| Identifier | T0192 [T] |
| Title | 佛所行讚 [T] |
| Date | [None] |
| Unspecified | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [Radich 2019b] |
| Translator 譯 | *Dharmakṣema, 曇無讖 [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 |
[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]. |
In the course of a computer-assisted stylometric examination of T193, Gotō examines the distribution of markers (2grams) predominantly characteristic of Buddhabhadra and Baoyun versus those predominantly characteristic of Dharmarakṣa in T192. Gotō seems to assume that T192 is a Buddhabhadra-Baoyun work, despite the conventional ascription to *Dharmakṣema; for instance, he includes it twice in speaking of "other Buddhabhadra-Baoyun sūtras" [his reasoning in so doing is obscure to me---MR]. He finds the following ratio: Buddhabhadra-Baoyun 589 markers : Dharmarakṣa 259 markers. [Note that, as far as I can understand his method, these markers are significant only in terms of the direct comparison between Buddhabhadra-Baoyun and Dharmarakṣa, i.e. there is no claim that either set of markers is *unique* to either side of the comparison; on the 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 |
According to Willemen, Ōminami Ryūshō held that it was actually T192 that is by Baoyun, and Willemen, in presenting a full translation of the work, follows Ōminami in this regard. 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 |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. |
Abstract: "This study examines the biography of the monk Baoyun 寶雲 (376?-449) and lists all the titles of the translation projects in which Baoyun was involved. By comparing the information provided by different Buddhist catalogues, several discrepancies between the information on Baoyun provided by Buddhist bibliographer Sengyou 僧祐 (445-518) and by later accounts became evident. This study contextualizes the life of Baoyun in a broader historical perspective and presents the life of a monk who was a companion of Faxian 法顯 (336?-422) in his famous journey to the west, fluent in Indic languages, and a proficient translator." Lettere argues that we can see a gradual process by which the true scope of Baoyun's activities as a translator, originally represented rather clearly by Sengyou and the sources he collects (CSZJJ), was already diminished or undermined by Huijiao (GSZ), Fei Zhangfang (LCSBJ), and Fajing; and also seems to have suffered from being overshadowed by the reputation and legends that accrued to the personality of Faxian. In the course of her treatment of biographical and other external sources on Baoyun (CSZJJ, GSZ, and documents like prefaces), Lettere notes evidence that Baoyun might have been the principal translator for the following works: T192 (Lettere holds unequivocally that this work is "erroneously attributed to Dharmakṣema/Tan Wuchen 曇無讖", following Willemen 2009 [in error this reference is given as Chen Jinhua]: xiv-xvi); a "new Sukhāvatī" 新無量壽 [sic, for *Amitāyus] [Lettere's citation of studies by Nogami 1950, Gotō 2006, 2007, and Nattier 2003 implies that she identifies this title with T360 -- MR]; with Zhiyan, according to Sengyou's CSZJJ, three titles: the Puyao jing 普耀經, the Guangbo yanjing jing 廣博嚴淨經, and the Si tianwang jing 四天王經 [cf. for the last two titles respectively Avaivartikacakra 廣博嚴淨經 T268, and Si tianwang jing 四天王經 T590 -- MR]; the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanāda 勝鬘經 [T353]; the Za’ahan jing 雜阿含經 (*Saṃyuktāgama) and the Fagu jing 法鼓經 [Lettere again does not go into the problem of identification with extant texts, but cf. Saṃyuktāgama T99 and the *Mahābherīhāraka-sūtra T270 -- MR]; a Mahāparinirvāṇa in six fascicles 六卷泥洹 [cf. T7 -- MR]. [To this list we should add the Laṅkāvatāra T670; Lettere omits to list it, but cf. 後於丹陽郡譯出勝鬘楞伽經, GSZ T2059 (L) 344b3, which in fact comprises two titles, the Śrīmālādevī and the Laṅkāvatāra; cf. Lettere 265 n. 9 -- MR.] Lettere also notes evidence that Baoyun may have composed a lost travelogue of his journeys, entitled Youlü waiguo 遊履外國. In LDSBJ, two titles are added to Baoyun's credit; Fufa zang jing 付法藏經 [cf. T2058] and Jingdu sanwei jing 淨度三昧經 [cf. X15]; and an *Akṣayamatinirdeśa 無盡意菩薩 to the joint translatorship of Baoyun and Zhiyan [cf. T397(12)]. Lettere notes that the poor reputation of Fei as a cataloguer makes these ascriptions less plausible. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Qiu 2009] Qiu Bing 邱冰. “Cong yuyan shang kan ‘Fo suoxing zan’ de yizhe" 从语言上看《佛所行赞》的译者. Yuwen zhishi 语文知识 (2009): 37-40. |
Qiu Bing identifies the the Fo suoxing zan 佛所行贊 T192 as a translation of Aśvaghoṣa’s Buddhacarita. She acknowledges that, following the attribution in the Taishō, most scholars uncritically assume that *Dharmakṣema/ Ta n Wuchen 曇無讖 was the translator of T192. On the other hand, Sengyou's CSZJJ and Fei Zhangfang’s LDSBJ attribute the translation to Baoyun. Qiu Bing notes that the earliest attribution of the Fo suoxing zan 佛所行贊/T192 to Dharmakṣema is found in the Kaiyuan Shijiao lu 開元釋教錄 (37). She adopts the Jin guanming jing 金光明經 (T663, Suvarṇabhāsottama) as the benchmark for Dharmakṣema’s translation style, and justifies her choice by explaining that T192 and T663 are of similar length, and for both we still have an extant Sanskrit source (38). Qiu Bing’s study takes into account the use of adverbial plural markers, adverbs of time, the formation of plural forms, the formation of the perfective aspect of verbs, and the translations of a set of 12 specific Sanskrit expressions, to conclude that the translation style of T192 is too different from that of T633, and that the two texts cannot be ascribed to the same person. Thus, if Dharmakṣema was the translator of T663, he cannot be considered the translator of T192. On the basis of external evidence (from the earlier catalogues), Qiu Bing suspects that the translator of T192 is in fact Baoyun (40). Entry author: Laura Lettere |
|
|
|
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 |
|