianbie” 佛教詞語的始見年代與可疑佛經的鑒別. Hefei shifan xueyuan xuebao 合肥師範學院學報 4 (2016): 8–10; Fang Yixin 方一新. “Jiuti An Shigao yi Chuchu jing yijing niandai kao” 舊題安世高譯《處處經》譯經年代考. In Fojiao wenxian yanjiu 佛教文獻研究, vol. 2, edited by Fang Guangchang 方廣锠, 71–84. Guilin: Guangxi shifan daxue, 2016. |
|
|
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Zhang Guoliang argues that the wording in the Jingang xian lun 金剛仙論 T1512 is mostly not found in the translations of Northern Wei dynasty, but they appear frequently in the translations produced during Sui and Tang periods. They refer to Zhang Guoliang 張國良. “Yuan Wei yijing yiwen yanjiu” 元魏譯經異文研究. PhD diss., Hunan shifan daxue 湖南師範大學 (2016): 232–234. |
14 |
|
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Shi De’an 釋德安 argues that the Wuliangshou jing 無量壽經 T360 was translated by Dharmarakṣa. They refer to Shi De'an 釋德安 (Zhou Muxiu 周睦修). "Wuliangshou jing yizhe kao: yi Fojing yuyanxue wei yanjiu zhuzhou" 《無量壽經》譯者考——以佛經語言學為研究主軸. PhD diss., Nanhua University, 2005: 2-4. |
10 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Gao and Meng argue that the usage of modal particles in the Chuchu jing 處處經 T730 differs from that in the translations reliably attributed to An Shigao. They refer to Gao Lieguo 高列過 and Meng Yichen 孟奕辰. “Jiyu yuqi zhuci de keyi An Shigao yijing kaobian” 基於語氣助詞的可疑安世高譯經考辨. In Hanyu shi yanjiu jikan 漢語史研究集刊, vol. 25, edited by Lei Hanqing 雷漢卿, 50–67. Chengdu: Sichuan daxue chubanshe, 2018. |
5 |
|
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Zhang Guoliang argues that the translation of the Ba bu Fo ming jing 八部佛名經 T429 should date to the Western Jin dynasty, or predate the Later Qin, because the phraseology found in it differs from that typical of *Prajñāruci 般若流支’s translations. They refer to Zhang Guoliang 張國良. “Yuan Wei yijing yiwen yanjiu” 元魏譯經異文研究. PhD diss., Hunan shifan daxue 湖南師範大學 (2016): 216–223. |
14 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Gao and Meng argue that the usage of modal particles in the Mayi jing 罵意經 T732 differs from that in the translations reliably attributed to An Shigao. They refer to Gao Lieguo 高列過 and Meng Yichen 孟奕辰. “Jiyu yuqi zhuci de keyi An Shigao yijing kaobian” 基於語氣助詞的可疑安世高譯經考辨. In Hanyu shi yanjiu jikan 漢語史研究集刊, vol. 25, edited by Lei Hanqing 雷漢卿, 50–67. Chengdu: Sichuan daxue chubanshe, 2018. |
5 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Hu Chirui argues that the language used in the Fa shou chen jing 法受塵經 T792 does not conform to An Shigao’s characteristic wording. They refer to Hu Chirui 胡敕瑞. “Zhonggu Hanyu yuliao jianbie shuyao” 中古漢語語料鑒別述要. In Hanyu shi xuebao 漢語史學報 vol. 5, edited by Zhejiang daxue Hanyu shi yanjiu zhongxin 浙江大學漢語史研究中心, 270¬–279. Shanghai: Shanghai jiaoyu chubanshe, 2015. |
5 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Fang and Gao argue that the date of the translation of the Banzhou sanmei jing 般舟三昧經 T418 requires further discussion, since it contains a cluster of vocabulary that only appears in the translations of the Western Jin dynasty. They refer to Fang Yixin 方一新 and Gao Lieguo 高列過. Donghan yi wei Fojing de yuyan xue kaobian yanjiu 東漢疑偽佛經的語言學考辨研究. Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 2012: 191–199. |
6 |
|
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Yan and Lu argue that the vocabulary in the Jiemo 羯磨 T1433 is close to that in the translations of the later Western Jin period. They also argue that it was not translated by Tandi 曇諦 in the Cao Wei period, but may have been assembled by Shi Tandi 釋曇諦 in the Liu Song period. They refer to Yan Qiamao 顏洽茂 and Lu Qiaoqin 盧巧琴. “Shiyi wuti zhi jing niandai de kaozheng–yi wuti Cao Wei Tandi yi Tanwude jiemo wei li” 失譯、誤題之經年代的考證——以誤題曹魏曇諦譯《曇無德羯磨》為例. Zhejiang daxue xuebao (renwen shehui kexue ban) 浙江大學學報（人文社會科學版） 5 (2009): 178–185. |
10 |
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Zhang Guoliang argues that the language of the Bianyi zhangzhe zi jing 辯意長者子經 T544 differs from that of translations produced in the Northern Wei dynasty. They refer to Zhang Guoliang 張國良. “Yuan Wei yijing yiwen yanjiu” 元魏譯經異文研究. PhD diss., Hunan shifan daxue 湖南師範大學 (2016): 223–226. |
