| Identifier | T0474 [T] |
| Title | 佛說維摩詰經 [T] |
| Date | before 250? [Nattier 2008] |
| Revised | Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 [Sakaino 1935] |
| Translator 譯 | Zhi Qian 支謙 [T] |
There may be translations for this text listed in the Bibliography of Translations from the Chinese Buddhist Canon into Western Languages. If translations are listed, this link will take you directly to them. However, if no translations are listed, the link will lead only to the head of the page.
There are resources for the study of this text in the SAT Daizōkyō Text Dabatase (Saṃgaṇikīkṛtaṃ Taiśotripiṭakaṃ).
| Preferred? | Source | Pertains to | Argument | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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. |
Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[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. — 217-252 |
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. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[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. — 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 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. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Zürcher 1959/2007] Zürcher, Erik. The Buddhist Conquest of China: The Spread and Adaptation of Buddhism in Early Medieval China. Third Edition. Leiden: Brill, 1959 (2007 reprint). — 50, 336 n. 137 |
|
According to Zürcher, Sengyou attributed thirty-six texts to Zhi Qian 支謙, of which twenty-three have survived: T54, T68, T76, T87, T169, T185, T198, T225, T281, T362, T474, T493, T532, T533, T556, T557, T559, T581, T632, T708, T735, T790, T1011. However, Zürcher notes that T68 “is not mentioned by Dao’an.” This entry includes all twenty-three texts accepted by Zürcher as genuine Zhi Qian translations. Entry author: Sophie Florence |
|
|
No |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 147-148 |
Sakaino Kōyō argued in 1935 that T474 was in fact Dharmarakṣa’s revision of Zhi Qian’s translation, basing his argument upon a small number of translation terms in the text, which he regarded as found in either Zhi Qian or Dharmarakṣa but not the other. For Zhi Qian, Sakaino’s terms are 明度 (though in fact this term for prajñāpāramitā does appear a handful of times in texts ascribed to Dharmarakṣa) and 溝港 (for śrota-āpanna, which indeed never appears in Dharmarakṣa). For Dharmarakṣa, Sakaino cites a distinctive form of part of the list of the “eightfold assembly”: 揵沓和、阿須倫、迦留羅、甄陀羅，摩睺勒 (T474 [XIV] 519b23-24), and the phrase 江河沙 for (as numerous as) “the sands of the Ganges”. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Nattier 2008] Nattier, Jan. A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations: Texts from the Eastern Han 東漢 and Three Kingdoms 三國 Periods. Bibliotheca Philologica et Philosophica Buddhica X. Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2008. — 140 and n. 78. |
Nattier reports the opinion of Shi Guopu, who argues that T474 is the reported translation by Dharmarakṣa, on the grounds that: (1) she regards the Dunhuang commentary P3006 as the work of Dao'an; (2) Dao'an was critical of Zhi Qian's translations, and so would not compose a commentary on one of his works. (Nattier does not regard Shi's argument as persuasive.) Citing Shi Guopu 釋果樸. 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. Taipei: Fagu Culture Press, 1998. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Nattier 2008] Nattier, Jan. A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations: Texts from the Eastern Han 東漢 and Three Kingdoms 三國 Periods. Bibliotheca Philologica et Philosophica Buddhica X. Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2008. — 140-141 |
Nattier mentions that some scholars have regarded the ascription of this text to Zhi QIan with suspicion, basing themselves upon the fact that Sengyou, in CSZJJ, reports the text as lost (T2145 [LV] 6c14). They have instead speculated that it may be the version of Dharmarakṣa, which Sengyou lists as extant (T2145 [LV] 7c1). However, Nattier herself urges caution: "Given the fact that Dharmarakṣa borrowed extensively from Zhi Qian's terminology, even adopting elements of his style (e.g. the use of six-character verse), it is often difficult to differentiate the work of these two translators without an extensive terminological analysis. Such an analysis has not yet been carried out with respect to T474." In support of the ascription to Zhi Qian, she notes: (1) T474 glosses by saying 漢言, whereas Dharmarakṣa habitually says 晉言; (2) T474 uses a name for Avalokiteśvara, viz. 闚音, which is highly characteristic of Zhi Qian, while not using another equally characteristic of Dharmarakṣa, namely, 光世音. Nattier concludes: "Both the vocabulary of the text--which offers numerous other instances of vocabulary pioneered by An Xuan and Yan Fotiao in addition to the name Kuiyin--and its style are congruent with other works by Zhi Qian. The text exhibits a strong four-character prosodic pattern, with some passages in five- and seven-character verse. While future in-depth studies of the terminology and style of the text will be most welcome, at present there seems to be no reason to doubt that the text is the work of Zhi Qian." Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Kawano 2006] Kawano Satoshi 河野訓. Shoki kan'yaku butten no kenkyū: Jiku Hōgo o chūshin to shite 初期漢訳仏典の研究 : 竺法護を中心として. Ise: Kōgakkan Daigaku Shuppanbu, 2006. — 209 n. 8 |
Kawano cites Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋, Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史 (1935), reporting that Sakaino was of the opinion that T474 was a revision by Dharmarakṣa of Zhi Qian's original translation. [Kawano does not give page numbers in Sakaino.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Kawano 2006] Kawano Satoshi 河野訓. Shoki kan'yaku butten no kenkyū: Jiku Hōgo o chūshin to shite 初期漢訳仏典の研究 : 竺法護を中心として. Ise: Kōgakkan Daigaku Shuppanbu, 2006. — 209 n. 8 |
