| Identifier | T0624 [T] |
| Title | 佛說伅真陀羅所問如來三昧經 [T] |
| Date | before 250? [Nattier 2008] |
| Translator 譯 | *Lokakṣema, 支婁迦讖 [Zürcher 1959/2007] |
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 |
|
|
|
No |
[Zürcher 1959/2007] Zürcher, Erik. The Buddhist Conquest of China: The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China. Third Edition. Leiden: Brill, 1959 (2007 reprint). — 35, 332 n. 94, 333 n. 96 |
Zürcher suggests that the attribution of the 伅真陀羅所問如來三昧經 (Drumakinnararājaparipṛcchā) T624 to *Lokakṣema is strongly supported by Zhi Mindu’s attribution in his preface (ca. 300AD) to a “synoptic edition” of four versions of the Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra 首楞嚴三昧經. Zürcher adds that Sengyou also attributes this text to Lokakṣema, with the note that the text is “now lost.” The 伅真陀羅所問如來三昧經 also appears in Dao’an’s catalogue among the anonymous translations. Zürcher notes that Hayashiya (Kyōroku kenkyū pp. 625-627) argues in favour of this attribution to *Lokakṣema, but acknowledges that some scholars have rejected it, specifically Sakaino Kōyō, Shina-bukkyōshi kōwa, Tōkyō 1927, vol. I pp. 44-45. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Hayashiya 1941] Hayashiya Tomojirō 林屋友次郎. Kyōroku kenkyū 経録研究. Tokyo: Iwanami shoten, 1941. — 625-627 |
Hayashiya's summary of the content of the catalogues on this and related titles is as follows: A Dunzhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如来經 (*Drumakinnararāja-paripṛcchā) is listed in Sengyou's recompilation of Dao'an's catalogue of anonymous scriptures 新集安公失譯經録 as Dunzhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing in 2 juan, with the alternate titles Dunzhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如来三昧經 and Dunzhentuoluo jing 伅眞陀羅經. The text was extant at the time of Sengyou. Hayashiya points out that the Dunzhentuoluo jing ascribed to *Lokakṣema 支讖 is mentioned in the “He Shoulengyan jing ji” 合首楞嚴經記 (combined preface to [various translations of] the Śūraṃgamasamādhi-sūtra) by Zhi Mindu 支敏度, and hence certainly existed. However, according to Hayashiya, Dao’an did not know about that record and did not notice that the Dunzhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing was *Lokakṣema’s work, although he saw the text. Because of that, in CSZJJ Sengyou commented on the Dunzhentuoluo jing 伅眞陀羅經 in 2 juan ascribed to *Lokakṣema that the text was not included in the category of *Lokakṣema’s works in Dao’an’s catalogue. Sengyou saw the Dunzhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing, but he did not understand that it was the work of *Lokakṣema either, so he classified the anonymous Dunzhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing as extant, while stating that the Dunzhentuoluo jing ascribed to *Lokakṣema was currently lost 今闕. Fajing’s Zhongjing mulu was influenced by Sengyou, and listed the Dunzhentuo suowen jing 屯眞陀所問經 ascribed to *Lokakṣema in its catalogue of the Hīnayāna sūtrapiṭaka 小乗修多羅藏錄, while including the the Dunzhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing in the category of anonymous scriptures 衆經失譯. Despite the way those catalogues dealt with these titles, Hayashiya claims that it is highly likely that *Lokakṣema’s Dunzhentuoluo jing and the Dunzhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing are one and the same text, as both Dao’an and Sengyou saw only one text, and both of the titles are recorded as in 2 juan. Yancong (仁壽録) discovered that there was only one Dunzhentuoluo jing/ Dunzhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing, and listed the one ascribed to *Lokakṣema only, excising the anonymous one. LDSBJ also excised the anonymous Dunzhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing, and the following catalogues did the same. Hayashiya claims that what those catalogues did is correct, and supports his view further by pointing out that the style and language of the Dunzhentuoluo suowen rulai sanmei jing T624 in the Taishō is undoubtedly that of *Lokakṣema. Thus, Hayashiya concludes that, since there has only ever been one Dunzhentuoluo jing, only the text ascribed *Lokakṣema should be kept, excising the anonymous Dunzhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 324-329 |