14 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Shi Guanghui argues that the Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來三昧經 T624 is quite different from translations reliably ascribed to Lokakṣema. They refer to Shi Guanghui 史光輝. “Cong yuyan jiaodu panding Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing fei Zhi Chen suo yi” 從語言角度判定《伅真陀羅所問如來三昧經》非支讖所譯. In Hanyu shi xuebao 漢語史學報, vol. 5, edited by Zhejiang daxue Hanyu shi yanjiu zhongxin 浙江大學漢語史研究中心, 280–286. Shanghai: Shanghai jiaoyu chubanshe, 2005. |
6 |
|
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Wang Yili argues that the Da biqiu sanqian weiyi jing 大比丘三千威儀經 T1470 was translated during the Western Jin dynasty or even the Eastern Jin dynasty. They refer to Wang Yili 王毅力. “Cong cihui jiaodu kan Da biqiu sanqian weiyi de fanyi niandai” 從詞匯角度看《大比丘三千威儀》的翻譯年代. Xinan jiaotong daxue xuebao (Shehui kexue ban) 西南交通大學學報（社會科學版）5 (2011): 25–29. |
5 |
|
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Li Zhouyuan argues that the Bannihuan jing 般泥洹經 T6 should be translated by Zhi Qian. They refer to Li Zhouyuan 李周淵. “Sanguo Zhi Qian yijing yanjiu” 三國支謙譯經研究. PhD diss., Fagu wenli xueyuan 法鼓文理學院 (2020): 65–68. |
14 |
|
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Lu argues that the vocabulary of the Jiemo 羯磨 T1433 is close to that in the translations of the later Western Jin period. She also argues that it was not translated by Tandi 曇諦 in the Cao Wei period, but may have been assembled by Shi Tandi 釋曇諦 in the Liu Song period. They refer to Lu Qiaoqin 盧巧琴. Dong Han Wei Jin Nanbeichao yijing yuliao de jianbie 東漢魏晉南北朝譯經語料的鑒別. Hangzhou: Zhejian daxue, 2011: 101–116. |
10 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Gao and Meng argue that the usage of modal particles in the Da biqiu sanqian weiyi jing 大比丘三千威儀經 T1470 differs from that in the translations reliably attributed to An Shigao. They refer to Gao Lieguo 高列過 and Meng Yichen 孟奕辰. “Jiyu yuqi zhuci de keyi An Shigao yijing kaobian” 基於語氣助詞的可疑安世高譯經考辨. In Hanyu shi yanjiu jikan 漢語史研究集刊, vol. 25, edited by Lei Hanqing 雷漢卿, 50–67. Chengdu: Sichuan daxue chubanshe, 2018. |
5 |
|
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Yan et al. argue that the vocabulary of the Jiemo 羯磨 T1433 is close to that in the translations of the later Western Jin period. They also argue that it was not translated by Tandi 曇諦 in the Cao Wei period, but may have been assembled by Shi Tandi 釋曇諦 in the Liu Song period. They refer to Yan Qiamao 顏洽茂 et al. Fanyi Fojing yuliao yanjiu 翻譯佛經語料研究. Hangzhou: Zhejiang daxue, 2019: 444–459. |
10 |
|
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Su Jinkun argues that Karashima’s opinion on the date of the Bieyi za ahan jing 別譯雜阿含經 T100 (i.e. translated in 420–450) is not convincing. They refer to Su Jinkun 蘇錦坤. “Xieben yu mosong–bieyi Za ahan jing de fanyi yiti” 寫本與默誦––《別譯雜阿含經》的翻譯議題, Xinjiapo Foxue yanjiu xuekan 新加坡佛學研究學刊 5 (2019): 41–91. |
14 |
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Zhang Jing argues that the Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來三昧經 T624 was not translated by Lokakṣema. They refer to Zhang Jing 張靜. “Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing fei Zhi Chen yi xinzheng” 《伅真陀羅所問如來三昧經》非支讖譯新證. Xiandai yuwen 現代語文 9 (2021): 4–10. |
6 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Gao and Meng argue that the usage of modal particles in the Jiashe jie jing 迦葉結經 T2027 differs from that in the translations reliably attributed to An Shigao. They refer to Gao Lieguo 高列過 and Meng Yichen 孟奕辰. “Jiyu yuqi zhuci de keyi An Shigao yijing kaobian” 基於語氣助詞的可疑安世高譯經考辨. In Hanyu shi yanjiu jikan 漢語史研究集刊, vol. 25, edited by Lei Hanqing 雷漢卿, 50–67. Chengdu: Sichuan daxue chubanshe, 2018. |
5 |
|
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Fang and Gao (and Fang alone) argue that the Anan wenshi Fo jixiong jing 阿難問事佛吉凶經 T492a was translated around the middle of the fifth century. They refer to Fang Yixin 方一新 and Gao Lieguo 高列過. Dong Han yi wei Fojing de yuyanxue kaobian yanjiu 東漢疑偽佛經的語言學考辨研究. Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 2012: 100–120; Fang Yixin 方一新 and Gao Lieguo 高列過. “Jiuti Dong Han An Shigao yi Anan wenshi Fo jixiong jing kaobian” 舊題東漢安世高譯《阿難問事佛吉兇經》考辨. In Zhongguo dianji yu wenhua luncong 中國典籍與文化論叢, vol 10, edited by Quanguo gaodeng yuanxiao guji zhengli yanjiu gongzuo weiyuanhui 全國高等院校古籍整理研究工作委員會 etc., 59–73. Beijing: Beijing daxue chubanshe, 2008; Fang Yixin 方一新. “Fojiao ciyu de shijian niandai yu keyi Fojing de jianbie” 佛教詞語的始見年代與可疑佛經的鑒別. Hefei shifan xueyuan xuebao 合肥師範學院學報 4 (2016): 8–10. |
