Identifier | T1649 [T] |
Title | 三彌底部論 [T] |
Date | 秦 [T] |
Translator 譯 | Anonymous (China), 失譯, 闕譯, 未詳撰者, 未詳作者, 不載譯人 [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 |
[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 points out that in his CSZJJ and GSZ bios, Zhu Fonian is attributed with a text very much like this, and that the real work of translation would probably have been done by him. [Unsystematic exploration of internal evidence (stylistic indications) in comparison with texts such as EĀ, DĀ, T212 etc. supports this possibility --- MR]. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
No |
[Ishii 2012] Ishii Kōsei 石井公成. “Shintai kan’yo bunken no yōgo to gohō: NGSM ni yoru hikaku bunseki” 真諦關與文獻の用語と語法―NGSMによる比較分析 [The Vocabulary and Syntax of Paramārthan Texts: A Comparative Analysis Using NGSM]. In Shintai sanzō kenkyū ronshū 真諦三藏研究論集 [Studies of the Works and Influence of Paramartha], edited by Funayama Tōru 船山徹, 87-120. Kyoto: Kyōto daigaku jinbun kagaku kenkyūjo/Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University, 2012. — 92, 104-108 |
In a study which is also of methodological interest, Ishii says that he noticed that in examinations of characteristic markers of Paramārtha's style, the Sanmidi bu lun 三彌底部論 T1649 kept popping up, and he therefore set out to examine the likelihood that it might have been translated by Paramārtha. In this article, his method is to divide texts into groups, and then examine the groups for 2-6grams that might bind them together and distinguish them from other texts. The markers that lead Ishii to suggest Paramārtha is the translator are: 復次何義, 諸部說, 部所執, 處受生若, 說言我聞, 難曰若爾, 此起愛, 阿羅漢五陰, 是其體, 種亦依, 前已說我, 何者二種, 欲受生, 法者是其, 故若如此, 死是無常, 根壞時, 度柯羅, 見諦煩惱, 思惟煩惱. Some of these markers occasionally appear in works outside the Paramārtha corpus, including works of the Tang, but they are for the most part concentrated heavily in Paramārtha, and in some cases, unique to his corpus among translation texts. For the most part, further, these markers appear predominantly in a small subset of the overall Paramārtha corpus: 佛性論 T1610, Si di lun 四諦論 T1647, Suixiang lun 隨相論 T1641, Abhidharmakośa-bhāṣya T1559, Mahāyānasaṃgraha-bhāṣya T1595, and Sāṃkhya-kārikā T2137. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|