涅槃玄義發源機要 1.4

1.4

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.