4 |
|
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Lin argues that the Za ahan jing 雜阿含經 T101 was most likely translated by An Shigao, but some parts of it, e.g., T101(9) and T101(10), may have been produced by a team or revised by others. They refer to Lin Yueh-Mei. A Study on the Anthology Za Ahan Jing (T101): Centered on its Linguistic Features, Translation Style, Authorship and School Affiliation. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing, 2010. |
11 |
|
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Shao Tiansong argues, based on features of the language, that the text represented by the Dunhuang manuscripts of the Xianbao dangshou jing 現報當受經 T2892 should have been translated in the Northern and Southern dynasties. They refer to Shao Tiansong 邵天松. “Dunhuang yi wei jing yuliao niandai kaocha–yi Foshuo xianbao dangshou jing wei li” 敦煌疑偽經語料年代考察——以《佛說現報當受經》為例. In Hanyu shi xuebao, vol.12, edited by Zhejiang daxue Hanyu shi yanjiu zhongxin 浙江大學漢語史研究中心, 296–303. Shanghai: Shanghai jiaoyu, 2012. |
15 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Li Yan has argued that some terms in the Poluomenzi ming zhong ainian buli jing 婆羅門子命終愛念不離經 T91 are not found in the translations reliably ascribed to An Shigao, and that some terms in this text are not found in any Eastern Han translations. They refer to Li Yan 李妍. “An Shigao yijing cihui yanjiu” 安世高譯經詞匯研究. MA thesis, Zhejiang University, 2013. |
|
|
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Xiong Juan argues that the Jing du sanmei jing 淨度三昧經 may have been produced in the early Northern and Southern dynasties, but also features some terms coined after the Sui and Tang dynasties. They refer to Xiong Juan 熊娟. Hanwen Fodian yiwei jing yanjiu 漢文佛典疑偽經研究. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 2015: 179–221. |
15 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Miyazaki Tensho argues that a number of terminological and phraseological differences can be observed between the Asheshi wang jing 阿闍世王經 T626 and the Daoxing banre jing 道行般若經 T224, which can be taken as the reference work for *Lokakṣema's style. The same phraseology is also largely evident in the Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來三昧經 T624. It is therefore highly likely that T624 and T626 are translated by the same team. They refer to Miyazaki Tenshō 宮崎展昌. “Ajaseō kyō (T626) no Kan'yakusha nitsuite”『阿闍世王経』(T626) の漢訳者について. IBK 14 (2007): 57–71. |
6 |
|
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Li Yan argues that the Za ahan jing 雜阿含經 T101 has some markers of An Shigao’s translations, and that its translator is most likely An Shigao. They refer to Li Yan 李妍. “Cong Fojiao shuyu kan yi wei jing bianbie” 從佛教術語看疑偽經辨別. Huibei shifan daxue xuebao (Shehui kexue ban) 淮北師範大學學報 (社會科學版) 4 (2012): 194–195; Li Yan 李妍. “Donghan yijing yuyan yanjiu gaishu ji yiyi—yi Donghan An Shigao yijing wei li” 東漢譯經語言研究概述及意義——以東漢安世高譯經為例. Qingnian wenxue jia 青年文學家 32 (2019): 168–169. |
11 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Gao and Meng argue that the usage of modal particles in T91 differs from that in the translations reliably attributed to An Shigao. They refer to Gao Lieguo 高列過 and Meng Yichen 孟奕辰. “Jiyu yuqi zhuci de keyi An Shigao yijing kaobian” 基於語氣助詞的可疑安世高譯經考辨. In Hanyu shi yanjiu jikan 漢語史研究集刊 25, edited by Lei Hanqing 雷漢卿, 50–67. Chengdu: Sichuan daxue chubanshe, 2018. |
|
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Gu Manlin argues that the presence of the interlinear notes of the form “A (B in Chinese)” A 漢言 B in the Xiuxing benqi jing 修行本起經 T184 do not suffice to prove that T184 is a translation of the Han Dynasty. They refer to Gu Manlin 顧滿林. “Donghan Fojing yuliao wenti juyu –– Cong Zhong benqi jing ‘Jinyan’ shuoqi ” 東漢佛經語料問題舉隅——從《中本起經》“晉言”說起. In Hanyu shi xuebao 漢語史學報, vol. 16, edited by Zhejiang daxue Hanyu shi yanjiu zhongxin 浙江大學漢語史研究中心, 240–250. Shanghai: Shanghai jiaoyu chubanshe, 2016. |
