仁王經疏 1.14

1.14

第四翻譯時代依文正釋。即有二門：一翻譯時代、二依文正釋。言翻譯時代者，此經一部，准下經文，自有兩本：一者廣本，故下〈散華品〉云「爾時十六大國王，聞佛所說十方億偈般若波羅蜜經，散華供養。」故知此經亦有廣本。二者略本，梵本雖一，隨譯者異，乃成三本。一者，晉時泰始元年，月支國三藏法師曇摩羅密，晉云法護，翻出一卷，名「仁王般若」。二者，秦時弘始三年，三藏法師鳩摩羅什，秦言童壽，於常安西明閣逍遙園別舘翻出一本，名「仁王護國般若波羅蜜」。三者，梁時承聖三年，西天竺優禪差國三藏法師波羅末陀，梁云真諦，於豫章寶田寺翻出一卷，名「仁王般若經」，疏有六卷。雖有三本，晉本創初恐不周悉，真諦一本隱而不行，故今且依秦時一本（依費長房《三寶錄》三譯皆言一卷，然費學七《入藏目錄》即云兩卷）。

Fourth, the translation period and the correct explanation according to the text. There are two sections: first, the translation period; second, the correct explanation according to the text. Regarding the translation period: for this single scripture, in accordance with the text below, there were originally two recensions. The first is the extensive recension; hence the subsequent "Chapter on Scattering Flowers" states: "At that time, the sixteen kings of great states, having heard the Prajñāpāramitā-sūtra of a billion verses throughout the ten directions spoken by the Buddha, scattered flowers in offering." Thus we know that this sūtra also had an extensive recension. The second is the abridged recension. Although the Sanskrit text was one, following differences among translators, it became three versions. First, in the first year of the Taishi era of the Jin dynasty, the Tripiṭaka Master Dharmarakṣa of the Yuezhi kingdom—in Jin called Fahu—translated one fascicle, entitled Renwang bore (Benevolent Kings Prajñā). Second, in the third year of the Hongshi era of the Qin dynasty, the Tripiṭaka Master Kumārajīva—in Qin called Tongshou—translated one recension in the detached lodge of the Xiaoyao Garden at the Ximing Pavilion in Chang'an, entitled Renwang huguo bore boluomi (Benevolent Kings Prajñāpāramitā for the Protection of the State). Third, in the third year of the Chengsheng era of the Liang dynasty, the Tripiṭaka Master Paramārtha of the kingdom of Ujjayinī in West India—in Liang called Zhendi—translated one fascicle at Baotian Temple in Yuzhang, entitled Renwang bore jing, with a commentary in six fascicles. Although there are three versions, the Jin version was the earliest and was feared not to be comprehensive, and Paramārtha's single version became obscure and did not circulate; therefore, we now rely provisionally on the version from the Qin period (according to Fei Zhangfang's Sanbao lu, all three translations are said to be in one fascicle; however, Fei Xueqi's Ruzang mulu states that it is in two fascicles).