Source: Shi Guanghui 2005

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.

Assertions

Search:

Assertion	Argument	Place in source	Search
Texts: T0624; Dun zhentuoluo jing 伅眞陀羅經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來經; 佛說伅真陀羅所問如來三昧經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來三昧經 People: Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 (translator 譯)	The Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來三昧經 T624 is ascribed to Lokakṣema in the Taishō canon, but this ascription has long been scrutinized by modern scholars. Shi Guanghui argues that from a linguistic perspective, T624 shows significant differences to texts such as the Daoxing banre jing 道行般若經 T224 and other translations that are reliably attributed to Lokakṣema. Therefore, he contends, T624 was not translated by Lokakṣema. Shi conducts a comparative analysis of certain phrases and grammatical elements in T624 against those found in scriptures that taken as Lokakṣema’s translations, esp. T224 and the Banzhou sanmei jing 般舟三昧經 T418. Shi’s analysis encompasses two types of phraseology, which include: a) From Sanskrit (sic): 怛薩/怛薩阿竭，優鉢華/優曇鉢華, 羅漢/阿羅漢, 分衛/分越 b) Synonyms: 曹/等, 求/索, 至到/往到/往至/行至 Shi also treats grammatical elements: 何/何等, 云何/何以故. Edit		The Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來三昧經 T624 is ascribed to Lokaksema in the Taisho canon, but this ascription has long been scrutinized by modern scholars. Shi Guanghui argues that from a linguistic perspective, T624 shows significant differences to texts such as the Daoxing banre jing 道行般若經 T224 and other translations that are reliably attributed to Lokaksema. Therefore, he contends, T624 was not translated by Lokaksema. Shi conducts a comparative analysis of certain phrases and grammatical elements in T624 against those found in scriptures that taken as Lokaksema’s translations, esp. T224 and the Banzhou sanmei jing 般舟三昧經 T418. Shi’s analysis encompasses two types of phraseology, which include: a) From Sanskrit (sic): 怛薩/怛薩阿竭, 優鉢華/優曇鉢華, 羅漢/阿羅漢, 分衛/分越 b) Synonyms: 曹/等, 求/索, 至到/往到/往至/行至 Shi also treats grammatical elements: 何/何等, 云何/何以故. Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 T0624; Dun zhentuoluo jing 伅眞陀羅經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來經; 佛說伅真陀羅所問如來三昧經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來三昧經

Assertion

Argument

Place in source

Texts: T0624; Dun zhentuoluo jing 伅眞陀羅經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來經; 佛說伅真陀羅所問如來三昧經; Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來三昧經
People: Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 (translator 譯)

The Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來三昧經 T624 is ascribed to Lokakṣema in the Taishō canon, but this ascription has long been scrutinized by modern scholars. Shi Guanghui argues that from a linguistic perspective, T624 shows significant differences to texts such as the Daoxing banre jing 道行般若經 T224 and other translations that are reliably attributed to Lokakṣema. Therefore, he contends, T624 was not translated by Lokakṣema. Shi conducts a comparative analysis of certain phrases and grammatical elements in T624 against those found in scriptures that taken as Lokakṣema’s translations, esp. T224 and the Banzhou sanmei jing 般舟三昧經 T418. Shi’s analysis encompasses two types of phraseology, which include:

a) From Sanskrit (sic):
怛薩/怛薩阿竭，優鉢華/優曇鉢華, 羅漢/阿羅漢, 分衛/分越

b) Synonyms:
曹/等, 求/索, 至到/往到/往至/行至

Shi also treats grammatical elements: 何/何等, 云何/何以故.

Edit

Showing 1 to 1 of 1 entries