7 |
|
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Karashima points out that the term 觀世音first appeared in the translations of the Western Jin dynasty, and argues that the Wuliangshou jing 無量壽經 T360 could be translated in the first half of the fifth century. They refer to Karashima Seishi 辛島靜志. “Fahua jing de wenxianxue yanjiu –– Guanyin de yuyi jieshi” 《法華經》的文獻學研究——觀音的語義解釋. In Zhonghua wenshi luncong 中華文史論叢, edited by Zhonghua wenshi luncong bianji bu 中華文史論叢編輯部, 205, f.1. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 2009. |
10 |
|
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Cao and Yu argue that the Jiu za piyu jing 舊雜譬喻經 T206 was not translated by Kang Senghui. They refer to Cao Guangshun 曹廣順 and Yu Xiaorong 遇笑容. “Cong yuyan de jiaodu kan mouxie zaoqi yijing de fanyi niandai wenti––yi Jiu za piyu jing weili” 從語言的角度看某些早期譯經的翻譯年代問題——以《舊雜譬喻經》為例. In Hanyu shi yanjiu jikan 漢語史研究集刊 3, edited by Sichuan daxue Hanyu shi yanjiu suo 四川大學漢語史研究所, 1–9. Chengdu: Bashu shushe, 2000. |
10 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Li Yan has argued that some of the Buddhist terminology and general vocabulary in the Shijialuoyue liu fang li jing 尸迦羅越六方禮經 T16 is different from that found in the reliable translations of An Shigao. They refer to Li Yan 李妍. “Cong Fojiao shuyu kan yi wei jing bianbie" 從佛教術語看疑偽經辨別. Huibei shifan daxue xuebao (Shehui kexue ban) 淮北師範大學學報 (社會科學版) 4 (2012): 194–195. |
|
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Fang and Gao have argued that the Taizi Mupo jing 太子慕魄經 T167 was translated by Dharmarakṣa, instead of An Shigao, while the Taizi Mupo jing 太子墓魄經 T168, ascribed in the Taishō to Dharmarakṣa, could be an anonymous translation produced after the Southern Liang Dynasty. They refer to Fang Yixin 方一新 and Gao Lieguo 高列過. Donghan yi wei Fojing de yuyanxue kaobian yanjiu 東漢疑偽佛經的語言學考辨研究. Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 2012. pp.148–171. Fang Yixin 方一新 and Gao Lieguo 高列過. “Jiuti An Shigao yi Taizi Mupo jing fanyi niandai kaobian — jian lun ti Zhu Fahu yi Taizi Mupo jing de niandai wenti” 舊題安世高譯《太子慕魄經》翻譯年代考辨——兼論題竺法護譯《太子墓魄經》的年代問題. Wenshi 3 (2008): 77–99. |
|
|
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Xiong Juan argues that the Yulanpen jing 盂蘭盆經 T685 was probably produced in the first half of the fifth century, since some of the words in it only appeared texts after the Eastern Jin Dynasty and the Later Qin Dynasty. They refer to Xiong Juan 熊娟. Hanwen Fodian yiwei jing yanjiu 漢文佛典疑偽經研究. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 2015: 247–289. |
11 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Greene argues that the date of the Chuchu jing 處處經 T730 is no later than the early fourth century. They refer to Greene, E. M. “A Reassessment of the Early History of Chinese Buddhist Vegetarianism.” Asia Major 1 (2016): 1-43. |
5 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Gao and Meng argue that the usage of modal particles in the Taizi Mupo jing 太子慕魄經 T167 differs from that in the translations reliably attributed to An Shigao. They refer to Gao Lieguo 高列過 and Meng Yichen 孟奕辰. “Jiyu yuqi zhuci de keyi An Shigao yijing kaobian” 基於語氣助詞的可疑安世高譯經考辨. In Hanyu shi yanjiu jikan 漢語史研究集刊 25, edited by Lei Hanqing 雷漢卿, 50–67. Chengdu: Sichuan daxue chubanshe, 2018. |
4 |
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Li Yan argues that some terms in the Zhangzhe zi ao’nao sanchu jing 長者子懊惱三處經 T525, such as 死亡 ("death"), do not conform to An Shigao’s translation style. They refer to Li Yan 李妍. “Cong Fojiao shuyu kan yi wei jing bianbie” 從佛教術語看疑偽經辨別. Huibei shifan daxue xuebao (Shehui kexue ban) 淮北師範大學學報 (社會科學版) 4 (2012): 194–195. |
4 |
|
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Fang argues that the Zhangzhe zi zhi jing 長者子製經 T526 might have been translated during under Eastern or Western Jin, or the Southern and Northern Dynasties. They refer to Fang Yixin 方一新. “Cong Zhangzhe zi zhi jing yongci tedian kan qi yizhe niandai” 從《長者子制經》用詞特點看其譯者年代. In Yuyan zhilü — Zhu Jianing xiansheng qizhi shouqing lunwen ji 語言之旅——竺家寧先生七秩壽慶論文集, edited by Zhou Bixiang 周碧香, 10–46. Taibei: Wunan chuban gongsi, 2015. |
4 |
