| Identifier | [None] |
| Title | 大乗寶雲經; *Mahāyānaratnamegha-sūtra [Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936] |
| Date | 陳 [Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936] |
| Translator 譯 | *Subhūti 須菩提 [Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936] |
| Preferred? | Source | Pertains to | Argument | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
No |
[Ono and Maruyama 1933-1936] Ono Genmyō 小野玄妙, Maruyama Takao 丸山孝雄, eds. Bussho kaisetsu daijiten 佛書解說大辭典. Tokyo: Daitō shuppan, 1933-1936 [縮刷版 1999]. — s.v., Vol.10, 136 (Sakurabe Bunkyō 櫻部文鏡) |
In his article about the *Ratnamegha-sūtra 寶雲經 T658, Sakurabe Bunkyō 櫻部文鏡 explains that there are several Chinese texts similar to T658 (in 7 juan 巻), such as the *Mahāyānaratnamegha-sūtra 大乗寶雲經 (7 juan) T659 ascribed to Mandra[sena] 曼陀羅仙 and others, the *Ratnamegha-sūtra 寶雨經 (10 juan) T660 translated by Dharmaruci 達磨流支, the Chu gaizhang pusa suowen jing 除蓋障菩薩所問經 (20 juan) T489 translated by Dharmapāla 法護 of the Song 宋, and the *Mahāyānaratnamegha-sūtra 大乗寶雲經 (8 juan) translated by *Subhūti 須菩提 of the Chen 陳. *Subhūti’s translation is regarded as lost, but the other four are extant. T658 is in the Korean 麗, Yuan 元, and Ming 明 canons, and T659 is in the Song 宋 canon. Sakurabe maintains that, although these two are both ascribed to Mandra[sena], they must have been translated by different scholars from different texts, since there are significant differences in the vocabulary and content between these two. Also, there is no record in the catalogues or in the biographies 僧傳 that Mandra[sena] translated two *Ratnamegha-sūtra. Sakurabe also conjectures that it is reasonable to regard the *Mahāyānaratnamegha-sūtra 大乗寶雲經 T659 in the Song 宋 canon as *Subhūti's "lost" version. Sakurabe shows two facts to support this possibility: that the Liang 梁 and Chen 陳 periods are chronologically adjacent to each other; and that both Mandra[sena] and *Subhūti were from Funan 扶南. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|