| Identifier | T0193 [T] |
| Title | 佛本行經 [T] |
| Date | betweeen Zhi Qian and Kumārajīva (ca. 260-402) [Ōminami and Hirai 2002] |
| Unspecified | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Radich 2019b] |
| Translator 譯 | Baoyun, 寶雲 [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 |
|
|
|
No |
[Wu 2012] Wu Juan. “From Perdition to Awakening: A Study of Legends of the Salvation of the Patricide Ajātaśatru in Indian Buddhism.” PhD dissertation, Cardiff University, 2012. — 28 n. 70 |
"The traditional ascription of...[T193] to Baoyun...is problematic. [CSZJJ] mentions a Fo-benxing-jing in five fascicles among anonymous scriptures (T.2145.21c12). According to Willemen (2009: xv): 'Higata [sic!] Ryūshō thinks that this text was written shortly after Zhi Qian...but before Kumārajīva...' See also Gotō (2007: 982-978) who suggests Dharmarakṣa as the translator of [T193] based on its terminological features." Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Sakaino 1928] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. “Butsu yuikyō gyō to Butsu shogyō san ni tsuite 『仏遺教経』と『仏所行讃』について.” Shisō 思想 79 (1928): 189-204. |
Sakaino discusses relations among *Dharmakṣema's Buddhacarita 佛所行讚 T192, Baoyun's 佛本行經 T193, and the Yi jiao jing 遺教經 T389 ascribed to Kumārajīva. He notes that the overall order of events, the topics and sequence of the Buddha's deathbed exhortations to his disciples, and much detailed phraseology, overlaps closely between T389 and Ch. 26 of T193. Most of the article is given over to detailed examples of these overlaps. Sakaino also notes that the introductory portion of T389 has a model or parallel in the Faxian/Buddhabhadra translation of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra 大般泥洹經 T376 (which he states he regards as actually by Guṇabhadra) (191). Sakaino considers two possibilities: this phrasing might have been modeled on the earlier wording of "Kumārajīva's" T389; or else this phrasing could have added later to T389 on the basis of T376. Sakaino also notes (201 ff.) that Baoyun's T192 also overlaps with both T193 and T389 in many of the same details, though he says that T192 is more polished than T193. Sakaino states that T192 and T193 nonetheless still differ from one another too much to be regarded as alternate translations of the same work; rather, they are different works based upon the same source materials. Sakaino concludes that T192 and T193 were based upon the same source text, and T389 is the root text underlying both (i.e. *Buddhacarita is a versification of T389), rather than T389 representing a prose reworking of the *Buddhacarita. He regards T192 as closer to T389 than it is to T193. [Sakaino does not consider the possibility that any of these overlaps indicate that the texts in question were composed, or partly composed, in China; he seems to consider this evidence only for what it indicates about presumed original Indic source texts.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Gotō 2007] Gotō Gijō 後藤義乗. "Butsu hongyō kyō, Shi tennō kyō no Kan'yakusha 仏本行経・四天王経の漢訳者." IBK 55, no. 2 (2007): 982-978[L]. |
Gotō argues on the basis of computer-assisted stylometric analysis that it is more likely that T193, in particular, was translated by Dharmarakṣa, rather than Baoyun. Note similar work, in Gotō 2006, on the relative strength of the attribution of the "new" Sukhāvatīvyūha T360 to Dharmarakṣa and Buddhabhadra-Baoyun respectively, to which the present study seems linked. One of the main reasons that scholars have thought the "new" Sukhāvatīvyūha is due to Buddhabhadra & Baoyun is translation terminology. However, Gotō claims that this judgement has rested on flawed premises and benchmarks, in particular, ideas about the difference between "archaic" and "recent" (post-Kumārajīva) terminology derived from Sengyou's (CSZJJ) list of contrasting terms, the so-called Qianhou chu jing yi ji 前後出經異記 T2145:55.5a13 ff. Gotō adduces Ui Hakuju's 宇井伯寿 "Bosatsu, Butsu no onyaku ni tsuite 菩薩・仏の音訳について" to argue, first, that the supposed "recent" terminology is in fact sometimes evinced even in the oldest texts, such as *Lokakṣema’s Aṣṭa; and, second, that in "important" scriptures, we must reckon with the possibility that in the wake of the N. Zhou persecution of the 570s and the restoration of Buddhism under the early Sui, learned monks revised the texts to bring them into line with the newer terminological standards. For this reason, Gotō cautions that we cannot use the translation terminology (at least that of Sengyou's list) as a criterion in determining the likelihood of Dharmarakṣa's authorship, because these [hypothetical] revisions might have erased the traces of his actual usage. Gotō supports this suggestion by