Text: T0360; 佛說無量壽經; Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra

No

• T0360; 佛說無量壽經; Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra

In an article surveying scholarship on questions of attribution in the Chinese canon published in the last decade, Fang and Lu state that Shi De’an 釋德安 argues that the Wuliangshou jing 無量壽經 T360 was translated by Dharmarakṣa. They refer to

Shi De'an 釋德安 (Zhou Muxiu 周睦修). "Wuliangshou jing yizhe kao: yi Fojing yuyanxue wei yanjiu zhuzhou" 《無量壽經》譯者考——以佛經語言學為研究主軸. PhD diss., Nanhua University, 2005: 2-4.

Entry author: Mengji Huang

Edit

• People: Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 (translator 譯)

No

• T0360; 佛說無量壽經; Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

• Title: 佛說無量壽經
• People: Kang Sengkai, 康僧鎧, *Saṃghavarman (translator 譯)
• Identifier: T0360

Yes

• T0360; 佛說無量壽經; Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra

"Not a single text can reliably be credited to Kang Sengkai. While there well may have been such a monk living in north China during the Wei period, his name simply became a peg on which to hang the attribution of texts which are obviously of much later vintage." None of his texts are ascribed to him by Sengyou or Daoan, and Fajing only ascribes T310(19) to him out of the three texts that eventually came to bear his name. Internal evidence shows much later style, e.g. 如是我聞.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

No

• T0360; 佛說無量壽經; Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra

Gotō's article is very brief, but methodologically quite interesting. He begins by noting that prior scholars have propounded two main theories about the translatorship of T360, ascribing it either to Dharmarakṣa or Buddhabhadra-Baoyun. His article very briefly summarises a study in which he first took samples in blocks of 160 characters each from a range of texts reliably ascribed to Dharmarakṣa and Buddhabhadra-Baoyun, in order to determine whether or not some sort of stylometric test could consistently distinguish between their authorial signatures. He reports that this test (the nature of which he does not describe) was able to correctly identify Dharmarakṣa texts 94.3% of the time, and Buddhabhadra-Baoyun texts 89.8% of the time. He then applied the same test to T360, and found that only 39 samples, out of a total of 120, were judged by the stylometric measure to be by Buddhabhadra-Baoyun. This ratio, he asserts, cannot be explained by the accuracy rating of the test method itself, and in incompatible with either translation solely by Dharmarakṣa or solely by Buddhabhadra-Baoyun. Gotō therefore hypothesises that our present T360 is a revision by Buddhabhadra-Baoyun of an earlier translation by Dharmarakṣa.

To further test this hypothesis, he isolated two sets of markers, used respectively either only by Dharmarakṣa, and never by Buddhabhadra-Baoyun, or vice versa:

Dharmarakṣa: 宣布, 班宣, 演法, 權方便, 積累, 通慧, 聖旨, 佛樹, 從順, 所當+[verb], 聖明, 諸德本, 無極 etc.
Buddhabhadra-Baoyun: 愛語, 煩惱, 一切煩惱, 受記, 應供等正覺, 那由他, 疲倦 etc.

Terms from both sets are found in T360, further supporting his hypothesis.

A final section describes computer methods by which Gotō arrived at the identification of these markers. I [MR] do not fully understand the description of these methods, but he began by using a computer to compare portions of the (eventual) *Buddhāvataṃsaka translated by Dharmarakṣa and Buddhabhadra-Baoyun respectively, and identify bigrams with a frequency of zero on one side. He then ran grep searches through a directory of texts ascribed to the two different translators (teams) to find examples of those terms in context.

Gotō also mentions in passing that the ascription to Buddhabhadra and Baoyun is also accepted by Kagawa Takao 香川孝雄 in his 無量寿経の諸本対照研究.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

• People: Baoyun, 寶雲 (translator 譯); Buddhabhadra, 佛陀跋陀羅, 覺賢 (translator 譯); Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 (translator 譯)

No

• T0360; 佛說無量壽經; Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra

The revised ascription to Buddhabhadra is supported by Harrison, Hartmann and Matsuda, who date the text to 421.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

• People: Buddhabhadra, 佛陀跋陀羅, 覺賢 (translator 譯)
• Date: 421

No

• T0360; 佛說無量壽經; Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra

Fujita mentions in passing that he considers the Wuliangshou jing 無量壽經T360 (traditionally ascribed to Kang Sengkai="*Saṃghavarman") to have been translated by Buddhabhadra and Baoyun from a “newly obtained manuscript from India”. He also notes that this as the translation of the Larger Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra drawn upon in the composition of the Guan Wuliangshou jing 觀無量壽佛經 T365.

