金剛般若疏 1.7

1.7

第二、重明般若多少。問曰：般若波羅蜜凡有幾種？答曰：備探南北，遍撿經論，部數不同。第一、有二種，出《大智論》。第四十一及九十九卷云：般若有二種，一、共聲聞說；二、但為十地諸大菩薩說，下位之所不聞。今諸部般若多是共聲聞說也。第二、有三種。三種者，《釋論》第六十七卷云：般若部云般若部儻有多有少，有上中下，謂《光讚》、《放光》、《道行》也。舊云《光讚》有五百卷，此土零落，唯有十卷；或分為十二卷，有三十七品，即是上品。次《放光》為中品，《道行》為下品也。《放光》有二十卷，是古大品，道安法師所講者；今新定本有二十七卷，或為二十四卷，對小品為大品，於前三部實應是中品也。《道行》即是小品，有十卷；即有新定本，有七卷。《釋論》七十九卷云：般若義乃無邊，卷數有限，謂小品、《放光》、《光讚》。既前列餘二同前，而以小品名代道行也。故知《道行》即是小品也。第三、明四種般若者，長安叡法師《小品．序》云「斯經正文，凡有四種，多則十萬偈，少則六百偈。此之大品，猶是外國中品耳。隨宜之言，復何足計其多少？」雖習四名而不列數。有人云：當以《金剛》足前三部以為四也。然《金剛》止有三百許偈，叡公云「少則六百偈」，故知未必用《金剛》足之。次明五時般若者，出《仁王經》。初云：釋迦入大寂定，眾相謂言：「大覺世尊前已為我等大眾，二十九年說摩訶般若波羅蜜、金剛般若、天王問波若、光讚波若；今復放光，斯作何事？」既列四種於前，第五最後說《仁王護國般若》。又《大悲比丘尼本願經》末記、或在《仁王》末記云五時波若者，是佛三十年中通化三乘人也。第一、佛在王舍城說大品般若，小品從中出。第二、佛在舍衛祇洹精舍，說《金剛波若》，本有八卷，淮南零落，唯有〈格量功德〉一品別為一卷，存其本名，亦云金剛。第三、佛在祇洹說《天王問波若》，大本不來漢地，此土唯有《須真天子問波若》七卷、《法才王子問波若》三卷、《四天王問波若》一卷，竝出其中。第四、佛在王舍城說《光讚般若》，《成具》、《道行》、《廣淨》此三部從《光讚》中出。第五、佛在王舍城說護國波若。次流支三藏云：波若應有八部。第一部有十萬偈、第二部有二萬五千偈，此之二部猶在外國；第三部有二萬二千偈，即是大品；第四部有八千偈，即是小品；第五部有四千偈、第六部有二千五百偈，此之二部亦未傳漢地；第七部有六百偈，即是《文殊師利波若》；第八部三百偈，即是此《金剛波若》。又言有《光讚》、《大空》、《道行》等，流支三藏云：此皆十萬偈，波若中一品，非是別部。今以《釋論》驗之，不同流支所說。《釋論》云「波若部儻有多有少，有、上中、下」，云何言《光讚》、《道行》非是別部耶？又《大論》第百卷云「如此中波若，或有二萬二千偈，大波若有十萬偈，諸龍天宮有千億萬偈，以其壽命長遠、念力堅強故，堪聞多說。人中壽命短促、憶識力弱，止有少許文字。」若爾，豈局在五時、限現於八部耶？

