Text: T0160; 菩薩本生鬘論

Summary

Identifier	T0160 [T]
Title	菩薩本生鬘論 [T]
Date	[None]
Translator 譯	Huixun, 慧詢; Shaode, 紹德 [T]

There may be translations for this text listed in the Bibliography of Translations from the Chinese Buddhist Canon into Western Languages. If translations are listed, this link will take you directly to them. However, if no translations are listed, the link will lead only to the head of the page.

There are resources for the study of this text in the SAT Daizōkyō Text Dabatase (Saṃgaṇikīkṛtaṃ Taiśotripiṭakaṃ).

Assertions

Preferred?	Source	Pertains to	Argument	Details
No	[T] T = CBETA [Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association]. Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經. Edited by Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 and Watanabe Kaigyoku 渡邊海旭. Tokyo: Taishō shinshū daizōkyō kankōkai/Daizō shuppan, 1924-1932. CBReader v 5.0, 2014.	T0160; 菩薩本生鬘論	Entry author: Michael Radich Edit	Title: 菩薩本生鬘論 People: Huixun, 慧詢 (translator 譯); Shaode, 紹德 (translator 譯) Identifier: T0160
Yes	[Brough 1964-1965] Brough, John. "The Chinese Pseudo-Translation of Ārya-Śūra’s Jātaka-mālā.” Asia Major 2 (1964-1965): 27-53.	T0160; 菩薩本生鬘論	Brough studies a "unique class of Chinese apocrypha". As summarised in Buswell (1989): "In this case, the difficulty the Chinese translators had in construing the complex poetic style of the Sanskrit original led them to produce an apocryphal text while having the Sanskrit manuscript right in front of them. This was not simply a matter of a few mistranslations or interpolations. In their despair at rendering the text, the few Sanskrit phrases the Chinese were able to construe served as clues for lifting entire stories verbatim from other texts that contained the same key words: for example, finding the term "tigress" (vyāghrī) in their manuscript, they simply wrote out the Vyāghrī-parivarta, the last chapter of the Suvarṇaprabhāsottama-sūtra (Simile of Golden Light Sutra; T 665). Apart from the titles of a few stories, there is virtually nothing in their Chinese rendering that compares with the original Sanskrit. Compounding their problems, the translators were working without dictionary or grammar and did not have the luxury of an Indian pundit to assist them in construing the text. There is also evidence that they were working under a deadline and were not given time to revise their hurried copy. Even with these caveats, this text must stand as one of the most bizarre products of Chinese translation efforts, and we can only sympathize with the horrific plight of these 'translators'." Entry author: Michael Radich Edit

Preferred?

Source

Pertains to

Argument

Details

[T] T = CBETA [Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association]. Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經. Edited by Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 and Watanabe Kaigyoku 渡邊海旭. Tokyo: Taishō shinshū daizōkyō kankōkai/Daizō shuppan, 1924-1932. CBReader v 5.0, 2014.

T0160; 菩薩本生鬘論

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

Title: 菩薩本生鬘論
People: Huixun, 慧詢 (translator 譯); Shaode, 紹德 (translator 譯)
Identifier: T0160

Yes

[Brough 1964-1965] Brough, John. "The Chinese Pseudo-Translation of Ārya-Śūra’s Jātaka-mālā.” Asia Major 2 (1964-1965): 27-53.

T0160; 菩薩本生鬘論

Brough studies a "unique class of Chinese apocrypha". As summarised in Buswell (1989): "In this case, the difficulty the Chinese translators had in construing the complex poetic style of the Sanskrit original led them to produce an apocryphal text while having the Sanskrit manuscript right in front of them. This was not simply a matter of a few mistranslations or interpolations. In their despair at rendering the text, the few Sanskrit phrases the Chinese were able to construe served as clues for lifting entire stories verbatim from other texts that contained the same key words: for example, finding the term "tigress" (vyāghrī) in their manuscript, they simply wrote out the Vyāghrī-parivarta, the last chapter of the Suvarṇaprabhāsottama-sūtra (Simile of Golden Light Sutra; T 665). Apart from the titles of a few stories, there is virtually nothing in their Chinese rendering that compares with the original Sanskrit. Compounding their problems, the translators were working without dictionary or grammar and did not have the luxury of an Indian pundit to assist them in construing the text. There is also evidence that they were working under a deadline and were not given time to revise their hurried copy. Even with these caveats, this text must stand as one of the most bizarre products of Chinese translation efforts, and we can only sympathize with the horrific plight of these 'translators'."

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit