Text: T0474; 佛說維摩詰經

No

• T0474; 佛說維摩詰經

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

Edit

No

• T0474; 佛說維摩詰經

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

Edit

• People: Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 (revised)

No

• T0474; 佛說維摩詰經

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

Edit

No

• T0474; 佛說維摩詰經

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

Edit

• People: Zhi Qian 支謙 (translator 譯)

No

• T0474; 佛說維摩詰經

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

Edit

No

• T0474; 佛說維摩詰經

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

Edit

• People: Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 (translator 譯)

No

• T0474; 佛說維摩詰經

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

Edit

• People: Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 (translator 譯)

No

• T0474; 佛說維摩詰經

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

Edit

• People: Zhi Qian 支謙 (translator 譯); Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 (revised)