MINOR BUDDHIST TEXTS (Part 1)

G. TUCCI
is the above said agreement of B with T. as regards the
place of one passage would support this hypothesis.
As regards the catalogues, they state that the book was
in two chiian as A: (N e i t' i e n, p. 280 a; K'ai yuan
shih chiao, p. 551 b; Ku chin yi ching t'u chi
p. 366 b) only the Cheng yuan hsin ting shih
chiao, p. 850a, speaks of three chiian: but in the
Tempyo and Shosoin ms. two chapters are mentioned.
Unfortunately I have no sufficient data to solve in a
definite way the problem of the origin of the two redactions.
But it is certain that except for the misplacement
of the passage referred to above, generally, the agreement
of A and T. is much closer than of B and T.
The fact that the ancient catalogues know only a
text in two c h ii a n makes it possible to guess that
when the text of the sutra was inserted into that of
the sastra, this caused a new arrangement into
chiian and also some changes in the text itself such as
the enunciation of the subject dealt with in each section
and a rearrangement of some paragraphs with the purpose
of making easier the understanding of the text.
Besides the above treatises, other commentaries upon
the Vajracchedika have come down to us either
in a Chinese or in a Tibetan translation.
First comes the ± |gj| ft ^ t I « jg tf$ M %
^iSHPi^fmh Chin kang pan jo po lo
mi ching po ch'ii chu pu huai chia
ming 1 u n attributed toKung te shih Xf] ^s.
^, (Nj. 1192; Ta. 1515).
This name has been restored by Nanji5 into Gunada
(?) and the same tentative restoration has been accepted
by Hobogirin (Table des auteurs et traducteurs,
[20]