Kawano cites Usuda Junzō 臼田淳三, “Perio 3006 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), opining on the basis of the Dunhuang manuscript Pelliot 3006 that the extant T474 is not the work of Zhi Qian. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
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. — T474 (XIV) 532a2 and n. 2 |
At the end of Chapter 9, a famous passage about Vimalakīrti's silence in response to a question from Mañjuśrī is missing from K. The passage is carried in SYM, and reads: 於是文殊師利說已復問維摩詰曰我等各各說已何等是仁者說不二入時維摩詰默然無言時文殊讚曰善哉善哉乃至無文字語言是真不二入也說此不二入品時眾中五千菩薩皆得入不二法門俱會無生法忍. Entry author: Eric Greene |
|
|
|
No |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 91-92 |
Sakaino states that five titles are ascribed to Yan Fotiao in KYL: the Rushou pusa jing 濡首菩薩經 (2 juan) (cf. T234); All of these ascriptions are taken from LDSBJ and highly unreliable. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Kamata 1982] Kamata Shigeo 鎌田茂雄. Chūgoku bukkyō shi, dai ikkan: Shodenki no bukkyō 中国仏教史 第一巻 初伝期末の仏教. Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1982. — 207-208 |
Kamata quotes a paragraph from Zhi Mindu’s 支敏度 preface to his synoptic version of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa 合維摩經序, which records that the original text of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa 維摩詰經 (VKN) came from Vaiśālī 維耶離, and was brought to China under the Han. The text was first translated by Zhi Qian, and then again, separately, by Dharmarakṣa and by Zhu Falan 竺叔蘭. In compiling his synoptic version, Zhi Mindu took Zhi Qian’s translation as his main text 主 and the translation by Zhu Falan as a supplementary 従, AND reorganized the scripture to make it easier to read, by dividing the content into chapters and inserting spaces between phrases (207-208). According to Zhi Mindu’s preface, Zhi Qian’s VKN was still extant in his time. Still, Kamata point outs, the text was listed as a missing scripture in Sengyou’s newly compiled catalogue of sūtras, Vinaya and śastras 新集經律論錄, which was based on Dao’an. Apart from Zhi Qian’s VKN, that catalogue records that a VKN ascribed to Dharmarakṣa (with an alternate title Weimojie ming jie 維摩詰名解) also existed. The VKN ascribed to Zhi Qian has been regarded as extant since Fajing. However, according to Kamata, the VKN ascribed to Zhi Qian in the Taishō, T474 , is not Zhi Qian’s work. Different views have been presented about the true ascription of T474: Some reascribe(s) it to Dharmarakṣa (Kamata cites Ōno Genmyō’s bekkan to the Bussho kaisetsu daijten 小野玄妙『仏教經典総論』（『仏書解説大辞典』別巻）, 43); other(s) think that the extant 維摩經 is Dharmarakṣa’s revision of Zhi Qian’s translation (Kamata cites Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋『支那仏教精史』, 国書刊行会, 1972, 147-148). Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Radich 2019a] He Shuqun 何書群 [Michael Radich]. "Zhu Fahu shifou xiuding guo T474? 竺法護是否修訂過T474?" Foguang xuebao 佛光學報, New Series, 5, no. 2 (2019): 15-38. |
Radich argues that T474, ascribed in the present canon to Zhi Qian, was heavily revised or modified in the context immediately around Dharmarakṣa. Radich bases his argument upon over 180 items of phraseology which are found in T474, but otherwise never appear before the corpus of Dharmarakṣa; the same items are regular and quite widely distributed in Dharmarakṣa's works. Radich also reviews external evidence that Dharmarakṣa produced one or more versions of the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa, which might provide corroboration for a connection between Dharmarakṣa and T474. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Nattier 2008] Nattier, Jan. A Guide to the Earliest Chinese Buddhist Translations: Texts from the Eastern Han 東漢 and Three Kingdoms 三國 Periods. Bibliotheca Philologica et Philosophica Buddhica X. Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University, 2008. — 164 n. 3 |
Nattier notes that T1694 cites T474. [T474 must therefore predate T1694 (thus perhaps before the middle of the third century? cf. Zacchetti 2010 --- MR.] Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Fang and Lu 2023] Fang Yixin 方一新 and Lu Lu 盧鹭. “Jin shiyu nian cong yuyan jiaodu kaobian keyi Fojing chengguo de huigu yu zhanwang” 近十余年從語言角度考辨可疑佛經成果的回顧與展望.” Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences Online Edition), Jan. 2023: 1–24. — 9 |
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Tu Yanqiu questions Shi Guopu’s view that the translator of the Weimojie jing 維摩詰經 T474 is Dharmarakṣa, and argues from the perspective of the language and style that the ascription still debatable. They refer to Tu Yanqiu 塗艷秋. “Cong Zhi Qian yu Zhu Fahu de yijing fengge lice Dunhuang xiejuan P.3006 jingwen zhi yizhe” 從支謙與竺法護的譯經風格厘測敦煌寫卷 P.3006 經文之譯者. Hanxue yanjiu 漢學研究 1 (2013): 285–318. Entry author: Mengji Huang |
|
|
|
No |
[Fang and Lu 2023] Fang Yixin 方一新 and Lu Lu 盧鹭. “Jin shiyu nian cong yuyan jiaodu kaobian keyi Fojing chengguo de huigu yu zhanwang” 近十余年從語言角度考辨可疑佛經成果的回顧與展望.” Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences Online Edition), Jan. 2023: 1–24. — 9 |
In a survey article of scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Li Zhouyuan argues that the correlation between the Weimojie jing 維摩詰經 T474 and Dharmarakṣa’s translations in not significant. They refer to Li Zhouyuan 李周淵. “Sanguo Zhi Qian yijing yanjiu” 三國支謙譯經研究. PhD diss., Fagu wenli xueyuan 法鼓文理學院, 2020: 70–75. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|