Usuda Junzō 臼田淳三. “Chū Yuimaketsu kyō no kenkyū 注維摩詰経の研究.” IBK 26, no. 1 (1977): 262-265.
| Assertion | Argument | Place in source | Search |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Usuda argues that the 注維摩詰經 T1775 reached its present form quite late. He proceeds by comparing the Taishō base text (寬永十八年刊宗教大學藏本) with the witness called 甲 in the Taishō apparatus (平安時代寫大和多武峯談山神社藏本，題名維摩經集解). Usuda concludes that 甲, which is in only eight juan, is the older of the two witnesses. Usuda establishes this by noting several key differences between 甲 and the base text: 1) In the base text, where Sengzhao's comments are the same as those of Kumārajīva, Sengzhao's comments are abbreviated, whereas they are not in 甲; 2) in the base text but not in 甲, a citation appears among Sengzhao's remarks from the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra in the Dharmakṣema translation (T374/T375). This citation, which would be anachronistic for a Sengzhao text, had led some scholars (Ōchō E’nichi, Tang Yongtong) to doubt whether the comments included were really by Sengzhao. 3) The base text, but not 甲, includes a preface by Sengzhao. Usuda argues that these changes were made between the composition of the commentary by Daoye 道液 in 760, and 993 CE, which is the date given in a postface still carried by the text in the Taishō. This means that Daoye is also a useful source in determining the original readings of the text. |
Usuda argues that the 注維摩詰經 T1775 reached its present form quite late. He proceeds by comparing the Taisho base text (寬永十八年刊宗教大學藏本) with the witness called 甲 in the Taisho apparatus (平安時代寫大和多武峯談山神社藏本,題名維摩經集解). Usuda concludes that 甲, which is in only eight juan, is the older of the two witnesses. Usuda establishes this by noting several key differences between 甲 and the base text: 1) In the base text, where Sengzhao's comments are the same as those of Kumarajiva, Sengzhao's comments are abbreviated, whereas they are not in 甲; 2) in the base text but not in 甲, a citation appears among Sengzhao's remarks from the Mahaparinirvana-mahasutra in the Dharmaksema translation (T374/T375). This citation, which would be anachronistic for a Sengzhao text, had led some scholars (Ocho E’nichi, Tang Yongtong) to doubt whether the comments included were really by Sengzhao. 3) The base text, but not 甲, includes a preface by Sengzhao. Usuda argues that these changes were made between the composition of the commentary by Daoye 道液 in 760, and 993 CE, which is the date given in a postface still carried by the text in the Taisho. This means that Daoye is also a useful source in determining the original readings of the text. T1775; 注維摩詰經 |