Entry author: Sophie Florence

Edit

No

• T0360; 佛說無量壽經; Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra

Like most scholars, Kagawa rejects the received ascription of the Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra T360 to Kang Sengkai. Against a common view, Kagawa also argues that T360 cannot have been translated by Dharmarakṣa. He favours the theory that ascribes the text to Buddhabhadra and Baoyun.

Kagawa argues, first, on the basis of an examination of records in the catalogues. He also argues on the basis of translation terminology, taking as his starting point Sengyou's list of "old" and "new" translations terms representing the same notions at T2145 (LV) 5a13-b9. In addition, Kagawa adduces a list of further terms, for which he finds a clear contrast between wording found in T360, and Dharmarakṣa's customary translation(s) for the same thing [I here list Kagawa's T360 terms and Dhr equivalents in that order]:

王舍城耆闍崛山 vs. 王舍城靈鷲山;
[*世尊]
[*菩薩]
[*緣覺]
[菩提! vs. 覺意]
[阿那含! vs. 不還]
[摩訶迦葉! vs. 大迦葉]
[那提迦葉! vs. 江迦葉]
伽耶迦葉 vs. 象迦葉;
優樓頻蠡迦葉 vs. 上時迦葉;
劫賓那 vs. 劫賓[少/兔];
[善思議菩薩! vs. 善思菩薩]
[解脫菩薩! vs. 解縛菩薩]
觀世音(菩薩) vs. 光世音菩薩;
[尊者! vs. 賢者]
[了本際! vs. 知本際]
六種震動 vs. 六反震動;
優曇羅華 [sic, presumably for 優鉢羅華, MR] vs. 清蓮;
鉢曇摩華 vs. 紅蓮;
拘物頭華 vs. 黃蓮;
[分陀利華! vs. 白蓮]
[兜率天! vs. 兜術天]
[歡喜踊躍善心生焉! vs. 欣然踊躍善心生焉]
如來應供等正覺明行足善逝世間解無上士調御丈夫天人師佛世尊 vs. 如來至真等正覺明行成為善逝世間解無上士道法御天人師為佛眾祐;
無生法忍 vs. 不起法忍;
那由他 vs. 那術.

[In the above list, items enclosed in square brackets and marked with an asterisk, on Kagawa's own showing, also occur in Dharmaraksa, and therefore cannot be taken as evidence of a contrast between T360 and Dharmaraksa. For other items enclosed in square brackets, where the T360 term is marked with an exclamation mark, Kagawa's "T360" term in fact also occurs in Dharmarakṣa, and therefore also cannot be used as evidence of a contrast between T360 and Dharmarakṣa. --- MR]

Kagawa also discusses Nogami's study of manuscript evidence dated to 415 CE, and Fujita's arguments attempting to refute the early date of that manuscript. Finally, he also refers back to studies of translation style by Kitagawa Kenjō 北川賢浄 and Mochizuki Shinkō 望月信亨 for additional evidence that supports an ascription to Buddhabhadra and Baoyun.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

No

• "Five Evils" section; Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra
• T0360; 佛說無量壽經; Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra

Fujita argues against Gotō (1978), who proposed on the basis of computational philology and translation terms and style that T360 was translated by Dharmarakṣa. Fujita reaffirms the attribution to Buddhabhadra & Baoyun. According to Fujita, Gotō's study was based upon three main sets of evidence, which he refutes respectively as follows.

