| Identifier | T0309 [T] |
| Title | 最勝問菩薩十住除垢斷結經 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Translator 譯 | Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 [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).
| 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. |
Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
Yes |
[Nattier 2010] Nattier, Jan. "Re-evaluating Zhu Fonian's Shizhu duanjie jing (T309): Translation or Forgery?" Annual Report of The International Research Insitute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University 13 (2010): 256. |
Nattier shows that Zhu Fonian 竺佛念 composed 最勝問菩薩十住除垢斷結經 T309 on the basis of Chinese materials, rather than translating it from an Indic source. This makes the text a relatively unusual case of an "apocryphon" for which we can identify the author by name, and an "apocryphon" composed by an author who is also known to have engaged in genuine translation work. From a small sample of this large text, Nattier identifies three passages featuring extensive verbatim borrowing or paraphrases from already existing texts. Nattier terms Fonian’s method here as “creative appropriation”, meaning that rather than "plagiarising" outright, Fonian has arranged passages borrowed from a variety of earlier Chinese texts into an original composition. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Palumbo 2013] Palumbo, Antonello. An Early Chinese Commentary on the Ekottarika-āgama: The Fenbie gongde lun 分別功德論 and the History of the Translation of the Zengyi ahan jing 增一阿含經. Dharma Drum Buddhist College Research Series 7. Taipei: Dharma Drum Publishing Co., 2013. — 90-92 |
Palumbo critiques the arguments of Nattier (2010) that the Shi zhu duan jie jing 十住斷結經 T309 is a "forgery" by Zhu Fonian. Palumbo suggests that the main biographical notice upon which Nattier relies may be unreliable, arguing from comparison to other sources that it is "both incomplete and inaccurate". Palumbo suggests that the translation lexicon of T309 suggests a translation date before the period of Kumārajīva. Palumbo states that he bases this judgement on "cursory examination" of T309: the main terms he adduces are 聞如是, 泥洹, 阿須倫 for asura, and "the old translations for the 37 bodhipākṣika-dharmas". Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Radich 2017a] Radich, Michael. “On the Ekottarikāgama 增壹阿含經 T 125 as a Work of Zhu Fonian 竺佛念.” Journal of Chinese Buddhist Studies 30 (2017): 1-31. — 5-6 |
Radich briefly surveys a range of scholarship suggesting that T226 may not be by Zhu Fonian, and T309, T384, and T385 are probably Chinese compositions, and so probably should be (at least provisionally) excluded from Zhu Fonian's authentic translation corpus. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Lin and Radich 2020] Lin Qian 林乾 and He Shuqun 何书群 [Michael Radich]. "Zhu Fonian suo 'yi' dasheng jingdian de jisuanji fuzhu wenben fenxi yanjiu" 竺佛念所"译"大乘经典的计算机辅助文本分析研究. Shijie zongjiao wenhua 世界宗教文化 (2020), no. 6: 16-22. |
Using computer-assisted analysis of internal evidence betraying intertextual relations, Lin and Radich follow up Nattier's (2010) discovery that T309 is a Chinese composition. They discover further Chinese sources for T309, and Chinese sources for T656. They corroborate Nattier's suggestion that these texts, even though they are Chinese compositions, are in fact by Zhu Fonian (they are stylistically consistent with his genuine translation works). They also analyse patterns in the ways that Zhu Fonian used his sources, and the uneven distribution of passages with obvious Chinese sources within these large texts (the distribution in the case of T656 being particularly uneven). Lin and Radich also consider the possibility that T384 and T385, two other Mahāyāna scriptures by Zhu Fonian and possibly connected with a similar episode in his life, may also be his own compositions. They are unable to find passages with direct Chinese sources in T384 and T385, but nevertheless, discuss certain other aspects of the content of the texts which do suggest that they are broadly texts of the same type as T309 and T656. They conclude that it is most likely that all four texts were composed in China by Zhu Fonian himself. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Er Qin lu] Sengrui 僧叡. Er Qin lu 二秦錄. |
In a list of translations that he ascribes to Zhu Fonian, Fei Zhangfang cites the Er Qin lu as a source for ascriptions of the Shi zhu duan jie jing 十住斷結經 T309, the Pusa chu tai jing 菩薩處胎經 T384 and the *Antarābhava-sūtra 中陰經 T385. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Unebe 1970] Unebe Toshihide 畝部俊英. "Jiku Butsunen no kenkyū: Kan'yaku Zōichi agon kyō no yakushutsu wo megutte 竺仏念の研究 漢訳『増壱阿含経』の訳出をめぐって." Nagoya daigaku bungaku bu kenkyū ronshū 名古屋大学文学部研究論集 51 (1970): 3-38. — 26-27 |
The main aim of Unebe's study is to address the translatorship of the extant Ekottarikāgama T125. Unebe bases his argument on a combination of rigorous scrutiny of external evidence, and the analysis of one restricted set of stylistic markers (internal evidence), viz., terms for the members of the eightfold path of the noble ones. Unebe discovers that translators down to the time of Zhu Fonian and Kumārajīva generally translated saṃyak-, as it enters into these terms (in saṃyagdr̥ṣṭi, saṃyaksaṃkalpa, etc.) as zheng 正. Zhu Fonian, however, renders the same element as deng 等: e.g. 等見、等治、等語、等業/等行、等命、等方便、等念、等定/等三昧 (with some interesting variation in both order and two individual terms, 等行 vs. 等業 and 等定 vs. 等三昧; 11). Aside from EĀ T125 itself, Unebe finds (some of) these rare translation terms in T194, T309, T1505, T1543, and T1549. This reinforces the inference available from external evidence, that the real work of translation for all of these works was performed by Zhu Fonian (against the indications we find in the present Taishō for T194, T1505, and T1549 in particular). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|