Second, an explanation of the extent of [the texts of] prajñā. Question: How many kinds of prajñāpāramitā are there in all? Answer: Searching thoroughly across north and south and examining the sūtras and treatises exhaustively, the number of recensions varies. First, there are two kinds, which derive from the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa. Fascicles forty-one and ninety-nine state: Prajñā is of two kinds: (1) that spoken in common with the śrāvakas, and (2) that spoken solely for the great bodhisattvas of the ten bhūmis, unheard by those of lower ranks. The various recensions of prajñā at present are mostly spoken in common with the śrāvakas. Second, there are three kinds. As for these three kinds, fascicle sixty-seven of the Commentary states: The recensions of prajñā vary in length, having superior, middling, and lesser [versions]—namely the Guangzan, the Fangguang, and the Daoxing. Formerly it was said that the Guangzan had five hundred fascicles, but in this land it has fallen into disrepair and has only ten fascicles, or is divided into twelve fascicles with thirty-seven chapters; this is the superior text. Next, the Fangguang is the middling text, and the Daoxing is the lesser text. The Fangguang has twenty fascicles and is the ancient Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā, which Master Dao'an lectured upon; the newly settled recension now has twenty-seven fascicles, or twenty-four fascicles, which, contrasted with the Aṣṭasāhasrikā, is the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā, but among the previous three recensions it should truly be the middling text. The Daoxing is the Aṣṭasāhasrikā, having ten fascicles; there is also a newly settled recension in seven fascicles. Fascicle seventy-nine of the Commentary states: The meaning of prajñā is boundless, yet the number of fascicles is limited—namely the Aṣṭasāhasrikā, the Fangguang, and the Guangzan. Since the other two listed beforehand are identical to the earlier mention, and the name Aṣṭasāhasrikā is substituted for Daoxing, one therefore knows that the Daoxing is indeed the Aṣṭasāhasrikā. Third, regarding the explanation of four kinds of prajñā: Master Rui of Chang'an states in his Preface to the Aṣṭasāhasrikā: 'The authoritative text of this sūtra is of four kinds in all, the largest having one hundred thousand gāthās and the shortest having six hundred gāthās. This Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā is still only the middling text of foreign lands. Since these are words adapted to circumstances, why bother calculating their extent?' Although he was familiar with the four names, he did not list their numbers. Someone remarked: 'One should use the Vajracchedikā to supplement the previous three recensions to make four.' Yet the Vajracchedikā has only some three hundred gāthās, whereas Venerable Rui said 'the shortest having six hundred gāthās'; thus we know that he did not necessarily use the Vajracchedikā to supplement them. Next, regarding the explanation of the prajñā of five periods: this derives from the Renwang jing. At the beginning it states: Śākyamuni entered the great calm concentration, and the assembly said to one another: 'The Greatly Awakened World-Honoured One previously expounded for our great assembly, over twenty-nine years, the Mahāprajñāpāramitā, the Vajra-prajñā, the Prajñā Spoken at the Heavenly King's Request, and the Guangzan Prajñā; now he emits light again, what will this do?' Having listed the four kinds earlier, the fifth and last spoken is the Prajñā of the Benevolent King Protecting the State. Moreover, the postscript to the Dabai biqiuni benyuan jing, or the postscript to the Renwang jing, says that the prajñā of five periods was the Buddha's pervasive conversion of the people of the three vehicles across thirty years: First, the Buddha was at Rājagṛha and expounded the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñā, from which the Aṣṭasāhasrikā emerged. Second, the Buddha was at the Jetavana vihāra in Śrāvastī and expounded the Vajra-prajñā, which originally had eight fascicles; having fallen into disrepair in Huainan, only the chapter 'Assessing Merit' remains separately as one fascicle, retaining its original title, also called Vajra. Third, the Buddha was at Jetavana and expounded the Prajñā Spoken at the Heavenly King's Request; the large recension did not come to the Han lands, and in this land there are only the Prajñā Spoken at the Request of Devaputra Sucinti in seven fascicles, the Prajñā Spoken at the Request of Prince Dharmavardhana in three fascicles, and the Prajñā Spoken at the Request of the Four Heavenly Kings in one fascicle, which all derive from it. Fourth, the Buddha was at Rājagṛha and expounded the Guangzan Prajñā; the three recensions Chengju, Daoxing, and Guangjing emerged from the Guangzan. Fifth, the Buddha was at Rājagṛha and expounded the Prajñā Protecting the State. Next, Tripiṭaka Master Bodhiruci said: Prajñā should have eight recensions: the first recension has one hundred thousand gāthās; the second recension has twenty-five thousand gāthās—these two recensions are still in foreign lands; the third recension has twenty-two thousand gāthās, which is the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā; the fourth recension has eight thousand gāthās, which is the Aṣṭasāhasrikā; the fifth recension has four thousand gāthās; the sixth recension has two thousand five hundred gāthās—these two recensions have also not yet reached the Han lands; the seventh recension has six hundred gāthās, which is the Mañjuśrī-prajñā; the eighth recension has three hundred gāthās, which is this Vajra-prajñā. It is also said that there are the Guangzan, the Dakuang, the Daoxing, and others. Tripiṭaka Master Bodhiruci stated: 'These are all chapters within the Prajñā of one hundred thousand gāthās, not separate recensions.' Now testing this by the Commentary, it does not match what Bodhiruci said. The Commentary states: 'The recensions of prajñā vary in length, having superior, middling, and lesser [versions]'; how then can he say that the Guangzan and the Daoxing are not separate recensions? Furthermore, the hundredth fascicle of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa states: 'Prajñā in this [world] may have twenty-two thousand gāthās; the Great Prajñā has one hundred thousand gāthās; in the palaces of the nāgas and devas there are hundreds of billions of gāthās, because with their long lifespans and strong powers of mindfulness, they can bear hearing extensive expositions. The lifespan among humans is brief and their power of retention is weak, so it contains only a few texts.' If so, how could it be confined to five periods or restricted to eight recensions?