an examination of the distribution of Sengyou's "archaic" and "recent" terms in a corpus of texts reliably ascribed to Dharmarakṣa, and a (liberal, i.e. inclusive) corpus of 16 texts that he regards as due to Baoyun on the basis of external evidence in biographies, etc. (he does not provide the actual list of the texts comprised in this corpus). He shows that in many cases, it is in fact Sengyou's "recent" terms that appear in Dharmarakṣa. For him, this indicates that Sengyou saw versions of Dharmarakṣa's texts that included the "archaic" terminology, but our extant versions have been doctored, precisely in line with Ui's theory of early Sui revision. [It at least seems to show that this particular list of terms is unreliable as markers of the distinction between Dharmarakṣa's and "Baoyun's" style---MR.] Gotō then examines the question by studying the distribution of 2grams either far more frequent in Dharmarakṣa than in Buddhabhadra-Baoyun (760 such markers), or vice versa (304 such markers), in particular texts. On this basis (though space precludes him showing the detail), he argues that T193 looks more like Dharmarakṣa than Buddhabhadra-Baoyun; but he also notes that there are also markers that would seem more characteristic of the latter style [note his conclusion, in Gotō 2006, that T360 is probably a Buddhabhadra-Baoyun revision of an earlier Dharmarakṣa text---MR]. Gotō then asks whether the same phenomenon occurs with "other Buddhabhadra-Baoyun scriptures", and examines 佛所行讚 T192 [ascribed to *Dharmakṣema---not sure of his reasoning, but he says it is "strongly related to T193"---MR] and 廣博嚴淨不退轉輪經 T268 [ascribed in T to Zhiyan 智嚴, but the apparatus records that SYM and Palace all say "and Baoyun"---MR], which is "the same size as [T193]". 1. T268: Buddhabhadra-Baoyun 424 markers : Dharmarakṣa 54 markers Gotō interprets this evidence to mean that 佛所行讚 [=T192] is characteristic of Buddhabhadra-Baoyun [?], but "closer than T268 to Dharmarakṣa". He then suggests that "the fact that 佛所行讚 [=T192] is closer than **other Buddhabhadra-Baoyun sūtras to Dharmarakṣa** [sic, my emphasis: at this point his logic escapes me---he seems to be assuming that T192 is a Buddhabhadra-Baoyun work? upon what basis?---MR] is that translation proceeded on the basis of consultation of 佛本行經 [=T193]." Gotō concludes that it is more likely that T193, in particular, was translated by Dharmarakṣa, rather than Baoyun. [Despite the fact that he names T590 in his title, it is not clear what he intends this to imply for T590---MR.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Willemen 2009] Willemen, Charles, trans. Buddhacarita: In Praise of the Buddha’s Acts (Taishō Volume 4, Number 192). BDK English Tripiṭaka Series. Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 2009. — xiv-xv |
Willemen reports that Hikata Ryūshō believed that T193 was written after Zhi Qian and before Kumārajīva. Willemen does not provide a reference to the Hikata work he has in mind. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Radich 2019b] Radich, Michael. “Was the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra 大般涅槃經 T7 Translated by ‘Faxian’? An Exercise in the Computer-Assisted Assessment of Attributions in the Chinese Buddhist Canon.” Hualin International Journal of Buddhist Studies: E-journal 2, no. 1 (2019): 229-279. |
Abstract: "In the Taishō canon, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra 大般涅槃經 T no. 7 is attributed to Faxian 法顯. However, on the basis of an examination of reports in the catalogues about various Chinese versions of the ‘mainstream’ Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, Iwamatsu Asao 岩松浅夫 once questioned whether Faxian ever translated any such text. Iwamatsu argued further, on the basis of unspecified features of translation terminology and phraseology, that T no. 7 should instead be reascribed to Guṇabhadra 求那跋陀羅. This paper will examine the problem of the attribution of T no. 7 on the basis of a detailed examination of its language." Radich concludes (266-267): "The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra T no. 7 is much closer to the style of certain texts ascribed to ‘Guṇabhadra’ than it is to ‘Faxian’ .... We should, therefore, overturn the ascription to Faxian carried by ‘FX’-MPNS in the Taishō. At the same time, however, it is not safe to follow Iwamatsu and simply re-ascribe the text to ‘Guṇabhadra’. In fact, markers distinguishing ‘FX’-MPNS from the ‘Faxian’ corpus are found much more densely in the Guoqu xianzai yinguo jing [T189] than in any other ‘Guṇabhadra’ text. Further, a range of highly specific markers associate ‘FX’-MPNS [T7] and Guoqu [T189] very closely with two further bodies of material, the *Mahāmāyā-sūtra [T383], and the Buddhacarita T no. 192 and/or the Fo benxing jing T no. 193. Stylistically speaking, these four (or five) texts comprise a tightly interrelated group, which are also connected by common themes and content." Radich followed this work up with a further examination of internal evidence for close intertextual relations between T7, T189, and T383 [publication actually appeared chronologically earlier], Radich 2018a (see separate CB@ entry). Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Feng 2013] Feng Xiansi 冯先思. “Fo benxing jing, Fo suoxing zan bu wei tongjing yiyi kao"《佛本行经》、《佛所行赞》不为同经异译考. Guji yanjiu 古迹研究 1 (2013): 40-50. |