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Gao and Meng argue that the usage of modal particles in the Anan wenshi Fo jixiong jing 阿難問事佛吉凶經 T492a differs from that in the translations reliably attributed to An Shigao. They refer to Gao Lieguo 高列過 and Meng Yichen 孟奕辰. “Jiyu yuqi zhuci de keyi An Shigao yijing kaobian” 基於語氣助詞的可疑安世高譯經考辨. In Hanyu shi yanjiu jikan 漢語史研究集刊, vol. 25, edited by Lei Hanqing 雷漢卿, 50–67. Chengdu: Sichuan daxue chubanshe, 2018. |
4 |
|
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Gao and Meng argue that the usage of modal particles in the Zhangzhe zi zhi jing 長者子製經 T526 differs from that in the translations reliably attributed to An Shigao. They refer to Gao Lieguo 高列過 and Meng Yichen 孟奕辰. “Jiyu yuqi zhuci de keyi An Shigao yijing kaobian” 基於語氣助詞的可疑安世高譯經考辨. In Hanyu shi yanjiu jikan 漢語史研究集刊, vol. 25, edited by Lei Hanqing 雷漢卿, 50–67. Chengdu: Sichuan daxue chubanshe, 2018. |
4 |
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Fang argues that a transcription of the word nirvāṇa 般泥洹 in the Shifang pusa pin 十方菩薩品T397(17) is not found in translations reliably ascribed to An Shigao. They refer to Fang Yixin 方一新. “Fojiao ciyu de shijian niandai yu keyi Fojing de jianbie” 佛教詞語的始見年代與可疑佛經的鑒別. Hefei shifan xueyuan xuebao 合肥師範學院學報 4 (2016): 8–10. |
4 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Gao and Meng argue that the usage of modal particles in the Jiantuo wang jing 犍陀王經 T506 differs from that in the translations reliably attributed to An Shigao. They refer to Gao Lieguo 高列過 and Meng Yichen 孟奕辰. “Jiyu yuqi zhuci de keyi An Shigao yijing kaobian” 基於語氣助詞的可疑安世高譯經考辨. In Hanyu shi yanjiu jikan 漢語史研究集刊, vol. 25, edited by Lei Hanqing 雷漢卿, 50–67. Chengdu: Sichuan daxue chubanshe, 2018. |
4 |
|
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Lu Lu argues that the Da Anban shuoyi jing 大安般守意經 T602 was produced between the Three Kingdoms and Western Jin periods. They refer to Lu Lu 盧鷺. “Anban Shouyi jing chuanshi ben yu gu xiejing de guanxi bushuo” 《安般守意經》傳世本與古寫經的關系補說. In Zhongguo xungu xuebao 中國訓詁學報 vol.6, edited by Zhongguo xungu xue yanjiu hui 中國訓詁學研究會, 258–276. Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 2022. |
4 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Nattier argues that the vocabulary and style of the Apitan wu fa jing 阿毘曇五法經 T1557 are similar to that in An Shigao’s translations, but its attribution still requires further research. They refer to Nattier, Jan. A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations: Texts from the Eastern Han 東漢 and Three Kingdoms 三國 Periods. Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2008: 61. |
5 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Zacchetti argues that the language of the Apitanwu fa jing 阿毘曇五法經 T1557 does not exhibit any significant discrepancies from An Shigao’s work. They refer to Zacchetti, Stefano. “Defining An Shigao’s 安世高 translation corpus: the state of the art in relevant research.” In Xiyu lishi yuyan yanjiu jikan 西域歷史語言研究集刊, edited by Shen Weirong 沈衛榮, 249–270. Beijing: Kexue chubanshe, 2010. |
5 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that studies by Fang and by Fang and Gao argue that the Xingqi xing jing 興起行經 T197 was possibly produced as late as the Eastern Jin Dynasty. They refer to Fang Yixin 方一新. “Cong yiming yanbian kan yi yi Fojing de fanyi niandai” 從譯名演變看疑、佚佛經的翻譯年代. In Lishi yuyan xue yanjiu 歷史語言學研究, vol.1, edited by Zhongguo shehui kexue yuan yuyan yanjiusuo Lishi yuyanu xue yanjiu bianji bu 中國社會科學院語言研究所《歷史語言學研究》編輯部, 54–64. Beijing: Shangwu yinshu guan, 2008; Fang Yixin 方一新. “Xingqi xing jing fanyi niandai chutan”《興起行經〉翻譯年代初探. Zhongguo yuyan xuebao 中國語言學報 11 (2003): 276–284; Fang Yixin 方一新 and Gao Lieguo 高列過. Donghan yi wei Fojing de yuyan xue kaobian yanjiu 東漢疑偽佛經的語言學考辨研究. Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 2012: 230–285. |
7 |
|
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Wang Haolei argues that the Ayuwang zhuan 阿育王傳 T2042 should have been translated no earlier than the Eastern Jin dynasty, and in the north. They refer to Wang Haolei 王浩壘. “Tongben yiyi Ayuwang zhuan yu Ayuwang jing cihui bijiao yanjiu” 同本異譯《阿育王傳》與《阿育王經》詞匯比較研究. PhD diss., Zhejiang daxue 2012: 13–25. |
