Text: T1775; 注維摩詰經

No

[T]  T = CBETA [Chinese Buddhist Electronic Text Association]. Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經. Edited by Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 and Watanabe Kaigyoku 渡邊海旭. Tokyo: Taishō shinshū daizōkyō kankōkai/Daizō shuppan, 1924-1932. CBReader v 5.0, 2014.

• T1775; 注維摩詰經

推誠保德翊戴功臣金紫光祿大夫行 尚書左丞上柱國清河郡開國侯食邑 一千七百戶食實封肆伯戶張齊賢述 + 後秦釋僧肇選 + 後秦釋僧肇撰

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

• Title: 注維摩詰經
• People: Sengzhao, 僧肇 (author)
• Identifier: T1775

No

[Usuda 1977]  Usuda Junzō 臼田淳三. “Chū Yuimaketsu kyō no kenkyū 注維摩詰経の研究.” IBK 26, no. 1 (1977): 262-265.

• T1775; 注維摩詰經

Usuda argues that the 注維摩詰經 T1775 reached its present form quite late. He proceeds by comparing the Taishō base text (寬永十八年刊宗教大學藏本) with the witness called 甲 in the Taishō apparatus (平安時代寫大和多武峯談山神社藏本，題名維摩經集解). Usuda concludes that 甲, which is in only eight juan, is the older of the two witnesses. Usuda establishes this by noting several key differences between 甲 and the base text: 1) In the base text, where Sengzhao's comments are the same as those of Kumārajīva, Sengzhao's comments are abbreviated, whereas they are not in 甲; 2) in the base text but not in 甲, a citation appears among Sengzhao's remarks from the Mahāparinirvāṇa-mahāsūtra in the Dharmakṣema translation (T374/T375). This citation, which would be anachronistic for a Sengzhao text, had led some scholars (Ōchō E’nichi, Tang Yongtong) to doubt whether the comments included were really by Sengzhao. 3) The base text, but not 甲, includes a preface by Sengzhao. Usuda argues that these changes were made between the composition of the commentary by Daoye 道液 in 760, and 993 CE, which is the date given in a postface still carried by the text in the Taishō. This means that Daoye is also a useful source in determining the original readings of the text.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

• Date: late 7C-8C

No

[Demiéville 1962]  Demiéville, Paul. “Vimalakīrti en Chine.” Appendix II in Lamotte, L’Enseignement de Vimalakīrti (Vimalakīrtinirdeśa): Traduit et Annoté (Louvain: Publications Universitaires, 1962): 438-455. — 445-446 n. 25

• T1775; 注維摩詰經

Demiéville mentions that Tsukamoto (Jōron kenkyū 肇論研究 147) suggests that this collection may have been compiled under the Tang in 760.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

No

[Fujita 1981]  Fujita Kōtatsu 藤田宏達. "Muryōju kyō no yakusha mondai hosetsu 『無量寿経』の訳者問題補説." In Daijō Bukkyō kara mikkyō e: Katsumata Shinkyō hakase kokikinenronshū 大乗仏教から密教へ：勝又俊教博士古稀記念論集, edited by the Katsumata Shinkyō hakase kokikinenronshū kankōkai 勝又俊教博士古稀記念論文集刊行会, 691-700[R]. Tokyo: Shunjūsha, 1981. — 696-697

• T1775; 注維摩詰經

Fujita briefly mentions that T1775 in fact collects the comments of four commentators: Kumārajīva, Sengzhao 僧肇, Daosheng 道生, and Daorong 道融. He also mentions that it has been shown to contain a reference to the *Dharmakṣema version of MPNMS (T374, or perhaps T375, its "Southern" revision; however, the wording of this reference is loose, and according to the Taishō apparatus, this citation is missing from the Heian manuscript of the text with the siglum 甲). Fujita cites Usuda (1977). Fujita follows the traditional dating of *Dharmakṣema's activity, and therefore dates T374 as completed in 421 [but cf. Chen (2004)---MR].

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

• People: Daorong 道融 (author); Daosheng, 竺道生 (author); Kumārajīva 鳩摩羅什, 鳩摩羅, 究摩羅, 究摩羅什, 拘摩羅耆婆 (author); Sengzhao, 僧肇 (author)

No

[Hanazuka 1982]  Hanazuka, Hisayoshi 花塚久義. “Chu Yuimakitsukyō no hensansha o megutte” 注維摩詰経の編纂者をめぐって. Komazawa daigaku bukkyōgakubu ronshū 駒澤大学仏教学部論集 13 (1982): 201–214. — 203, 207-–211

• T1775; 注維摩詰經

Hanazuka argues that in its present form, the Zhu Weimojie jing 注維摩詰經 T1775 must be a later compilation. It which shows signs of subsequent redaction even within individual glosses transmitted under the name of Sengzhao. Hanazuka analyses the available sources, and on this basis, suggests that the compilation of the collection of glosses in the earlier eight-scroll format (as opposed to the closely related later ten-scroll edition represented by T1775) dates to the sixth century. He hypothetically ascribes this phase of the composition process to Emperor Wu of the Liang dynasty.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit