Source: Usuda 1977

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.

Assertions

Assertion	Argument	Place in source	Search
Texts: T1775; 注維摩詰經 Dates: late 7C-8C	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. Edit		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

Assertion

Argument

Place in source

Texts: T1775; 注維摩詰經
Dates: late 7C-8C

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.

Edit