12 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Nattier argues that although the Daoxing banre jing 道行般若經 T224 is considered a representative translation by Lokakṣema, certain chapters within it may have been modified by others. They refer to Nattier Jan. A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations: Texts from the Eastern Han 東漢 and Three Kingdoms 三國 Periods. Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2008: 88 (f. 188). |
5 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Gao and Meng argue that the varying frequency of particles found in different chapters of the Daoxing banre jing 道行般若經 T224 may be attributed to various factors, such as different scribes, collaboration among multiple translators, or revisions etc. They refer to Gao Lieguo 高列過 and Meng Yichen 孟奕辰. “Jiyu yuqi zhuci de Daoxing banre jing wenben xingcheng de tanjiu” 基於語氣助詞的《道行般若經》文本形成探究. Gu Hanyu yanjiu 古漢語研究 2 (2022): 84–100. |
5 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Ji Qin argues that the translation of the Zhuan ji baiyuan jing 撰集百緣經 T200 postdates the Three Kingdoms period. They refer to Ji Qin 季琴. “Sanguo Zhi Qian yijing cihui yanjiu” 三國支謙譯經詞匯研究. PhD diss., Zhejiang daxue, 2004; Ji Qin 季琴. “Cong cihui de jiaodu kan Zhuan ji baiyuan jing de yizhe ji chengshu niandai” 從詞匯的角度看《撰集百緣經》的譯者及成書年代. Zongjiao xue yanjiu 宗教學研究 4 (2006): 64–67, 222; Ji Qin 季琴. “Cong ciyu de jiaodu kan Zhuan ji baiyuan jing de yizhe ji chengshu niandai” 從詞語的角度看《撰集百緣經》的譯者及成書年代. Zhongguo dianji yu wenhua 中國典籍與文化 1 (2008): 19–24; Ji Qin 季琴. “Cong yufa jiaodu kan Zhuan ji baiyuan jing de yizhe ji chengshu niandai” 從語法角度看《撰集百緣經》的譯者及成書年代. Yuyan yanjiu 語言研究 1 (2009): 105–109. |
8 |
|
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Xu and Huang argue that the Ayuwang zhuan 阿育王傳 T2042 and the Dao shenzu wuji bianhua jing 道神足無極變化經 T816 were translated by An Faqin, on the basis of comparison of the lexical and syntactic features of T2042 and T816. They refer to Xu Zhengkao 徐正考 and Huang Na 黃娜. “Yuyan tezheng de kaocha yu ‘wuti’ yijing yizhe de queding–yi Ayuwang jing he Ayuwang zhuan wei li” 語言特征的考察與“誤題”譯經譯者的確定——以《阿育王經》和《阿育王傳》為例. Jilin daxue (Shehui kexue xuebao) 吉林大學（社會科學學報） 1 (2013): 160–167. |
12 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Karashima argues that in the Achu Fo guo jing 阿閦佛國經 T313, the first-person pronoun 吾 is used multiple times, while in reliable translations of Lokakṣema, only 我 is used. They refer to Karashima Seishi 辛島靜志. “Zaoqi hanyi Fodian de yuyan yanjiu—yi Zhiloujiachen ji Zhi Qian de yijing duibi wei zhongxin” 早期漢譯佛典的語言研究——以支婁迦讖及支謙的譯經對比為中心. In Hanyu shi xuebao 漢語史學報, edited by Zhejiang daxue Hanyu shi yanjiu zhongxin 浙江大學漢語史研究中心, 225–237. Shanghai: Shanghai jiaoyu chubanshe, 2010. |
6 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Duan Gaiying argues that the translation of the Zhuan ji baiyuan jing 撰集百緣經 T200 is not later than the 6th century. They refer to Duan Gaiying 段改英. “Dui ‘po …… fou’ yiwenju de lishi kaocha––jian lun Zhuan ji baiyuan jing de fanyi niandai” 對“頗 ...... 不”疑問句的歷史考察——兼論《撰集百緣經》的翻譯年代. Xinan keji daxue xuebao (zhexue shehui kexue ban) 西南科技大學學報（哲學社會科學版） 4 (2011): 63–65. |
8 |
|
In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Wang Haolei argues that the ascription of the Dao shenzu wuji bianhua jing 道神足無極變化經 T816 to An Faqin is unreliable. Wang also argues, on the basis of phraseology, that the translation of the Ayuwang zhuan 阿育王傳 T2042 postdates the Eastern Jin. They refer to Wang Haolei 王浩壘. “Yiming de guilü xing yu wuti jing yizhe de panding–‘Ayuwang zhuan wei Xi Jin An Faqin yi’ xianyi” 譯名的規律性與誤題經譯者的判定——“《阿育王傳》為西晉安法欽譯”獻疑. In Hanyu shi xuebao 漢語史學報, vol. 20, edited by Zhejiang daxue Hanyu shi yanjiu zhongxin 浙江大學漢語史研究中心, 64–74. Shanghai: Shanghai jiaoyu, 2018. |
12 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Fang and Gao argue that the translation of the Za piyu jing 雜譬喻經 T204 postdates the Eastern Jin Dynasty. They refer to Fang Yixin 方一新 and Gao Lieguo 高列過. Donghan yi wei Fojing de yuyanxue kaobian yanjiu 東漢疑偽佛經的語言學考辨研究. Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 2012: 200–229; Fang Yixin 方一新 and Gao Lieguo 高列過. “Cong ciyu tihuan kan yijuan ben Za piyu jing de fanyi niandai” 從詞語替換看一卷本〈雜譬喻經〉的翻譯年代. In Yuyan xue luncong 語言學論叢 vol 41, edited by Bejing daxue hanyu yuyan xue yanjiu zhongxi Yuyan xue luncong bianweihui 北京大學漢語語言學研究中心《語言學論叢》編委會, 186–200. Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan. |
