MINOR BUDDHIST TEXTS (Part 1)

G. TUCCI
This can be called a commentary on Ta. 1511 by a socalled
pupil of Vasubandhu, whose name is said to have
been Chin kang hsien, Vajrarsi. But the style of
the work seems to suggest that we are here confronted
with a compilation written in China.
The numerous passages in which the Sanskrit words
are transcribed and then rendered into Chinese with a
discussion on the older transcription or translation of the
original terms Bhagavan, Sravasti, Paramita etc. also
point to this conclusion. The work itself is nothing but
a commentary on the sastra of Vasubandhu; as a
matter of fact, first the author comments rather diffusely
on the sutra itself, then he refers to the sastra of
Vasubandhu; the passages of this sastra are generally
quoted and then a comment follows: the karikas
are also mentioned but rather cursorily, without entering
into many details. A careful perusal of the book confirms
the reader in the opinion that the author undertook to
comment on the r^ajracchedika supporting his views
with the work of Vasubandhu which he strictly follows
and glosses. These facts, along with the references to the
transmission of the book and the discussion, already alluded
to, on Sanskrit terms rendered into Chinese show
that the treatise has been compiled in China perhaps by
Bodhiruci himself as an explanation both of the sutra
and the sastra of Vasubandhu !) . That explains why
in some quarters the authoritativeness of this work was
questioned. In fact K'uei chi (Ta. 1700, p. 125), after
having stated that in China were circulating three diffe-
J ) Cf. J. TAKAKUSU, op. cit., pp. 83-4. Cf. Quarterly Bull, of Chinese
Bibliography, New Series, II/4, Peking 1940. P. DEMI£VILLE, BEFEO, XLIV,
p. 387, n. 3.
[12]