1. Gotō calculated the relative frequency of 42 common characters in a sample of 26 works by 13 early translators, and upon that basis, determined that the stylistic signature of T360 is closest to Dharmarakṣa. Fujita objects that in his short study, Gotō does not explain how these 42 characters were selected; that they make no allowance for transcription terms; and that we have no reason to be sure that this test can accurately identify translators. He also notes that Gotō uses, as his benchmark for Buddhabhadra-Baoyun, only "Faxian's" MPNMS T376 and the Mahāsāṃghika-vinaya T1425. Fujita notes that a much larger number of texts is ascribed to both Buddhabhadra and Baoyun, and argues that these two texts are not sufficient to establish a translation style for them. He also notes that the "five evils" section of T360 should be excluded from such tests, because of the possibility that it is of a different provenance [may have been added in China, etc.].

2. According to Fujita, Gotō takes it almost as a consensus view that the translation terms of T360 are very similar to those of Dharmarakṣa's Lalitavistara 普曜經 T186, though Fujita himself had argued in earlier work that there are in fact large differences in this respect between T360 and Dharmarakṣa's Saddharmapuṇḍarīka. Fujita shows that the ten epithets of the Tathāgata vary significantly between T186 and a set of translation terms common to Buddhabhadra-Baoyun's *Buddhāvataṃsaka, MPNMS, and Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra. He also shows that in other texts in the Buddhabhadra-Baoyun corpus (出生無量門持經 T1012, the Śrīmālādevī T353, and the “Ocean Samādhi” T643 [but for T643, cf. Yamabe's arguments that the text might not be a straight translation---MR]) the ten epithets vary, and on the basis of this [single!] example, argues that it is dangerous to make arguments about attribution on the basis of translation terms.

3. Finally, according to Fujita, Gotō argued that a line in "Sengzhao's" 僧肇 commentary on the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa 注維摩詰經 T1775 shows that Sengzhao must have been aware of the content of T360, and this makes the ascription of T360 to Buddhabhadra-Baoyun chronologically impossible. Against this, Fujita argues that in fact, T1775 collects the comments of four commentators, including Daosheng 道生, who died in 434, after Buddhabhadra-Baoyun's reported translation in 421. In addition, Fujita cites Usuda (1977) who has shown that T1775 contains a reference to the *Dharmakṣema version of MPNMS (T374, or perhaps T375, its "Southern" revision; however, the wording of this reference is loose, and according to the Taishō apparatus, this citation is missing from the Heian manuscript of the text with the siglum 甲). Fujita follows the traditional dating of *Dharmakṣema's activity, and therefore dates T374 as completed in 421 [but cf. Chen (2004)---MR].

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

• People: Baoyun, 寶雲 (translator 譯); Buddhabhadra, 佛陀跋陀羅, 覺賢 (translator 譯)

No

• "Five Evils" section; Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra
• T0360; 佛說無量壽經; Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra

Fujita argues for Buddhabhadra and Baoyun as translators of the "new" Sukhāvatīvyūha T360. His main target in doing so is the argument of Nogami (1950) that this ascription is rendered impossible by the Dunhuang manuscript of the text held at Ōtani University, which bears a date of Shenrui 神瑞 2 = 415. A second possible problem for the ascription to BhBh-BY is the claim advanced by some scholars that works of Zhi Dun 支遁 and Xi Chao 郄超 show traces of wording due to T360. These arguments have led some scholars to prefer an attribution to Dharmarakṣa. Fujita argues that the dated colophon to the Dunhuang manuscript is suspicious, on several grounds: paleographers are not certain that the hand is the same as that of the text itself; the layout of the page (23 lines of 17 characters each) is atypical for such an early date, and otherwise earliest attested in the Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya manuscript of 479; there exists a similar manuscript of the *Buddhāvataṃsaka, for which the colophon is dated 413, which would also be anachronistic (the text was translated 418-420), which leads to the conclusion that the colophon, in that case, is fake; and first-hand examination of physical details of the T360 Ōtani manuscript show other inconsistencies. On various paleographic grounds, he suggests that the body of the manuscript is more likely to date from the late fifth or early sixth century. He then appeals to Sengyou's (CSZJJ) list of contrasting terms in "archaic" and "recent" (post-Kumārajīva) style, the so-called Qianhou chu jing yi ji 前後出經異記 (T2145:55.5a13 ff.), to argue that the style of T360 is also atypical of Dharmarakṣa’s period and work; and he suggests that it matches the style of Baoyun's Buddhacarita 佛本行經 T193 and Buddhabhadra's *Buddhāvataṃsaka 大方廣佛華嚴經 T278. In an aside, he argues that the "five evils" section was added in China, and contains traces of Confucian and Daoist ideology and phrasing (he promises to follow up on this point in other work); and he notes that similar material is also found in the 四天王經 T590 (he does not go into detail). Finally, he briefly refutes the idea that Zhi Dun and Xi Chao show phrasing indebted to T360, and in fact, we also do not see any traces in the generation of Kumārajīva and Huiyuan; the first place we do see clear evidence of such wording is in Xie Lingyun 謝靈運. This would then mean that the text appeared sometime between the death of Huiyuan in 417 and Xie's execution in 433, which fits perfectly with the date reported for the Buddhabhadra and Baoyun's translation.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