5 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Li Zhouyuan argues that in comparison to the Amituo jing 阿彌陀經 (Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra) T362, the Wuliang qingjing pingdengjue jing 無量清淨平等覺經 (Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra) T361 is closer to Zhi Qian’s usual translation style, but the two versions do not differ greatly from one another. They refer to Li Zhouyuan 李周淵. “Sanguo Zhi Qian yijing yanjiu” 三國支謙譯經研究. PhD diss., Fagu wenli xueyuan 法鼓文理學院 (2020): 79–82. |
6 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Zhang Yuwei argues that the differences in vocabulary between the Wuliang qingjing pingdengjue jing 無量清淨平等覺經 (Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra) T361 and the Amituo jing 阿彌陀經 (Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra) T362 can be traced back to the translations from the Western Jin Dynasty, especially those done by Dharmarakṣa. They refer to Zhang Yuwei 張雨薇. “Wuliangshou jing tongjing yiyi yuyan yu wenxian yanjiu” 《無量壽經》同經異譯語言與文獻研究. PhD diss., Zhejiang daxue (2019). |
6 |
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Hu Chirui argues that the use of newer vocabulary in the Da fangbian Fo bao’en jing 大方便佛報恩經 T156 differs from the usage typical of Eastern Han translations. They refer to Hu Chirui 胡敕瑞. “Zhonggu hanyu yuliao jianbie shuyao” 中古漢語語料鑒別述要. In Hanyu shi xuebao 漢語史學報 vol. 5, edited by Zhejiang daxue Hanyu shi yanjiu zhongxin 浙江大學漢語史研究中心, 270–279. Shanghai: Shanghai jiaoyu chubanshe, 2015. |
7 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Shi Guanghui argues that the vocabulary and grammar of the Da fangbian Fo bao’en jing 大方便佛報恩經 T156 are similar to those of the Western Jin translations. They refer to Shi Guanghui 史光輝. “Cong yuyan jiaodu kan Da fangbian Fo bao’en jing de fanyi niandai” 從語言角度看《大方便佛報恩經》的翻譯時代. Gu Hanyu yanjiu 古漢語研究 3 (2009): 44–50. |
7 |
|
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Xiong Juan argues that there are three kinds of witnesses to the An zhai shenzhou jing 安宅神呪經 T1394: printed texts, Dunhuang manuscripts and the Kongōji text, and all three are quite different from one another. According to Xiong, the Kongōji text may represent an earlier form, with some of its wording found only in translations after the Western and Eastern Jin dynasties. They refer to Xiong Juan 熊娟. Hanwen Fodian yiwei jing yanjiu 漢文佛典疑偽經研究. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe, 2015: 222–246. |
7 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Wang Yili argues that the translation of the Pusa benyuan jing 菩薩本緣經 T153 postdates the Three Kingdoms period, and even possibly the Eastern Jin dynasty. They refer to Wang Yili 王毅力. “Cong ciyu jiaodu kan Pusa benyuan jing zhi yizhe yinian” 從詞語角度看《菩薩本緣經》之譯者譯年. Wuyi daxue xuebao (shehui kexue ban) 五邑大學學報（社會科學版） 2 (2011): 89–92. |
8 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Chen Xiangming argues that the translation of the Fenbie gongde lun 分別功德論 T1507 does not predate the period of the Eastern Jin Dynasty and the Sixteen kingdoms. They refer to Chen Xiangming 陳祥明. “Hanwen Fodian shiyi jing yuyan shidai kaobian––yi Fenbie gongde lun weili jianji qi yizuozhe” 漢文佛典失譯經語言時代考辨——以《分別功德論》為例兼及其譯作者. Taishan xueyuan xuebao 泰山學院學報 4 (2017): 78–91. |
7 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Chen Xiangming argues that the translation of the Pusa benyuan jing 菩薩本緣經 T153 does not predate the Western Jin dynasty, even could postdate the Eastern Jin dynasty. They refer to Chen Xiangming 陳祥明. “Cong yuyan jiaodu kan Pusa benyuan jing de yizhe ji fanyi niandai” 從語言角度看《菩薩本緣經》的譯者及翻譯年代. Changjiang xueshu 長江學術 2 (2010): 152–160. |
8 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Huo Juan argues that the translation of the Zhuan ji baiyuan jing 撰集百緣經 T200 postdates the Three Kingdoms period. They refer to Huo Juan 豁娟. “Cong rencheng daici kan Zhuan ji baiyuan jing de yizhe he fanyi niandai” 從人稱代詞看《撰集百緣經》的譯者和翻譯時代. Ningbo guangbo dianshi daxue xuebao 寧波廣播電視大學學報 4 (2019): 38–43. |
