Source: Usuda 1981

Usuda Junzō 臼田淳三. “Perio 2006 ban Kan’yaku butten chūshaku sho danpen o megutte: Kumarajū yaku izen no Yuima kyō chūshaku sho ぺリオ三〇〇六番漢訳仏典注釈断片をめぐって　鳩摩羅什以前の維摩経注釈書.” Bukkyō shigaku kenkyū 仏教史学研究 23, no. 2 (1981): 1-18.

Assertions

Assertion	Argument	Place in source	Search
Texts: T0474; 佛說維摩詰經 People: Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 (translator 譯)	Usuda argues on the basis of the Dunhuang manuscript P.3006 that T474 is likely to have been translated at least in part by Dharmarakṣa. Usuda’s reasons are as follows. 1) P.3006 compares T474 to parallel passages in Dharmarakṣa’s SP T263, which was translated in 286. Zhu Shulan’s translation of VKN appeared in 291. Usuda thinks it would be more natural to use the most recent translation of VKN as the basis for comment; but this leaves a narrow window of time between 286 and 291 for a commentator to have used T474 as a basis for comment. 2) A new text would be more likely to require explanation, and therefore, to be the target of commentary. It would make sense to explicate the new text with reference to an older, authoritative parallel. However, if T474 is by ZQ, we see the opposite pattern: the “old” T474 is explicated with reference to the “newer” T263. 3) If a commentator was going to comment on an older text, that text would surely be highly regarded. However, VKN was retranslated twice in a short span by Dharmarakṣa and Zhu Shulan, which suggests rather dissatisfaction with Zhi Qian’s text. 4) P.3006 cites comments by a “Mr. Zhu” 竺氏. Usuda believes it is most likely that this figure is Dharmarakṣa, and that given these citations, the commentary was most likely composed among Dharmarakṣa’s disciples. 5) Usuda cites similar opinions from Ono and Sakaino. 6) Other manuscripts from Western China also contain interlinear commentary, like P.3006. In one comment, VKN is cited, corresponding our extant “ZQ” text (T474 [XIV] 523c21). However, the form of the title given in the manuscript is 維摩鞊, which is the form given in CSZJJ for the title of the Dharmarakṣa version. In addition, the unidentified root text in this manuscript commentary sports Dharmarakṣa-like terminology (Usuda does not specify what), and the interlinear commentary cites from Dharmarakṣa’s 漸備經 (Daśabhūmika) T285. 7) Usuda believes that an alternate version of VKN, cited in the combined commentaries of Kumārajīva and his disciples on VKN T1775 (the so-called bieben 別本), was probably an earlier draft translation of VKN by Kumārajīva himself. At the same time, Usuda argues that this version had some relationship to Zhi Mindu’s synoptic version, which he believes incorporated portions of Dharmarakṣa’s translation. On these grounds, and in line with Sakaino’s arguments, Usuda concludes that T474 incorporates at least some elements of Dharmarakṣa’s translation. Edit	5-11	Usuda argues on the basis of the Dunhuang manuscript P.3006 that T474 is likely to have been translated at least in part by Dharmaraksa. Usuda’s reasons are as follows. 1) P.3006 compares T474 to parallel passages in Dharmaraksa’s SP T263, which was translated in 286. Zhu Shulan’s translation of VKN appeared in 291. Usuda thinks it would be more natural to use the most recent translation of VKN as the basis for comment; but this leaves a narrow window of time between 286 and 291 for a commentator to have used T474 as a basis for comment. 2) A new text would be more likely to require explanation, and therefore, to be the target of commentary. It would make sense to explicate the new text with reference to an older, authoritative parallel. However, if T474 is by ZQ, we see the opposite pattern: the “old” T474 is explicated with reference to the “newer” T263. 3) If a commentator was going to comment on an older text, that text would surely be highly regarded. However, VKN was retranslated twice in a short span by Dharmaraksa and Zhu Shulan, which suggests rather dissatisfaction with Zhi Qian’s text. 4) P.3006 cites comments by a “Mr. Zhu” 竺氏. Usuda believes it is most likely that this figure is Dharmaraksa, and that given these citations, the commentary was most likely composed among Dharmaraksa’s disciples. 5) Usuda cites similar opinions from Ono and Sakaino. 6) Other manuscripts from Western China also contain interlinear commentary, like P.3006. In one comment, VKN is cited, corresponding our extant “ZQ” text (T474 [XIV] 523c21). However, the form of the title given in the manuscript is 維摩鞊, which is the form given in CSZJJ for the title of the Dharmaraksa version. In addition, the unidentified root text in this manuscript commentary sports Dharmaraksa-like terminology (Usuda does not specify what), and the interlinear commentary cites from Dharmaraksa’s 漸備經 (Dasabhumika) T285. 7) Usuda believes that an alternate version of VKN, cited in the combined commentaries of Kumarajiva and his disciples on VKN T1775 (the so-called bieben 別本), was probably an earlier draft translation of VKN by Kumarajiva himself. At the same time, Usuda argues that this version had some relationship to Zhi Mindu’s synoptic version, which he believes incorporated portions of Dharmaraksa’s translation. On these grounds, and in line with Sakaino’s arguments, Usuda concludes that T474 incorporates at least some elements of Dharmaraksa’s translation. Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 T0474; 佛說維摩詰經
Texts: Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa “bieben” 別本; 毘摩羅詰(堤/提)經 Titles: Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa “bieben” 別本 People: Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 (translator 譯)	Usuda argues that the bieben (an "alternate version" of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa referred to 27 times in the collected commentaries of Kumārajīva and his disciples, T1775) is an earlier draft translation of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa by Kumārajīva himself. Every citation from the bieben is followed by an explanation from Kumārajīva. Usuda argues that Kumārajīva would not comment in this manner on somebody else’s translation, and that discussions of the bieben were therefore incorporated into T1775 (as part of the complex compilation history of that text) from an earlier circulating independent VKN commentary by Kumārajīva only. Edit		Usuda argues that the bieben (an "alternate version" of the Vimalakirti-nirdesa referred to 27 times in the collected commentaries of Kumarajiva and his disciples, T1775) is an earlier draft translation of the Vimalakirti-nirdesa by Kumarajiva himself. Every citation from the bieben is followed by an explanation from Kumarajiva. Usuda argues that Kumarajiva would not comment in this manner on somebody else’s translation, and that discussions of the bieben were therefore incorporated into T1775 (as part of the complex compilation history of that text) from an earlier circulating independent VKN commentary by Kumarajiva only. Kumarajiva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 Vimalakirti-nirdesa “bieben” 別本; 毘摩羅詰(堤/提)經