• Title: Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra
• People: Baoyun, 寶雲 (translator 譯); Buddhabhadra, 佛陀跋陀羅, 覺賢 (translator 譯)

No

• T0360; 佛說無量壽經; Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra

Nogami argues that the "new" Sukhāvatīvyūha 無量壽經 T360 was more probably translated by Dharmarakṣa. In so doing, he argues against what he characterises as a standard view, by his time, that it was translated by Buddhabhadra and Baoyun, which was the view of scholars such as Sakaino, Tokiwa, Mochizuki and Tsukamoto (though he also notes that it was not an absolute consensus, and mentions such dissenters as Izumi Hōkei 泉芳璟). He characterises the attribution to Buddhabhadra and Baoyun as based primarily upon mention in the text of a *buddhāvataṃsakasamādhi (得佛華嚴三昧。宣揚演說一切經典 etc., T360:12.266b13), which is thought to support some connection with the Buddhabhadra (earliest) translation of the *Buddhāvataṃasaka 大方廣佛華嚴經 T278; and the resemblance of translation terminology to other texts by Buddhabhadra-Baoyun, especially the Buddacarita 佛本行經 T193.

The primary grounds upon which Nogami advocates consideration of reattribution to Dharmarakṣa is the discovery of a Dunhuang manuscript copy of T360, held by Ōtani University, with a colophon giving a date of Shenrui 神瑞 2 = 415 CE. This date is incompatible with the date of 421 given in CSZJJ for the Buddhabhadra-Baoyun translation. Nogami is absolutely certain that the colophon is written in the same hand as the rest of the manuscript, and therefore places total confidence in the date. He therefore regards the evidence of the colophon as necessarily overturning the attribution to Buddhabhadra and Baoyun, regardless of whom we then put in their place. In considering the alternative ascriptions this leaves open, he first rejects the ascription (as in the Taishō) to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧. He notes that this ascription is first found in the notoriously unreliable LDSBJ, and that it found its way into the modern canon via Zhisheng, who took up the ascription in KYL. However, Fajing and Yancong, in the same period as Fei Changfang, ascribed the extant text to Dharmarakṣa; the style of the text is not archaic enough for Kang Sengkai; and some scholars have even questioned the very existence of Kang Sengkai, wondering whether the name might stem from some confusion with the name of the much better-known Kang Seng*hui* 康僧會, active in the same period.

