Source: Kimura 1987

Kimura Senshō 木村宣彰. “Chū yuima kyō shoin no betsubon ni tsuite 注維摩経所引の別本について.” IBK 35, no. 2 (1987): 99-104.

Assertions

Assertion Argument Place in source Search

Kimura 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. Kimura's reasons are as follows:

Kumārajīva’s circle were critical of the earlier translations; however, Kumārajīva’s comments are not critical of the bieben; rather, Kumārajīva explains in detail the differences between the wording of the bieben and of T475, sometimes with reference to the Indic source text;

the bieben features the term shiji 實際 (bhūtakoṭi), which is a Kumārajīva coinage;

it is known that in other cases, the Kumārajīva group similarly worked with earlier draft translations before finalising the extant versions of their texts.

Kimura suggests further that the bieben was probably in fact the text with the title 毘摩羅詰(堤/提)經, to which Sengrui wrote an extant preface, and reference is made in MPPU and the correspondence of Kumārajīva and Lushan Huiyuan. He also suggests that Jizang probably refers to this same text in a passage where he explicitly says that there are two version of the sūtra, citing wording which does not match any extant VKN.

Edit

 Kimura 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. Kimura's reasons are as follows: Kumarajiva’s circle were critical of the earlier translations; however, Kumarajiva’s comments are not critical of the bieben; rather, Kumarajiva explains in detail the differences between the wording of the bieben and of T475, sometimes with reference to the Indic source text; the bieben features the term shiji 實際 (bhutakoti), which is a Kumarajiva coinage; it is known that in other cases, the Kumarajiva group similarly worked with earlier draft translations before finalising the extant versions of their texts. Kimura suggests further that the bieben was probably in fact the text with the title 毘摩羅詰(堤/提)經, to which Sengrui wrote an extant preface, and reference is made in MPPU and the correspondence of Kumarajiva and Lushan Huiyuan. He also suggests that Jizang probably refers to this same text in a passage where he explicitly says that there are two version of the sutra, citing wording which does not match any extant VKN. 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