Assertion

Argument

Place in source

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

Usuda argues on the basis of the Dunhuang manuscript P.3006 that T474 is likely to have been translated at least in part by Dharmarakṣa. Usuda’s reasons are as follows.

1) P.3006 compares T474 to parallel passages in Dharmarakṣa’s SP T263, which was translated in 286. Zhu Shulan’s translation of VKN appeared in 291. Usuda thinks it would be more natural to use the most recent translation of VKN as the basis for comment; but this leaves a narrow window of time between 286 and 291 for a commentator to have used T474 as a basis for comment.

2) A new text would be more likely to require explanation, and therefore, to be the target of commentary. It would make sense to explicate the new text with reference to an older, authoritative parallel. However, if T474 is by ZQ, we see the opposite pattern: the “old” T474 is explicated with reference to the “newer” T263.

3) If a commentator was going to comment on an older text, that text would surely be highly regarded. However, VKN was retranslated twice in a short span by Dharmarakṣa and Zhu Shulan, which suggests rather dissatisfaction with Zhi Qian’s text.

4) P.3006 cites comments by a “Mr. Zhu” 竺氏. Usuda believes it is most likely that this figure is Dharmarakṣa, and that given these citations, the commentary was most likely composed among Dharmarakṣa’s disciples.

5) Usuda cites similar opinions from Ono and Sakaino.