Nogami is careful not to characterise his arguments in support of Dharmarakṣa as "proof", and aims only to show that there are grounds enough to investigate the possibility of this ascription further. He notes again that this ascription is supported by Fajing and Yancong, and that CSZJJ also includes information that indicates that Dharmarakṣa at least translated *a* Sukhāvatīvyūha [whether or not it was the extant T360]. He adduces arguments by Izumi Hōkei that the terminology of T360 resembles that of other Dharmarakṣa texts such as the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka 正法華經 T263 and the 佛昇忉利天為母說法經 T815. However, he then mounts something of a broadside against the use of terminological and stylistic evidence altogether, noting that Mochizuki concluded that the phraseology of T360 precisely did *not* resemble that of T263, and used such evidence to argue *against* the ascription of T360 to Dharmarakṣa. He argues, more generally, that use of such evidence to assess ascriptions to Dharmarakṣa is likely to be problematic, given that Dharmarakṣa was active for four decades, moved and worked over such a wide geographic area, and was assisted by quite a large number of collaborators (e.g. as amanuenses 筆受). [MR---Nogami certainly has a good point when he argues that for these reasons, we cannot use any *single* text, however famous it might be, such as T263, as the benchmark of Dharmarakṣa's style.] For this reason, he says he prefers to use the colophon date of 415, which he regards as rock-solid, as a starting point. He argues that in such turbulent times as the fourth-fifth centuries, texts would have taken a long time to circulate, and the gap of 107 years between the date recorded for of Dharmarakṣa's translation of the Sukhāvatīvyūha and the Ōtani manuscript date of Shenrui 2 = 415 fits such a picture. He then argues that passages in Zhi Dun 支遁 and Xi Chao 郄超 show possible influence from the content and wording of T360.

In the case of Xi Chao, the phrases Nogami adduces are: 愍傷眾生 [which, however, only appears once in T360, and is found in other works by Dharmarakṣa, T152, etc.---MR]; 蠕動之類 [twice in T360, but common in a range of early texts]; 端心正意 [in fact, very rare, and never found in any other Dharmarakṣa text; concentrated in the works of Zhu Fonian, his associates and contemporaries, except for two instances in "Bo Fazu" T5 and "Faju" T33]; and 兩舌惡口妄言綺語 [once in T360; rare but attested in other Dharmarakṣa works].

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

• People: Dharmarakṣa 竺法護, 曇摩羅察 (translator 譯)

No

• T0360; 佛說無量壽經; Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra

Sakaino argues that that the Sukhāvatīvyūha 無量壽經 T360 should be attributed to *Buddhabhadra = Juexian 覺賢 (whose name still appears in this form in the present Taishō as a co-translator with Faxian 法顯 of T1427), against the received ascription to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧, on grounds of external and internal evidence.

His main arguments are as follows.

In all, twelve putative translations of the Sukhāvatīvyūha are reported, of which five are extant, and seven lost (Sakaino adds that those allegedly lost seven translations were included just in LDSBJ and other unreliable catalogues, and in fact never existed). Of these, two of the extant versions are relatively new, and their ascriptions are not problematic. Ascriptions of all of the other three extant scriptures should be corrected: the 平等覺經 T361 ascribed to *Lokakṣema should be re-ascribed to Dharmarakṣa; the 大阿彌陀經 T362 ascribed to Zhi Qian should be re-ascribed to *Lokakṣema; and the 無量壽經 T360 ascribed to Kang Sengkai 康僧鎧 should be re-ascribed to *Buddhabhadra = Juexian 覺賢.

The vocabulary of the T360 is very new and could not belong to the Wei-Wu 魏呉periods. Sakaino maintains that the text should be the one referred to as the “New Sukhāvatīvyūha” 新無量壽經, ascribed to Buddhabhadra 佛陀跋陀羅/覺賢, which has been considered lost. Especially, the use of the term huayan sanmei 華嚴三昧 at the beginning of the text clearly suggests its relation to the *Buddhāvataṃsaka 華嚴經 T278 ascribed to Buddhabhadra. There is another “New Sukhāvatīvyūha” 新無量壽經 ascribed to Baoyun 寶雲 listed in CSZJJ, but Sakaino claims that it is the same text as that ascribed to Buddhabhadra, since the two are recorded as translated in the same place in the same year. Baoyun probably worked as the “interpreter/oral translator” 傳語.

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit

• People: Buddhabhadra, 佛陀跋陀羅, 覺賢 (unspecified); Baoyun, 寶雲 ([orally] "translate/interpret" 傳語, 口宣[...言], 傳譯, 度語)

No

• T0360; 佛說無量壽經; Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra

Gyeongheung 憬興, in his 無量壽經述文讃, reascribes the Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra 無量清淨平等覺經 T361 (ascribed in the present canon to *Lokakṣema) to Bo Yan, but Sakaino judges that this ascription is baseless.

