of A. D. 601, that the text-differences in the MSS. current in those days were more important than such as we observe in the Nepalese MSS. from 1000 A. D. downward, with which the Tibetan closely agree. The Chinese preface is so interesting that it is worth while to copy a passage from it as quoted in the Catalogue of the Tripitaka: 1
«The translations of Chu Fa-hu, No. 138, and Kumarajïva, No. 134, are most probably made from two different texts. In the repository of the Canon, I (the author of the preface) have seen two texts (or copies of the text, of the Saddharma-pundarïka); one is written on the palm leaves, and the other in the letters of Kwei-tsz', or Kharacar, Kumarajïva's maternal country. The former text exactly agrees with No. 138, and the latter with No. 134. No. 138 omits only the Gathas of the Samantamukha-parivarta, chap. 24. But No. 134 omits half of the Ösadhiparivarta, chap. 5, the beginning of the Pancabhiksugatavyakarana-parivarta, chap. 8, and that of the Saddharmabhanaka-parivarta, chap. 10, and the Gathas of the Devadatta-parivarta, chap. 12 2, and those of the Samantamukha-parivarta, chap. 25. Moreover, No. 134 puts the Dharmaparyaya-parivarta (the last chapter of the Sütra) before the Bhaisajyaraja-parivarta, chap. 23. Nos. 138 and 134 both place the Dharanï-parivarta next to the Samantamukha-parivarta, chaps. 24 and 25 respectively. Beside these, there are minor differences between the text and translation. The omission of the Gathas in No. 134, chaps. 12 and 25, have since been filled in by some wise men, whoseexample I wish to follow. In the first year of the Zan-sheu period, A.D. 601, I, together with Jnanagupta and Dharmagupta, have examined the palm-leaf text, at the request of a (Jramana, (^han-hhin, and found that the beginning of two chapters, 8th and lOth, are also wanting in thetext(thoughNo. 138 contains them). Nevertheless we have increased a half of the 5th chapter, and put the 12th chapter into the llth, and restored the Dharanï-parivarta and Dharmaparyaya-parivarta to their proper order, as chaps. 21 and 27. There are also some words and passages which have been altered (while the greater part of No. 134 is retained). The reader is requested not to have any suspicion about these differences.»
According to the opinion of an eminent Chinese scholar, the late Stanislas Julien, the translation of Kumarajïva widely differs from Burnoufs. He gives utterance to that opinion in a letter dated June 12, 1866, and addressed to Professor Max Müller, to whose obliging kindness it is due thatl am able to publish a specimen of Kumarajïva's version rendered into French by Stanislas Julien. The fragment answers to the stanzas 1-22 of chap. iii.
1 Sütra Pifaka, ooi. 45.
5 In the Nepalese MSS. and the European translations the latter part of chap. xi.