Sakaino lists all titles for which Fei Changfang, in LDSBJ, cited the Zhu Shixing Han catalogue 朱士行漢錄 (324-325): - a Sishi’er zhang jing 四十二章經 T784 ascribed to Kāśyapa Mātaṅga 迦葉摩騰; - a Shi di duan jie jing 十地斷結經 ascribed to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭; - thirteen titles, including a Lokānuvartanā-sūtra 内藏經, ascribed to An Shigao (cf. T807, ascribed to *Lokakṣema); - Five titles, including a Dun zhen tuoluoni [sic!] jing 伅眞陀羅尼經, ascribed to *Lokakṣema; - an Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñāpāramitā 道行經 ascribed to Zhu Shuofo 竺朔佛; - the Chengju guangming jing 成具光明經 [成具光明定意經] T630, (still today) ascribed to Zhi Yao 支曜; - a Wen diyu shi jing 問地獄事經 ascribed to Kang Ju 康巨; and - a Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa 古維摩經 ascribed to Yan Fotiao 嚴佛調. Sakaino then discusses each title in detail. T784, Sakaino holds, is already known to be an apocryphon. The Shi di duan jie jing is not listed in Dao’an nor CSZJJ, so it would be odd if it were later rediscovered in the Zhu Shixing catalogue, as Fei claims. The name Zhu Falan does not appear in Dao’an nor CSZJJ, but LDSBJ ascribes a variety of titles to him, such as this Shi di duan jie jing, a Fo benxing jing 佛本行經, a Fa hai zang jing 法海藏經, a Fo bensheng jing 佛本生經, and an Erbailiushi juan [sic] heyi 二百六十卷 合異. Sakaino claims that Fei, who did not have enough knowledge to analyse and evaluate scriptures, just gathered those titles and ascribed them to Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 without any basis in evidence. The Erbailiushi juan heyi , for instance, should be an erroneous record of the Erbailiushi jie sanbu heyi 二百六十戒三部合異 ascribed to Tanwulan 曇無蘭. This scripture compared three different versions of the 260 prohibitions of the Prātimokṣa, so could not have been produced when no version of the Prātimokṣa rules were yet available. It is clear that Fei Changfang made this ascription due to confusion between the names Zhu Falan 竺法蘭 and Tanwulan 曇無蘭 (Sakaino sees a possible reason for this error in the fact that, as he surmises, both represent *Dharmarakṣa). The Fo bensheng jing and Fo benxing jing are probably the same text listed twice; some catalogue probably mis-transcribed 本行 as 本生, and Fei then took the resulting title to be a different text. The Fo benxing jing is likely to actually refer to the Fo suoxing zan 佛所行讚 ascribed to Tanwulan, another mistake resulting from the same confusion of names. Sakaino also suspects that the entry on the Shi di duan jie jing is based upon the ascription of a Shi di yiqie zhi de jing 十地一切智德經 ascribed to another Dharmarakṣa, viz., 竺法護, and thus also be based upon a similar confusion of names. Likewise, Sakaino speculates that the Fo fa hai zang jing could be an error for the Bao zang jing寶藏經 [文殊師利現寶藏經 T461] ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. The ascription of a Lokānuvartanā-sūtra to An Shigao is odd, as this is a Mahāyāna text while all the works of An Shigao are “hīnayāna.” Sakaino suspects that this record actually refers to内藏百寶經 T807, ascribed to *Lokakṣema. The other twelve titles ascribed to An Shigao are all listed as “hīnayāna” texts in Sengyou’s catalogue, and are hence less problematic. Four of the five titles ascribed to *Lokakṣema, except for the so-called Dun zhen tuoluoni jing 伅眞陀羅尼經, were already listed in Dao’an’s catalogue. In CSZJJ, Sengyou first listed the Drumakinnararāja-paripṛcchā 伅眞陀羅經 T624, citing the Jiu lu 舊錄. However, Dun zhentuoluo 伅眞陀羅 is a transliteration of Druma-kinnara[raja], and has nothing to do with *dhāraṇī 陀羅尼, as Fei’s record of this title would appear to suggest. According to Sakaino, it is not known at which point the title was mistaken for 伅眞陀羅尼 --- in the Zhu Shixing Han catalogue, in LDSBJ, or by a later scribal error. Sakaino states that he explained earlier that the Aṣṭasāhasrikā ascribed to Zhu Shuofo is probably the result of a misunderstanding on Sengyou’s part [see separate note on 253-257]. T630 is listed in Dao’an’s catalogue. The Wen diyu shi jing ascribed to Kang Ju appears first in GSZ, but too little is known about Kang Ju to make discussion worthwhile. The Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa ascribed to Yan Fotiao does not appear in CSZJJ. It was not included among the three versions of the text (ascribed to Zhi Qian 支謙, Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, and Zhu Shulan 竺叔蘭) referred to by Zhi Mindu, when he compiled the his synoptic Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa 合維摩經. [Sakaino apparently implies that hence the version ascribed to to Yan Fotiao is spurious --- AI.] In sum, Sakaino maintains that most of the major entries for which Fei Changfang claims the support of the Zhu Shixing Han catalogue are problematic, and that it is clear that his reports about the content of this catalogue are not reliable. Sakaino infers that the Zhu Shixing Han catalogue 朱士行漢錄 was composed sometime in the 550s or 560s, between the end of the Liang 梁 and the beginning of the Sui. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
