Takakusu (1901) showed, on the basis of transcriptions, that the Tibetan text was translated from the Chinese. The text dates to 445 and was composed by Huijue, Weide et al. in Gaochang (Turfan). Lévi gives a translation of the colophon (312-313). He discusses discrepancies between the main extant versions, namely, the Tibetan, the Chinese as transmitted in the Korean lineage, and the Chinese as transmitted in the Song-Yuan-Ming lineage (SYM; which is longer) (313). He finds strikingly close relations between T202 as in SYM and a Kuchean fragment, including certain similes not found in the other versions, and the name of a king.
Takakusu (1901) showed, on the basis of transcriptions, that the Tibetan text was translated from the Chinese. The text dates to 445 and was composed by Huijue, Weide et al. in Gaochang (Turfan). Levi gives a translation of the colophon (312-313). He discusses discrepancies between the main extant versions, namely, the Tibetan, the Chinese as transmitted in the Korean lineage, and the Chinese as transmitted in the Song-Yuan-Ming lineage (SYM; which is longer) (313). He finds strikingly close relations between T202 as in SYM and a Kuchean fragment, including certain similes not found in the other versions, and the name of a king. Huijue, 慧覺 T0202; 賢愚經