8 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Zhang and Fang argue that the translation of the Zhuan ji baiyuan jing 撰集百緣經 T200 postdates the Three Kingdoms period. They refer to Zhang Yuwei 張雨薇 and Fang Yixin 方一新. “Zhuan ji baiyuan jing fei Sanguo Wu Zhi Qian yi de yuyan xue zhengju” 《撰集百緣經》非三國吳支謙譯的語言學證據. Henan shifan daxue xuebao (zhexue shehui kexue ban) 河南師範大學學報（哲學社會科學版）2 (2019): 99–104. |
8 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Zhen Dacheng argues that the Zhuan ji baiyuan jing 撰集百緣經 T200 was translated in the North in the 6th century. They refer to Zhen Dacheng 真大成. “‘Nu’ zuo zicheng chengwei ci xiaokao––jian tan Zhuan ji baiyuan jing de yicheng shi di” “奴”作自稱稱謂詞小考——兼談《撰集百緣經》的譯成時地. Hanzi Hanyu yanjiu 漢字漢語研究 4 (2020): 76–83. |
8 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Chen Xiangming argues that the translation of the Zhuan ji baiyuan jing 撰集百緣經 T200 postdates the Western Jin dynasty. They refer to Chen Xiangming 陳祥明. “Cong yuyan jiaodu kan Zhuan ji baiyuan jing de yizhe ji fanyi niandai” 從語言角度看《撰集百緣經》的譯者及翻譯年代. Yuyan yanjiu 語言研究 1 (2009): 95–104. |
8 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that various studies by Fang and by Fang and Gao in collaboration argue that the translation of the Da fangbian Fo bao’en jing 大方便佛報恩經 T156 postdates the Eastern Jin dynasty. They refer to Fang Yixin 方一新. “Cong yiming yanbian kan yi yi Fojing de fanyi niandai” 從譯名演變看疑、佚佛經的翻譯年代. In Lishi yuyanxue yanjiu 歷史語言學研究, vol.1, edited by Zhongguo shehui kexueyuan yuyan yanjiusuo Lishi yuyaunxue yanjiu bianji bu 中國社會科學院語言研究所《歷史語言學研究》編輯部, 54–64. Beijing: Shangwu yinshu guan, 2008; Fang Yixin 方一新. “Fanyi Fojing yuliao niandai de yuyanxue kaocha––yi Da fangbian Fo bao’en jing wei li” 翻譯佛經語料年代的語言學考察——以《大方便佛報恩經》為例. Gu Hanyu yanjiu 古漢語研究 3 (2003): 77–83; Fang Yixin 方一新 and Gao Lieguo 高列過. Dong Han yi wei Fojing de yuyanxue kaobian yanjiu 東漢疑偽佛經的語言學考辨研究. Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 2012: 289–336; Fang Yixin 方一新 and Gao Lieguo 高列過. “Cong yiwenju kan Da fangbian Fo bao’en jing de fanyi niandai” 從疑問句看《大方便佛報恩經》的翻譯年代. Yuyan yanjiu 語言研究 3 (2005): 54–57; Fang Yixin 方一新 and Gao Lieguo 高列過. “Cong Fojiao ciyu kaobian Da fangbian Fo bao’en jing de shidai” 從佛教詞語考辨《大方便佛報恩經》的時代. Zhejiang daxue xuebao (Renwen shehui kexue ban) 浙江大學學報 (人文社會科學版) 3 (2012): 139–147. |
7 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Li Zhouyuan argues that the Xiuxing benqi jing 修行本起經 T184 follows the Faju jing 法句經 T210. They refer to Li Zhouyuan 李周淵. “Sanguo Zhi Qian yijing yanjiu” 三國支謙譯經研究. PhD diss., Fagu wenli xueyuan 法鼓文理學院 (2020): 216–220. |
7 |
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Wang Weihui argues that the Banzhou sanmei jing 般舟三昧經 T417 (Pratyupannabuddhasaṃmukhāvasthitasamādhi-sūtra) was not translated by Lokakṣema, based on a linguistic examination. Fang and Gao provide additional evidence to support Wang’s argument. They refer to Wang Weihui 汪維輝. “Cong yuyan jiaodu lun yijuanben Banzhou sanmei jing fei Zhi Chen suo yi” 從語言角度論一卷本《般舟三昧經》非支讖所譯. In Yuyan xue luncong 語言學論叢, vol. 35, edited by Beijing daxue Hanyu yuyanxue yanjiu zhongxin 北京大學漢語語言學研究中心, 303–319. Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan, 2007; Fang Yixin 方一新 and Gao Lieguo 高列過. Donghan yi wei Fojing de yuyan xue kaobian yanjiu 東漢疑偽佛經的語言學考辨研究. Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 2012: 172–199. |
6 |
|
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Fang and Gao argue that the Baoji sanmei Wenshushili pusa wen fasheng jing 寶積三昧文殊師利菩薩問法身經 T356 was not translated during the Eastern Han period, on the basis of a close examination of the text. They refer to Fang Yixin 方一新 and Gao Lieguo 高列過. Donghan yi wei Fojing de yuyanxue kaobian yanjiu 東漢疑偽佛經的語言學考辨研究. Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 2012. pp. 87–100. Fang Yixin 方一新 and Gao Lieguo 高列過. “Ti An Shigao yi Foshuo baoji sanmei wenshushili pusa wen fasheng jing kaobian” 題安世高譯《佛說寶積三昧文殊師利菩薩問法身經》考辨. In Hanyu shi yanjiu jikan 漢語史研究集刊, vol. 10, edited by Sichuan daxue Hanyu shi yanjiusuo 四川大學漢語史研究所 etc., 543–563. Chengdu: Bashu shushe, 2007; Fang Yixin 方一新. “Fojiao ciyu de shijian niandai yu keyi Fojing de jianbie” 佛教詞語的始見年代與可疑佛經的鑒別. Hefei shifan xueyuan xuebao 合肥師範學院學報 4 (2016): 8–10. |
4 |