涅槃玄義發源機要 1.4

1.4

此《玄義》即章安舊文，既辭旨盡善，故荊溪不更修治。或曰：下文有「此中遺一章」之語，即知亦經再治。今謂不爾，遺章之語蓋後人籤注，書者謬寫。此乃鄙語常談，豈是荊溪再治之例？若再治者，應書云：四明不生不生，下注闕字。如梁氏刪止觀書三大章，皆注闕字。今以七義驗之，知不再治。一者、疏文再治，則於總題削「大般」二字。今此備有，知非再治。二者、題下無再治之人號故。三者、或謂闕逸借使闕逸治者之號，則不合顯書疏主之名。例下疏中，只合云頂法師撰。今既顯書名諱，知非再治。四者、文中全無私謂之語，知非再治。五者、準淨名部，荊溪亦但刪略疏文，而不再治《玄義》。以此例彼，知非再治。六者、疏文舊本再治二俱在世，而此《玄義》唯有一本，知非再治。七者、準下疏文釋義有闕，則荊溪私加補助。今既再治，何故不生一章，闕遺無釋；然義非難見，但恐後學穿鑿，故此評之。

This Profound Meaning is the original text of Zhang'an. Since its wording and purport were already consummate and good, Jingxi did not revise it again. Someone may say: "The lower text contains the phrase 'Here one chapter is missing,' by which we know that it also underwent revision." I now say this is not so. The phrase about the missing chapter is merely an insertion written on a slip by later persons, which copyists mistakenly transcribed into the text. These are vulgar words of ordinary discourse; how could this be an instance of Jingxi's revision? If it were a revision, it should be written: "Four kinds of non-arising and non-arising," with an annotation below reading "characters missing." Just as Master Liang, when abridging the Calming and Contemplation, wrote for the three great chapters, all with the annotation "characters missing." Now, examining it through seven points of evidence, we know it was not revised again. First, if the commentary text had been revised again, the two characters "Daban" (Mahāpari-) would have been excised from the general title. Since they are fully present here, we know it was not revised again. Second, below the title there is no designation of a reviser. Third, someone might say it is missing; even if the reviser's designation were missing, it would not be fitting to openly write the name of the commentator. According to the precedent in the commentary below, it should merely say "Composed by Master Ding." Since it now openly writes the personal name, we know it was not revised again. Fourth, in the text there are completely no words such as "privately I consider," by which we know it was not revised again. Fifth, according to the Vimalakīrti section, Jingxi also merely abridged the commentary text without revising the Profound Meaning again. Applying this precedent to that case, we know it was not revised again. Sixth, both the old version and the revised version of the commentary text exist in the world, whereas this Profound Meaning has only one version; hence we know it was not revised again. Seventh, according to the commentary text below, where an explanation of meaning was lacking, Jingxi privately added supplementary explanations. If this had already been revised again, why would the one chapter on non-arising have been left missing without explanation? However, the meaning is not difficult to see; but fearing that later students might make strained interpretations, I criticize it here.