無量壽經連義述文贊 2.57

2.57

經曰「錠光如來」至「次名處世」者，述云：此次、敘佛也。帛延經略舉三十六佛，多存此方之名，第三十二佛即印度名。故支謙經唯敘三十二佛，皆存梵音之號。今此法護，備標五十三佛。蓋翻譯之家意存廣略，不可致怪。錠光者，即謙云提惒竭羅也。有說：有足曰錠，無足曰燈。錠光、燃燈，一也。釋迦獲道記之主，故在初也。有彈此言：若爾，釋迦既先得授記，何在彌陀後而成道耶？若非後者，便違彌陀成佛已來十小劫故。遂申自意言：名之雖同，佛即異也。二俱不盡。若定一者，燃燈既出第二劫滿，必不能會彌陀成佛既十劫文故。若唯異者，亦違諸佛出世同名之屬故。今即錠光燃燈，亦同亦異。異即錠光雖復燃燈，非釋迦授記佛故。同即本釋迦前亦有燃燈，可錠光故。不應難言錠光若非釋迦獲道記佛，有何因緣錠光為初，而非餘佛者？從彼佛已來，五十四佛頻興世故云爾。從錠光來，漸有攝受淨土行故。由此錠光亦名燃燈，義亦無咎。

The sūtra says: from “Dīpaṃkara Tathāgata” to “the next named Chushi.” The commentary states: Next, recounting the Buddhas. Bai Yan's sūtra briefly mentions thirty-six Buddhas, mostly preserving the names of this land, while the thirty-second Buddha is an Indian name. Zhi Qian's sūtra only recounts thirty-two Buddhas, all preserving the Sanskrit phonetics of their names. Now, this [translation by] Dharmarakṣa fully lists fifty-three Buddhas. Translators generally kept brevity or detail in mind, so one should not find this strange. “Dingguang” is what [Zhi] Qian calls Dīpaṃkara (提惒竭羅). Some say: A lamp with a base is called ding, and without a base is called deng. Dingguang and Randeng are the same. He was the lord from whom Śākyamuni obtained the prophecy of awakening; hence he is at the beginning. Some criticize this, saying: If so, since Śākyamuni received the prophecy first, why did he attain the Way after Amida? If he was not after, this would contradict the statement that it has been ten minor kalpas since Amida became a Buddha. They then expressed their own view, saying: Although the names are the same, the Buddhas are different. Neither view is exhaustive. If they were definitely one, since Randeng appeared at the end of the second kalpa, it would certainly not be possible to reconcile this with the text stating that it has been ten kalpas since Amida became a Buddha. If they were solely different, this would also contradict the principle of Buddhas appearing in the world sharing the same name. Here, Dingguang and Randeng are both the same and different. They are different in that although Dingguang is also Randeng, he is not the Buddha who gave the prophecy to Śākyamuni. They are the same in that before the original Śākyamuni there was also a Randeng who could be Dingguang. One should not object, asking: “If Dingguang is not the Buddha from whom Śākyamuni obtained the prophecy of the Way, for what reason is Dingguang the first rather than other Buddhas?” It is simply because, from that Buddha onward, fifty-four Buddhas appeared successively in the world. It is from Dingguang onward that the practice of taking in the Pure Land gradually began. Therefore, there is no fault in Dingguang also being called Randeng.