| Identifier | [None] |
| Title | Renwang bore jing 仁王般若經 [Fei 597] |
| Date | [None] |
| Translator 譯 | Paramārtha, 真諦 [Fei 597] |
| Preferred? | Source | Pertains to | Argument | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
No |
[Radich 2012] Radich, Michael. "External Evidence Relating to Works Ascribed to Paramārtha, with a Focus on Traditional Chinese Catalogues." In Shintai sanzō kenkyū ronshū 真諦三藏研究論集 [Studies of the Works and Influence of Paramartha], edited by Funayama Tōru 船山徹, 39-102[L]. Kyoto: Kyōto daigaku jinbun kagaku kenkyūjo/Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University, 2012. — 86-87 |
Radich summarises evidence given in a range of sources indicating that Paramārtha re-translated the "Scripture on the Humane Kings", even though the text is generally regarded as a Chinese apocryphon, and the ascription of the extant version to Kumārajīva is generally rejected. Sources asserting the existence of such a translation are: LDSBJ, Yancong, Jingtai, DTNDL, and Jingmai; but also Zhiyi 智顗, Liangben 良賁 (717-777) and Yuanzhao 圓照 (fl. 8c.). Zhisheng repeats the tradition but states that the supposed text was lost by his time. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|
|
|
No |
[Sakaino 1935] Sakaino Kōyō 境野黄洋. Shina Bukkyō seishi 支那佛教精史. Tokyo: Sakaino Kōyō Hakushi Ikō Kankōkai, 1935. — 708-710 |
Sakaino claims that the “Sūtra of Humane Kings” 仁王般若經 ascribed to Paramārtha probably did not exist, suspecting that no Indic original text 梵本 ever existed. He therefore argues that the record about this text in LDSBJ is not reliable. He also mentions the oddity that, in LDSBJ, the year of translation of the sutra itself, Chengsheng 承聖 3, is five years before the supposed production year of a commentary on the same text 仁王般若經疏, Taiqing 太清 3. Entry author: Atsushi Iseki |
|
|
|
No |
[Fei 597] Fei Changfang 費長房. Lidai sanbao ji (LDSBJ) 歷代三寶紀 T2034. — T2034:49.99a2 |
LDSBJ reports that Paramārtha translated a version of the "Sūtra of Humane Kings": 仁王般若經一卷 [despite the fact that the extant version of the text, ascribed to Kumārajīva, is regarded as a Chinese apocryphon]. Entry author: Michael Radich |
|