Yes |
[Nattier 2008] Nattier, Jan. A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations: Texts from the Eastern Han 東漢 and Three Kingdoms 三國 Periods. Bibliotheca Philologica et Philosophica Buddhica X. Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2008. — 84-85 |
Nattier treats T624 and T626 as "third-tier" texts in the broad group of texts somehow associated with Lokakṣema. She states that a notice attributed to Zhi Mindu supports the ascription to Lokakṣema, but they also contain anomalous features. "Still more distant from Lokakṣema's usual general style, and exhibiting a much higher ratio of translations to transcriptions than in the second-tier group..." Cf. Miyazaki (2007). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Zürcher 1991] Zürcher, Erik. "A New Look at the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Texts." in Koichi Shinohara and Gregory Schopen, eds. From Benares to Beijing: Essays on Buddhism and Chinese Religion in Honour of Prof. Jan Yün-hua, 277-304. Oakville, Canada: Mosaic Press, 1991. — 300 |
Zürcher lists the Dunzhentuoluo suo wen rulai sanmei jing 伅真陀羅所問如來三昧經 T624 among a list of “three archaic texts with doubtful attributions.” Senyou listed the text as “lost;” in the Kaiyuan lu and following catalogues it is mentioned as an existing text translated by *Lokakṣema. Zürcher argues that the style and terminology reveal that is certainly a Han text, “albeit with some hesitation as regards its attribution to *Lokakṣema.” He adds that T624 is an archaic translation of the Druma-kiṃnararāja-paripṛcchā. “Very elaborate text, largely consisting of numerical series, in which both the Buddha and King Druma (the ruler of the semi-human beings called kiṃnara) explain and glorify the Bodhisattva career and the Mahāyāna doctrine of universal Emptiness.” The text’s finale is the prophecy of King Druma’s future Buddhahood. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
|
No |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 101-102 |
|
According to Sakaino, Dao’an endorsed twelve texts as the works of *Lokakṣema 支讖, seven of which are extant. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
No |
[Ōno 1954] Ōno Hōdō 大野法道. Daijō kai kyō no kenkyū 大乗戒経の研究. Tokyo: Risōsha 理想社, 1954. — 354-355 |
According to Ōno, the Drumakinnararāja-paripṛcchā T624 is listed in Dao’an’s catalogue as the anonymous Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來經 in two juan. It is also included as an extant scripture in CSZJJ (juan 3) with the alternate titles Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來三昧經 and Dun zhentuoluo jing 伅眞陀羅經. Even so, CSZJJ gives still another entry for the same title in the section on Lokakṣema, citing the Bie lu 別錄: 伅真陀羅經二卷, with a note stating that the Jiu lu and Bie lu record the text, but it is missing from Dao’an’s catalogue, and was missing in Sengyou’s time 舊錄云屯真陀羅王經別錄所載安錄無今闕. Ōno maintains that this is a redundant entry caused by Sengyou’s misunderstanding that there were two scriptures when there was just one, presumably because he was misled by the variations of the titles. Fajing inherits CSZJJ’s mistaken record and lists both the anonymous Dun zhentuoluo suowen rulai jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來經 and the alleged alternate translation, the Dun zhentuoluo suowen jing 屯真陀羅所問經 ascribed to Lokakṣema, also treating as an alternate translation of the same text the Dashu jinnaluo wang suowen jing 大樹緊那羅王所問經 (T625). The anonymous title has not been not listed since Yancong. In LDSBJ, we also see notice of a supposed Dun zhentuoluoni jing 伅眞陀羅尼經, and in DZKZM, of a Dun zhentuoluoni suowen jing 伅眞陀羅尼所問經, but in both cases, 尼 is in error for 王. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Jiu lu CSZJJ] Jiu lu 舊錄 as reported by CSZJJ 出三藏記集 T2145. |
Sengyou cites a/the Jiu lu 舊錄 as a source for information about the 伅真陀羅經, notes that the text is not found in Dao'an's catalogues, and states that the text is "presently missing": 伅真陀羅經二卷(舊錄云屯[伅M]真陀羅王經別錄所載安錄無今闕) Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Bielu CSZJJ] Bielu 別錄 as reported by CSZJJ 出三藏記集. — T2145 (LV) 6b13, 15 |
