Yan Qiamao 顏洽茂 and Xiong Juan熊娟. "Pusa benyuan jing zhuanjizhe he yizhe zhi kaobian"《菩薩本緣經》撰集者和譯者之考辨. Zhejiang Daxue xuebao 浙江大学学报 5 (2010): 55-63.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
|
In the Taishō, the Pusa benyuan jing 菩薩本緣經 T153 is ascribed to Zhi Qian 支謙. Yan and Xiong argue that this ascription is false, but they do not claim to be able to advance an alternate ascription, arguing rather that it should be treated as anonymous. They argue for a date later than the Three Kingdoms (220-280) or even W. Jin (266-316). Yan and Xiong base their argument on both the external evidence of catalogues, and internal, linguistic and stylistic evidence. In the catalogues, CSZJJ does not mention T153; it first appears in catalogues under the Sui. The principle items of terminology that they use to question the ascription to Zhi Qian are as follows: 地了 ("early morning"); 某甲; 涅槃; 摩睺羅伽 (*mahoraga); 阿修羅 (asura); 頗梨 (*phāṭika). The authors also cite grammatical usage inconsistent with Zhi Qian: 將非; interrogative particles 耶 and 乎; passives constructed with 為…所. They also argue that genre conventions found in T153 are atypical for Zhi Qian, specifically, a chapter structure beginning with gāthā and followed by prose. The opening of sūtras (nidāna) is also atypical for ZQ: 如我曾聞 or 我昔曾聞. On the history of various passive constructions, they cite: Tang Yuming 唐鈺明, “Han Wei liuchao beidongshi lüe" 漢魏六朝被動式略論枠. Chinese Language 3 (1987): 217-222. Yan and Xiong also advance arguments against the ascription of the Indic Vorlage for this text to *Saṅghasena 僧伽斯那. |
In the Taisho, the Pusa benyuan jing 菩薩本緣經 T153 is ascribed to Zhi Qian 支謙. Yan and Xiong argue that this ascription is false, but they do not claim to be able to advance an alternate ascription, arguing rather that it should be treated as anonymous. They argue for a date later than the Three Kingdoms (220-280) or even W. Jin (266-316). Yan and Xiong base their argument on both the external evidence of catalogues, and internal, linguistic and stylistic evidence. In the catalogues, CSZJJ does not mention T153; it first appears in catalogues under the Sui. The principle items of terminology that they use to question the ascription to Zhi Qian are as follows: 地了 ("early morning"); 某甲; 涅槃; 摩睺羅伽 (*mahoraga); 阿修羅 (asura); 頗梨 (*phatika). The authors also cite grammatical usage inconsistent with Zhi Qian: 將非; interrogative particles 耶 and 乎; passives constructed with 為...所. They also argue that genre conventions found in T153 are atypical for Zhi Qian, specifically, a chapter structure beginning with gatha and followed by prose. The opening of sutras (nidana) is also atypical for ZQ: 如我曾聞 or 我昔曾聞. On the history of various passive constructions, they cite: Tang Yuming 唐鈺明, “Han Wei liuchao beidongshi lue" 漢魏六朝被動式略論枠. Chinese Language 3 (1987): 217-222. Yan and Xiong also advance arguments against the ascription of the Indic Vorlage for this text to *Sanghasena 僧伽斯那. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0153; 菩薩本緣經 |