Source: Shi Guopu (1998)

Shi Guopu 釋果僕. Dunhuang xiejuan P3006 ‘Zhi Qian’ ben Weimojie jing zhujie kao 敦煌寫卷P3006「支謙」本《維摩詰經》注解考. Zhonghua Fojiao yanjiusuo luncong 中華佛教研究所論ྀ 16. Taipei: Fagu wenhua, 1998.

Assertions

Assertion	Argument	Place in source	Search
Texts: P.3006; Pelliot 3006 Titles: Pelliot 3006 People: Dao'an 道安 (author) Dates: 376-379 Identifiers: P.3006	Shi Guopu argues that the author of a commentary on the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa T474, one sheet of which is preserved in P.3006, was Daoan. Her reasons are as follows: 1) The commentary features technical terms (relating to the methods of commentary) also characteristic of Daoan (her primary point of comparison is T1693). 2) The commentary is concerned with comparing multiple versions of the same text (or passage), a known concern and method of Daoan. 3) The commentary parses the root text into sections by topic, using terms for the purpose also used elsewhere by Daoan. 4) The commentary cites a prior commentator, a "Mr. Zhu" 竺氏, and this also fits with Daoan's known values and methods. 5) The commentary uses several doctrinal terms characteristic of Daoan. 6) The commentary uses language derived from Lao-Zhuang discourse, again consistent with Daoan. 7) In one case, a whole phrase can be matched elsewhere in Daoan. 8) No other known commentator active in the relevant period displays the same constellation of these features. Guopu also argues that the commentary can be dated between 376 and 379 (204-216). Edit	163-216	Shi Guopu argues that the author of a commentary on the Vimalakirti-nirdesa T474, one sheet of which is preserved in P.3006, was Daoan. Her reasons are as follows: 1) The commentary features technical terms (relating to the methods of commentary) also characteristic of Daoan (her primary point of comparison is T1693). 2) The commentary is concerned with comparing multiple versions of the same text (or passage), a known concern and method of Daoan. 3) The commentary parses the root text into sections by topic, using terms for the purpose also used elsewhere by Daoan. 4) The commentary cites a prior commentator, a "Mr. Zhu" 竺氏, and this also fits with Daoan's known values and methods. 5) The commentary uses several doctrinal terms characteristic of Daoan. 6) The commentary uses language derived from Lao-Zhuang discourse, again consistent with Daoan. 7) In one case, a whole phrase can be matched elsewhere in Daoan. 8) No other known commentator active in the relevant period displays the same constellation of these features. Guopu also argues that the commentary can be dated between 376 and 379 (204-216). Dao'an 道安 P.3006; Pelliot 3006
Texts: T0474; 佛說維摩詰經 People: Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 (translator 譯)	Guopu argues that the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa [VKN] T474 was translated by Dharmarakṣa and not Zhi Qian. Her reasons are as follows. 1) A CSZJJ notice says that Zhi Qian's version of VKN was 闕. Guopu reads this as a remark by Daoan, relayed by Sengyou, and thinks it means that Zhi Qian's VKN was regarded by Daoan as lost. 2) Elswehere in her monograph (163-216), Guopu believes she has proven that Daoan was the author of a fragmentary manuscript commentary on T474 preserved at Dunhuang, P.3006. 3) She therefore believes that Daoan saw T474 (to comment upon it), and at the same time, never saw a version of the text he regarded as Zhi Qian's. She concludes that Daoan regarded T474 as by Dharmarakṣa. 4) Daoan would not have preferred a Zhu Shulan translation over Dharmarakṣa, because he criticised Zhu Shulan’s style, but praised Dharmarakṣa. 5) Glosses in T474 introduced by 漢言 are inconclusive, because any text featuring such wording could be borrowing from an earlier text, and because this wording is indeed also found in texts ascribed to Dharmarakṣa. 6) The Wei shu “Shi Lao zhi” treats some other texts by Zhi Qian as if they are by Dharmarakṣa, showing that such confusion was possible. A similar confusion can be documented even among Daoan’s disciples (but Guopu herself shows that Daoan himself does not make the same mistake). 7) Some items of translation terminology suggest a style closer to Dharmarakṣa than to Zhi Qian, namely: specific terms for the "four supports" 四依; 菩薩篋藏; and the names of the “six heretic” teachers. Guopu's reading of 闕 has been criticised by Tu Yanqiu (2013), who argues that it actually meant that Sengyou, and not Daoan, did not see the text. Gao Mingdao (2013) sharply counter-attacks Tu on many points, but on this key issue, he agrees that 闕 tells us only about the state of the text in the time of Sengyou, and not at the time of Daoan. Edit	217-252	Guopu argues that the Vimalakirti-nirdesa [VKN] T474 was translated by Dharmaraksa and not Zhi Qian. Her reasons are as follows. 1) A CSZJJ notice says that Zhi Qian's version of VKN was 闕. Guopu reads this as a remark by Daoan, relayed by Sengyou, and thinks it means that Zhi Qian's VKN was regarded by Daoan as lost. 2) Elswehere in her monograph (163-216), Guopu believes she has proven that Daoan was the author of a fragmentary manuscript commentary on T474 preserved at Dunhuang, P.3006. 3) She therefore believes that Daoan saw T474 (to comment upon it), and at the same time, never saw a version of the text he regarded as Zhi Qian's. She concludes that Daoan regarded T474 as by Dharmaraksa. 4) Daoan would not have preferred a Zhu Shulan translation over Dharmaraksa, because he criticised Zhu Shulan’s style, but praised Dharmaraksa. 5) Glosses in T474 introduced by 漢言 are inconclusive, because any text featuring such wording could be borrowing from an earlier text, and because this wording is indeed also found in texts ascribed to Dharmaraksa. 6) The Wei shu “Shi Lao zhi” treats some other texts by Zhi Qian as if they are by Dharmaraksa, showing that such confusion was possible. A similar confusion can be documented even among Daoan’s disciples (but Guopu herself shows that Daoan himself does not make the same mistake). 7) Some items of translation terminology suggest a style closer to Dharmaraksa than to Zhi Qian, namely: specific terms for the "four supports" 四依; 菩薩篋藏; and the names of the “six heretic” teachers. Guopu's reading of 闕 has been criticised by Tu Yanqiu (2013), who argues that it actually meant that Sengyou, and not Daoan, did not see the text. Gao Mingdao (2013) sharply counter-attacks Tu on many points, but on this key issue, he agrees that 闕 tells us only about the state of the text in the time of Sengyou, and not at the time of Daoan. Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 T0474; 佛說維摩詰經