CSZJJ cites a/the Bie lu for the following ascriptions to Lokaṣema: 伅真陀羅經二卷 ... 別錄所載, 6b13, T624 Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Nattier 2008b] Nattier, Jan. "Who Produced the Da mingdu jing 大明度經 (T225)? A Reassessment of the Evidence." JIABS 31, no. 1-2 (2008[2010]):295-337. — 304-305 n. 19 |
Nattier notes that the interlinear commentary in T225A cites T624. T624 must therefore date before the production of T225A. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Nattier 2008] Nattier, Jan. A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations: Texts from the Eastern Han 東漢 and Three Kingdoms 三國 Periods. Bibliotheca Philologica et Philosophica Buddhica X. Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2008. — 164 n. 3 |
Nattier notes that T1694 cites T624. [T624 must therefore predate T1694 (thus perhaps before the middle of the third century? cf. Zacchetti 2010 --- MR.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[CSZJJ] Sengyou 僧祐. Chu sanzang ji ji (CSZJJ) 出三藏記集 T2145. |
Hayashiya examines Dao’an’s list of anonymous scriptures, as “recompiled” by Sengyou under the title 新集安公失譯經錄 at CSZJJ T2145 (LV) 16c7-18c2. The Dun zhentuoluo suowen Bao rulai jing 伅真陀羅所問寶如來經 is included in the section of the Dao'an/CSZJJ list for texts listed as extant 有; Sengyou adds an interlinear note: 或云伅真陀羅所問寶如來三昧經或云伅真陀羅經; 18a1-2. Hayashiya gives, in tabulated form, information about the treatment of the same texts in Fajing T2146, LDSBJ T2034, the KYL T2154, and his own opinion about whether or not the text is extant in T, and if so, where (by vol. and page no.). The above text is identified by Hayashiya with the Dun zhentuoluo suowen rulai sanmei jing [純真 P]伅真陀羅所[問寶 YM]問如來三昧經 T624, attributed in the present canon (T) to Lokakṣema 支婁迦讖. Entry author: Merijn ter Haar |
|
|
|
No |
[Fang and Lu 2023] Fang Yixin 方一新 and Lu Lu 盧鹭. “Jin shiyu nian cong yuyan jiaodu kaobian keyi Fojing chengguo de huigu yu zhanwang” 近十余年從語言角度考辨可疑佛經成果的回顧與展望.” Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences Online Edition), Jan. 2023: 1–24. — 6 |
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Shi Guanghui argues that the Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來三昧經 T624 is quite different from translations reliably ascribed to Lokakṣema. They refer to 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. Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|
|
|
No |
[Fang and Lu 2023] Fang Yixin 方一新 and Lu Lu 盧鹭. “Jin shiyu nian cong yuyan jiaodu kaobian keyi Fojing chengguo de huigu yu zhanwang” 近十余年從語言角度考辨可疑佛經成果的回顧與展望.” Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences Online Edition), Jan. 2023: 1–24. — 6 |
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Zhang Jing argues that the Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing 伅眞陀羅所問寶如來三昧經 T624 was not translated by Lokakṣema. They refer to Zhang Jing 張靜. “Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing fei Zhi Chen yi xinzheng” 《伅真陀羅所問如來三昧經》非支讖譯新證. Xiandai yuwen 現代語文 9 (2021): 4–10. Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|
|
|
No |
[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. |
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): b) Synonyms: Shi also treats grammatical elements: 何/何等, 云何/何以故. Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|
|
|
No |
[Zhang Jing 2021] Zhang Jing 張靜. “Dun zhentuoluo suowen bao rulai sanmei jing fei Zhi Chen yi xinzheng” 《伅真陀羅所問如來三昧經》非支讖譯新證. Xiandai yuwen 現代語文 9 (2021): 4–10. |
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 been questioned by modern scholars. Zhang Jing selects four categories of commonly used vocabulary found in the Daoxing banre jing 道行般若經 T224 (also attributed to Lokakṣema) and compares them to their counterparts in T624. Her examination reveals distinct differences in the usage of this vocabulary in the two texts, leading her to argue that T624 cannot be considered Lokakṣema's translation. The following four categories of wording are the subject of Zhang’s analysis: 1) Verbs of speech 言說動詞: 2) Verbs of motion 位移動詞: 3) Perfect aspect particles 表完結的詞語: 4) Summative adverbs 總括副詞: Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|
|
|
No |
[Miyazaki 2007] 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. |
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. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|