|
|
Like most scholars, Kagawa rejects the received ascription of the Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra T360 to Kang Sengkai. Against a common view, Kagawa also argues that T360 cannot have been translated by Dharmarakṣa. He favours the theory that ascribes the text to Buddhabhadra and Baoyun.
Kagawa argues, first, on the basis of an examination of records in the catalogues. He also argues on the basis of translation terminology, taking as his starting point Sengyou's list of "old" and "new" translations terms representing the same notions at T2145 (LV) 5a13-b9. In addition, Kagawa adduces a list of further terms, for which he finds a clear contrast between wording found in T360, and Dharmarakṣa's customary translation(s) for the same thing [I here list Kagawa's T360 terms and Dhr equivalents in that order]:
王舍城耆闍崛山 vs. 王舍城靈鷲山;
[*世尊]
[*菩薩]
[*緣覺]
[菩提! vs. 覺意]
[阿那含! vs. 不還]
[摩訶迦葉! vs. 大迦葉]
[那提迦葉! vs. 江迦葉]
伽耶迦葉 vs. 象迦葉;
優樓頻蠡迦葉 vs. 上時迦葉;
劫賓那 vs. 劫賓[少/兔];
[善思議菩薩! vs. 善思菩薩]
[解脫菩薩! vs. 解縛菩薩]
觀世音(菩薩) vs. 光世音菩薩;
[尊者! vs. 賢者]
[了本際! vs. 知本際]
六種震動 vs. 六反震動;
優曇羅華 [sic, presumably for 優鉢羅華, MR] vs. 清蓮;
鉢曇摩華 vs. 紅蓮;
拘物頭華 vs. 黃蓮;
[分陀利華! vs. 白蓮]
[兜率天! vs. 兜術天]
[歡喜踊躍善心生焉! vs. 欣然踊躍善心生焉]
如來應供等正覺明行足善逝世間解無上士調御丈夫天人師佛世尊 vs. 如來至真等正覺明行成為善逝世間解無上士道法御天人師為佛眾祐;
無生法忍 vs. 不起法忍;
那由他 vs. 那術.
[In the above list, items enclosed in square brackets and marked with an asterisk, on Kagawa's own showing, also occur in Dharmaraksa, and therefore cannot be taken as evidence of a contrast between T360 and Dharmaraksa. For other items enclosed in square brackets, where the T360 term is marked with an exclamation mark, Kagawa's "T360" term in fact also occurs in Dharmarakṣa, and therefore also cannot be used as evidence of a contrast between T360 and Dharmarakṣa. --- MR]
Kagawa also discusses Nogami's study of manuscript evidence dated to 415 CE, and Fujita's arguments attempting to refute the early date of that manuscript. Finally, he also refers back to studies of translation style by Kitagawa Kenjō 北川賢浄 and Mochizuki Shinkō 望月信亨 for additional evidence that supports an ascription to Buddhabhadra and Baoyun.
Edit
|
24-30 |
Like most scholars, Kagawa rejects the received ascription of the Sukhavativyuha-sutra T360 to Kang Sengkai. Against a common view, Kagawa also argues that T360 cannot have been translated by Dharmaraksa. He favours the theory that ascribes the text to Buddhabhadra and Baoyun.
Kagawa argues, first, on the basis of an examination of records in the catalogues. He also argues on the basis of translation terminology, taking as his starting point Sengyou's list of "old" and "new" translations terms representing the same notions at T2145 (LV) 5a13-b9. In addition, Kagawa adduces a list of further terms, for which he finds a clear contrast between wording found in T360, and Dharmaraksa's customary translation(s) for the same thing [I here list Kagawa's T360 terms and Dhr equivalents in that order]:
王舍城耆闍崛山 vs. 王舍城靈鷲山;
[*世尊]
[*菩薩]
[*緣覺]
[菩提! vs. 覺意]
[阿那含! vs. 不還]
[摩訶迦葉! vs. 大迦葉]
[那提迦葉! vs. 江迦葉]
伽耶迦葉 vs. 象迦葉;
優樓頻蠡迦葉 vs. 上時迦葉;
劫賓那 vs. 劫賓[少/兔];
[善思議菩薩! vs. 善思菩薩]
[解脫菩薩! vs. 解縛菩薩]
觀世音(菩薩) vs. 光世音菩薩;
[尊者! vs. 賢者]
[了本際! vs. 知本際]
六種震動 vs. 六反震動;
優曇羅華 [sic, presumably for 優鉢羅華, MR] vs. 清蓮;
鉢曇摩華 vs. 紅蓮;
拘物頭華 vs. 黃蓮;
[分陀利華! vs. 白蓮]
[兜率天! vs. 兜術天]
[歡喜踊躍善心生焉! vs. 欣然踊躍善心生焉]
如來應供等正覺明行足善逝世間解無上士調御丈夫天人師佛世尊 vs. 如來至真等正覺明行成為善逝世間解無上士道法御天人師為佛眾祐;
無生法忍 vs. 不起法忍;
那由他 vs. 那術.
[In the above list, items enclosed in square brackets and marked with an asterisk, on Kagawa's own showing, also occur in Dharmaraksa, and therefore cannot be taken as evidence of a contrast between T360 and Dharmaraksa. For other items enclosed in square brackets, where the T360 term is marked with an exclamation mark, Kagawa's "T360" term in fact also occurs in Dharmaraksa, and therefore also cannot be used as evidence of a contrast between T360 and Dharmaraksa. --- MR]
Kagawa also discusses Nogami's study of manuscript evidence dated to 415 CE, and Fujita's arguments attempting to refute the early date of that manuscript. Finally, he also refers back to studies of translation style by Kitagawa Kenjo 北川賢浄 and Mochizuki Shinko 望月信亨 for additional evidence that supports an ascription to Buddhabhadra and Baoyun. T0360; 佛說無量壽經; Sukhavativyuha-sutra |