Entry author: Atsushi Iseki

Edit

No

• T0007; 大般涅槃經
• T0192; 佛所行讚
• T0268; 佛說廣博嚴淨不退轉輪經
• T0270; 大法鼓經
• T0353; 勝鬘師子吼一乘大方便方廣經
• T0360; 佛說無量壽經; Sukhāvatīvyūha-sūtra
• T0590; 佛說四天王經
• T0670; 楞伽阿跋多羅寶經
• T2058; 付法藏因緣傳
• T397(12); 無盡意品; Akṣayamati-nirdeśa
• X0015; Jing du sanmei jing 淨度三昧經; Jing du jing 淨度經; 淨度三昧經

Abstract:

"This study examines the biography of the monk Baoyun 寶雲 (376?-449) and lists all the titles of the translation projects in which Baoyun was involved. By comparing the information provided by different Buddhist catalogues, several discrepancies between the information on Baoyun provided by Buddhist bibliographer Sengyou 僧祐 (445-518) and by later accounts became evident. This study contextualizes the life of Baoyun in a broader historical perspective and presents the life of a monk who was a companion of Faxian 法顯 (336?-422) in his famous journey to the west, fluent in Indic languages, and a proficient translator."

Lettere argues that we can see a gradual process by which the true scope of Baoyun's activities as a translator, originally represented rather clearly by Sengyou and the sources he collects (CSZJJ), was already diminished or undermined by Huijiao (GSZ), Fei Zhangfang (LCSBJ), and Fajing; and also seems to have suffered from being overshadowed by the reputation and legends that accrued to the personality of Faxian. In the course of her treatment of biographical and other external sources on Baoyun (CSZJJ, GSZ, and documents like prefaces), Lettere notes evidence that Baoyun might have been the principal translator for the following works:

T192 (Lettere holds unequivocally that this work is "erroneously attributed to Dharmakṣema/Tan Wuchen 曇無讖", following Willemen 2009 [in error this reference is given as Chen Jinhua]: xiv-xvi);

a "new Sukhāvatī" 新無量壽 [sic, for *Amitāyus] [Lettere's citation of studies by Nogami 1950, Gotō 2006, 2007, and Nattier 2003 implies that she identifies this title with T360 -- MR];

with Zhiyan, according to Sengyou's CSZJJ, three titles: the Puyao jing 普耀經, the Guangbo yanjing jing 廣博嚴淨經, and the Si tianwang jing 四天王經 [cf. for the last two titles respectively Avaivartikacakra 廣博嚴淨經 T268, and Si tianwang jing 四天王經 T590 -- MR];

the Śrīmālādevīsiṃhanāda 勝鬘經 [T353];

the Za’ahan jing 雜阿含經 (*Saṃyuktāgama) and the Fagu jing 法鼓經 [Lettere again does not go into the problem of identification with extant texts, but cf. Saṃyuktāgama T99 and the *Mahābherīhāraka-sūtra T270 -- MR];

a Mahāparinirvāṇa in six fascicles 六卷泥洹 [cf. T7 -- MR].

[To this list we should add the Laṅkāvatāra T670; Lettere omits to list it, but cf. 後於丹陽郡譯出勝鬘楞伽經, GSZ T2059 (L) 344b3, which in fact comprises two titles, the Śrīmālādevī and the Laṅkāvatāra; cf. Lettere 265 n. 9 -- MR.]

Lettere also notes evidence that Baoyun may have composed a lost travelogue of his journeys, entitled Youlü waiguo 遊履外國.

In LDSBJ, two titles are added to Baoyun's credit; Fufa zang jing 付法藏經 [cf. T2058] and Jingdu sanwei jing 淨度三昧經 [cf. X15]; and an *Akṣayamatinirdeśa 無盡意菩薩 to the joint translatorship of Baoyun and Zhiyan [cf. T397(12)]. Lettere notes that the poor reputation of Fei as a cataloguer makes these ascriptions less plausible.

Entry author: Michael Radich

Edit

• People: Baoyun, 寶雲 (translator 譯)