Assertion

Argument

Place in source

Texts: P.3006; Pelliot 3006
Titles: Pelliot 3006
People: Dao'an 道安 (author)
Dates: 376-379
Identifiers: P.3006

Shi Guopu argues that the author of a commentary on the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa T474, one sheet of which is preserved in P.3006, was Daoan. Her reasons are as follows:

1) The commentary features technical terms (relating to the methods of commentary) also characteristic of Daoan (her primary point of comparison is T1693).

2) The commentary is concerned with comparing multiple versions of the same text (or passage), a known concern and method of Daoan.

3) The commentary parses the root text into sections by topic, using terms for the purpose also used elsewhere by Daoan.

4) The commentary cites a prior commentator, a "Mr. Zhu" 竺氏, and this also fits with Daoan's known values and methods.

5) The commentary uses several doctrinal terms characteristic of Daoan.

6) The commentary uses language derived from Lao-Zhuang discourse, again consistent with Daoan.

7) In one case, a whole phrase can be matched elsewhere in Daoan.

8) No other known commentator active in the relevant period displays the same constellation of these features.

Guopu also argues that the commentary can be dated between 376 and 379 (204-216).

Edit

163-216

Texts: T0474; 佛說維摩詰經
People: Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 (translator 譯)

Guopu argues that the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa [VKN] T474 was translated by Dharmarakṣa and not Zhi Qian. Her reasons are as follows.

1) A CSZJJ notice says that Zhi Qian's version of VKN was 闕. Guopu reads this as a remark by Daoan, relayed by Sengyou, and thinks it means that Zhi Qian's VKN was regarded by Daoan as lost.

2) Elswehere in her monograph (163-216), Guopu believes she has proven that Daoan was the author of a fragmentary manuscript commentary on T474 preserved at Dunhuang, P.3006.

3) She therefore believes that Daoan saw T474 (to comment upon it), and at the same time, never saw a version of the text he regarded as Zhi Qian's. She concludes that Daoan regarded T474 as by Dharmarakṣa.

4) Daoan would not have preferred a Zhu Shulan translation over Dharmarakṣa, because he criticised Zhu Shulan’s style, but praised Dharmarakṣa.

5) Glosses in T474 introduced by 漢言 are inconclusive, because any text featuring such wording could be borrowing from an earlier text, and because this wording is indeed also found in texts ascribed to Dharmarakṣa.

6) The Wei shu “Shi Lao zhi” treats some other texts by Zhi Qian as if they are by Dharmarakṣa, showing that such confusion was possible. A similar confusion can be documented even among Daoan’s disciples (but Guopu herself shows that Daoan himself does not make the same mistake).

7) Some items of translation terminology suggest a style closer to Dharmarakṣa than to Zhi Qian, namely: specific terms for the "four supports" 四依; 菩薩篋藏; and the names of the “six heretic” teachers.

Guopu's reading of 闕 has been criticised by Tu Yanqiu (2013), who argues that it actually meant that Sengyou, and not Daoan, did not see the text. Gao Mingdao (2013) sharply counter-attacks Tu on many points, but on this key issue, he agrees that 闕 tells us only about the state of the text in the time of Sengyou, and not at the time of Daoan.

Edit

217-252