Miyazaki Tenshō 宮崎展昌. “Tonshindara shomon nyōrai sammai kyō no kan’yaku ni tsuite 『伅真陀羅所問如來三昧經』の漢訳について.” Bukkyō bunka kenkyū ronshū 仏教文化研究論集 11 (2007): 18-39.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
Miyazaki studies a triad of texts ascribed to Lokakṣema: T224, T624, and T626. On the basis mainly of internal evidence, he argues that T624 and T626 were produced by the same persons or persons very closely related, or under very similar circumstances. Pointing to significant overlap in the use of rare translation terminology with T224, he argues further that the persons who produced T624 and T626 were close to the Lokakṣema group. However, he also cautions that the overall situation is complex, and that dynamics like the unfolding development over time of translation activity within the Lokakṣema group, the changing composition of the group (participation of different collaborators), and alteration in the course of transmission may also be responsible for parts of T624 and T626 as we have received them today. Miyazaki reviews the external evidence of the catalogues, and its treatment in modern scholarship (19-22). Following Zürcher, he points out that there is some room for doubt in accounts of the text in CSZJJ. In the part of his study treating translation terminology, Miyazaki strives to follow Harrison's method, using T224 as the benchmark for the Lokakṣema style, and uses in evidence a total of 36 words and phrases, all relating to the technical Buddhist content of the texts: renderings of items such as anuttarā saṃyaksaṃbodhi, anutpattikadharmakṣānti, avaivartikā, asura, kalyāṇamitra, etc. He sorts this body of evidence into groups shared by all three texts (T224, T624, T626), or by a pair of texts, or appearing in T624 alone. He finds that a considerable body of terminology is shared with T224 by T624 and T626, but another, smaller group of items is shared by T624 and T626 alone. He finds further that T626 shares more with T224 than T624 does, and on this basis, suggests that perhaps T624 was translated later than T626 (allowing time for greater development away from the translation style represented by T224). However, he also acknowledges that hypotheses appealing to the internal chronology of the Lokakṣema corpus to explain such differences flies in the face of the chronology suggested by external evidence. In addition to translation terminology, Miyazaki points out that T624 and T626 differ from T224 in two formal features: (1) the use of interlinear glosses to explain transcriptions; (2) the use of an opening formula ("Thus have I heard..."). He also suggests that there is, relatively speaking, a greater tendency to unwieldy transcriptions in T224, and to translation terms for the same meanings in T624 and T626. |
Miyazaki studies a triad of texts ascribed to Lokaksema: T224, T624, and T626. On the basis mainly of internal evidence, he argues that T624 and T626 were produced by the same persons or persons very closely related, or under very similar circumstances. Pointing to significant overlap in the use of rare translation terminology with T224, he argues further that the persons who produced T624 and T626 were close to the Lokaksema group. However, he also cautions that the overall situation is complex, and that dynamics like the unfolding development over time of translation activity within the Lokaksema group, the changing composition of the group (participation of different collaborators), and alteration in the course of transmission may also be responsible for parts of T624 and T626 as we have received them today. Miyazaki reviews the external evidence of the catalogues, and its treatment in modern scholarship (19-22). Following Zurcher, he points out that there is some room for doubt in accounts of the text in CSZJJ. In the part of his study treating translation terminology, Miyazaki strives to follow Harrison's method, using T224 as the benchmark for the Lokaksema style, and uses in evidence a total of 36 words and phrases, all relating to the technical Buddhist content of the texts: renderings of items such as anuttara samyaksambodhi, anutpattikadharmaksanti, avaivartika, asura, kalyanamitra, etc. He sorts this body of evidence into groups shared by all three texts (T224, T624, T626), or by a pair of texts, or appearing in T624 alone. He finds that a considerable body of terminology is shared with T224 by T624 and T626, but another, smaller group of items is shared by T624 and T626 alone. He finds further that T626 shares more with T224 than T624 does, and on this basis, suggests that perhaps T624 was translated later than T626 (allowing time for greater development away from the translation style represented by T224). However, he also acknowledges that hypotheses appealing to the internal chronology of the Lokaksema corpus to explain such differences flies in the face of the chronology suggested by external evidence. In addition to translation terminology, Miyazaki points out that T624 and T626 differ from T224 in two formal features: (1) the use of interlinear glosses to explain transcriptions; (2) the use of an opening formula ("Thus have I heard..."). He also suggests that there is, relatively speaking, a greater tendency to unwieldy transcriptions in T224, and to translation terms for the same meanings in T624 and T626. *Lokaksema, 支婁迦讖 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 T0626; 佛說阿闍世王經 |