由法賢（A.D. 982-1001）譯於宋朝（A.D. 960-1127）的《眾許摩訶帝經》，似乎在元朝獲得了某種重視。忽必烈汗（Kublai Khan 1260-94）的帝師巴思八（Pazzepa或Vaspa）在他所著的《彰所知論》（Nanjio No. 1320）中，將經題中皂王名解為「大三末多」，南條文雄即以「眾許」加上「三末多」共同來表示“Samadatta”。本文認為以「眾許」和「三末多」共同來還原“Samadatta”是有問題的。「眾許」和「大三末多」都應還原為“Mahasammata”，印度原本的經題應為Mahasammata-maharaja-sutra。此經內容始於對世界起源的說明，經於佛陀證悟後去見訪他的父親。經文中並未告訴他們本經的部派所屬。透過比較本經中所述佛陀青年時期的傳說與其他分屬不同佛教部派之典籍的相關內容，其中包括根本說一切有部（Mulasarvastivada），我們所得的結論判定見於本經中的青年時期傳說屬於根本說一切有部，因而《眾許摩訶帝經》可視為發源於根本說一切有部傳承。

　　　　　The text of Chung-hsu-mo-ho-ti-ching (《眾許摩訶帝經》 ) transleted in the later Sung Dynasty (A.D. 960-1127) by Fa-hsien (A.D. 982-1001) seems to have gained some importance in the Yuan Dynasty. Paszepa or Vaspa, the teacher of Kublai Khan (1260-94) in his work entitled Chang-su-chih-lun (Nanjio No.1320) explains the name of the king as given in the title of the sutra as Ta-san-mo-to. Nanjio takes both the terms 'Chung-hsu' given in the title of the sutra and 'san-mo-to' to stand for 'Samadatta'. It has been shown in the present article that this restoration of both Chung-hsu and San-mo-to as Samadatta is wrong. The terms Chung-hsu and Ta-san-mo-to should be correctly restored as Mahasammata. The name of the original Indian text should have been Mahasammata-maharaja-sutra. This sutra begins with an account of the origin of the world and ends with an account of the Buddha's visit to his fater after his enlightenment. It appears that the traditions that have come down to us are silent about the Buddhist school to which this sutra belonged. By comparing and contrasting the youth legends of the Buddha narrated in this sutra with the accounts goven in other texts belonging to different Buddhist schools including that of the Mulasarvastivada, we have come to the conclusion that the youth legends as given in this sutra belonged to the Mulasarvastivada school and the text of Chung-hsu-mo-ho-ti-ching could be held to have originated within the Mulasarvastivada circle.