6) Other manuscripts from Western China also contain interlinear commentary, like P.3006. In one comment, VKN is cited, corresponding our extant “ZQ” text (T474 [XIV] 523c21). However, the form of the title given in the manuscript is 維摩鞊, which is the form given in CSZJJ for the title of the Dharmarakṣa version. In addition, the unidentified root text in this manuscript commentary sports Dharmarakṣa-like terminology (Usuda does not specify what), and the interlinear commentary cites from Dharmarakṣa’s 漸備經 (Daśabhūmika) T285.

7) Usuda believes that an alternate version of VKN, cited in the combined commentaries of Kumārajīva and his disciples on VKN T1775 (the so-called bieben 別本), was probably an earlier draft translation of VKN by Kumārajīva himself. At the same time, Usuda argues that this version had some relationship to Zhi Mindu’s synoptic version, which he believes incorporated portions of Dharmarakṣa’s translation.

On these grounds, and in line with Sakaino’s arguments, Usuda concludes that T474 incorporates at least some elements of Dharmarakṣa’s translation.

Edit

5-11

Usuda argues on the basis of the Dunhuang manuscript P.3006 that T474 is likely to have been translated at least in part by Dharmaraksa. Usuda’s reasons are as follows. 1) P.3006 compares T474 to parallel passages in Dharmaraksa’s SP T263, which was translated in 286. Zhu Shulan’s translation of VKN appeared in 291. Usuda thinks it would be more natural to use the most recent translation of VKN as the basis for comment; but this leaves a narrow window of time between 286 and 291 for a commentator to have used T474 as a basis for comment. 2) A new text would be more likely to require explanation, and therefore, to be the target of commentary. It would make sense to explicate the new text with reference to an older, authoritative parallel. However, if T474 is by ZQ, we see the opposite pattern: the “old” T474 is explicated with reference to the “newer” T263. 3) If a commentator was going to comment on an older text, that text would surely be highly regarded. However, VKN was retranslated twice in a short span by Dharmaraksa and Zhu Shulan, which suggests rather dissatisfaction with Zhi Qian’s text. 4) P.3006 cites comments by a “Mr. Zhu” 竺氏. Usuda believes it is most likely that this figure is Dharmaraksa, and that given these citations, the commentary was most likely composed among Dharmaraksa’s disciples. 5) Usuda cites similar opinions from Ono and Sakaino. 6) Other manuscripts from Western China also contain interlinear commentary, like P.3006. In one comment, VKN is cited, corresponding our extant “ZQ” text (T474 [XIV] 523c21). However, the form of the title given in the manuscript is 維摩鞊, which is the form given in CSZJJ for the title of the Dharmaraksa version. In addition, the unidentified root text in this manuscript commentary sports Dharmaraksa-like terminology (Usuda does not specify what), and the interlinear commentary cites from Dharmaraksa’s 漸備經 (Dasabhumika) T285. 7) Usuda believes that an alternate version of VKN, cited in the combined commentaries of Kumarajiva and his disciples on VKN T1775 (the so-called bieben 別本), was probably an earlier draft translation of VKN by Kumarajiva himself. At the same time, Usuda argues that this version had some relationship to Zhi Mindu’s synoptic version, which he believes incorporated portions of Dharmaraksa’s translation. On these grounds, and in line with Sakaino’s arguments, Usuda concludes that T474 incorporates at least some elements of Dharmaraksa’s translation. Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 T0474; 佛說維摩詰經

Texts: Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa “bieben” 別本; 毘摩羅詰(堤/提)經
Titles: Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa “bieben” 別本
People: Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 (translator 譯)

Usuda argues that the bieben (an "alternate version" of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa referred to 27 times in the collected commentaries of Kumārajīva and his disciples, T1775) is an earlier draft translation of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa by Kumārajīva himself. Every citation from the bieben is followed by an explanation from Kumārajīva. Usuda argues that Kumārajīva would not comment in this manner on somebody else’s translation, and that discussions of the bieben were therefore incorporated into T1775 (as part of the complex compilation history of that text) from an earlier circulating independent VKN commentary by Kumārajīva only.

Edit