This article does not address directly the problem of the attribution of T192 and T193, but provides a review of the most relevant scholarship in Chinese dealing with the issue (42). Feng Xiansi takes into account the hypothesis of Zhou Yiliang 周一良, according to which the titles of the two hagiographies were erroneously swapped, and determines that the title Fo benxing jing 佛本行經 corresponds to the text classified as T193, as per the excerpt (with title) reported in the Dunhuang manuscript 14720 A, collected in the National Library of China and dated to the Tang Dynasty (42-43). Feng Xiansi compares the plot of T192 and T193 to the depiction of the life of the Buddha in Mogao cave 290 (44-47), and further, compares the sequence of the main events In T192 and T193 (47-48), to demonstrate that the two hagiographies are not based on the same source. Feng Xiansi also points out some stylistic differences between T192 and T193, though without going into a great deal of detail (48). Entry author: Laura Lettere |
|
|
|
No |
[Ōminami and Hirai 2002] Ōminami Ryūshō 大南龍昇 and Hirai Yūkei 平井宥慶. Taishi zuiō honki kyō, Busshogyō san 太子瑞応本起経・仏所行讃. Shin kokuyaku daizōkyō hon'en bu 1 新国訳大蔵経 本縁部 1, Tokyo: Daizōshuppan, 2002. — 139-145 |
Ōminami and Hirai discuss problems with the received attribution of the Fo suoxing zan 佛所行讚 T192 to *Dharkakṣema, and conclude that this is in fact a translation by Baoyun 寶雲. Their discussion is based primarily on the external evidence of the catalogues. Various titles are reported in historical catalogues, and equivalences are sometimes drawn between multiple titles; there is therefore reason to believe that titles, and accompanying attributions, may have become confused with the passage of time. The ascription of a title like that of T192 to *Dharmakṣema dates from LDSBJ, and was accepted by Zhisheng in KYL, whence it most probably was also accepted into T. A very similar title, Fo suoxing zan zhuan 佛所行讚傳, is reported in Fajing, and DTNDL and reports the same title alongside a Fo suoxing zan jing 佛所行讚經, with the report that this information was taken from LDSBJ. By the time of KYL, this has become Fo suoxing zan jing zhuan 佛所行讚經傳, and Zhisheng adds a comment about the variability of the title. Matters are confused still further by the fact that just as DTNDL says, LDSBJ also reports a Fo suoxing zan jing 佛所行讚經, which it ascribes to Baoyun. This ascription was followed by DZKZM, and then also by KYL. Matters are clearer when we go back to CSZJJ. There, Sengyou ascribes two titles to Baoyun: the Fo suoxing zan, and the "new" Sukhāvatīvyūha [cf. T360]. The biography of Baoyun in CSZJJ also indicates that he translated a Fo suoxing zan. The attribution of such a title to Baoyun is then followed by a string of catalogues: Fajing, Yancong, Jingtai, DTNDL, etc. The authors also discuss information that indicates that this translation is likely to have been produced in the period ca . 420-422, though the date ultimately remains uncertain. Meanwhile, the title Fo benxing jing 佛本行經, which is borne by T193, and in the present T is ascribed to Baoyun, is treated as anonymous in CSZJJ. With a fluctuating number of fascicles, and some variation in titles, some such text is then attributed to Baoyun in various catalogues beginning with Fajing. The authors report that Hikata Ryūshō had already pointed out this series of errors, and further, on the basis of style, had surmised that T193 should date sometime after Zhi Qian and before Kumārajīva. They then list a series of translation terms from both T192 and T193, representing the same underlying meaning or Indic proper name, and argue that the differences are so systematic that it is extremely unlikely that both texts could stem from the same hand. The authors conclude by arguing that on the basis of the external evidence they have surveyed, it is most likely that T192 is to be ascribed to Baoyun, but they also note that a more confident judgement must await finer analysis of the translation terminology and style of the text. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|