Source: Okayama 1977

Okayama Hajime 丘山新. “Chū Yuimakitsu kyō shoin no ‘betsubon’ ni tsuite『注維摩詰経』所引の「別本」について.” IBK 26, no. 1 (1977): 154-155.

Assertions

Assertion	Argument	Place in source	Search
Texts: Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa “bieben” 別本; 毘摩羅詰(堤/提)經 People: Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 (translator 譯)	Okayama suggests 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 precisely the “Zhu” version of VNK that Sengzhao mentions in his preface. Taking “Zhi” as T474, as ascribed to Zhi Qian, he asks whether the “Zhu” supposedly responsible for the bieben is Zhu Fahu = Dharmarakṣa, or Zhu Shulan. Okayama regards it as difficult to answer this question, because he believes that no other texts by Zhu Shulan survive to serve as a point of comparison. At the same time, he also points out that Kumārajīva’s “new” translations tended to be retranslations of major texts in the Dharmarakṣa corpus (such as the Śūraṃgamasamādhi , the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, the Prajñāpāramitā , and the Bhadrakalpika). On these grounds, Okayama surmises that the bieben was more likely the “lost” Dharmarakṣa translation. Edit		Okayama suggests 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 precisely the “Zhu” version of VNK that Sengzhao mentions in his preface. Taking “Zhi” as T474, as ascribed to Zhi Qian, he asks whether the “Zhu” supposedly responsible for the bieben is Zhu Fahu = Dharmaraksa, or Zhu Shulan. Okayama regards it as difficult to answer this question, because he believes that no other texts by Zhu Shulan survive to serve as a point of comparison. At the same time, he also points out that Kumarajiva’s “new” translations tended to be retranslations of major texts in the Dharmaraksa corpus (such as the Suramgamasamadhi , the Saddharmapundarika, the Prajnaparamita , and the Bhadrakalpika). On these grounds, Okayama surmises that the bieben was more likely the “lost” Dharmaraksa translation. Dharmaraksa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 Vimalakirti-nirdesa “bieben” 別本; 毘摩羅詰(堤/提)經

Assertion

Argument

Place in source

Texts: Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa “bieben” 別本; 毘摩羅詰(堤/提)經
People: Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 (translator 譯)

Okayama suggests 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 precisely the “Zhu” version of VNK that Sengzhao mentions in his preface. Taking “Zhi” as T474, as ascribed to Zhi Qian, he asks whether the “Zhu” supposedly responsible for the bieben is Zhu Fahu = Dharmarakṣa, or Zhu Shulan. Okayama regards it as difficult to answer this question, because he believes that no other texts by Zhu Shulan survive to serve as a point of comparison. At the same time, he also points out that Kumārajīva’s “new” translations tended to be retranslations of major texts in the Dharmarakṣa corpus (such as the Śūraṃgamasamādhi , the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, the Prajñāpāramitā , and the Bhadrakalpika). On these grounds, Okayama surmises that the bieben was more likely the “lost” Dharmarakṣa translation.

Edit