入楞伽心玄義 1.52

1.52

言傳譯者，其四卷本，宋元嘉年中，天竺三藏求那跋陀羅，於丹陽祇洹寺譯，沙門寶雲傳語，慧觀筆受。其十卷本，後魏季天竺三藏菩提留支，於洛陽永寧寺譯。今此一本，即大周聖曆元年，于闐三藏實叉難陀，於神都佛授記寺譯《華嚴》了，尋奉勅令再譯《楞伽》。文猶未畢，陀駕入京令近朝安置清禪寺，麁譯畢猶未再勘，三藏奉勅歸蕃。至長安二年，有吐火羅三藏彌陀山，其初曾歷天竺廿五年，備窮三藏尤善《楞伽》，奉勅令共翻經沙門復禮、法藏等再更勘譯。復禮輟文，御製經序讚述云爾。其四卷迴文不盡，語順西音，致令髦彥英哲措解無由，愚類庸夫強推邪解。其十卷雖文品少具、聖意難顯，加字混文者泥於意或致有錯，遂使明明正理滯以方言。聖上慨此難通，復令更譯。今則詳五梵本、勘二漢文，取其所得、正其所失，累載優業當盡其旨，庶令學者幸無訛謬。

Regarding the transmission and translation: The four-fascicle version was translated during the Yuanjia era of the Song dynasty by the Indian Tripiṭaka Master Guṇabhadra at Jetavana Monastery in Danyang, with the śramaṇa Baoyun as interpreter and Huiguan recording in writing. The ten-fascicle version was translated in the late Northern Wei by the Indian Tripiṭaka Master Bodhiruci at Yongning Monastery in Luoyang. This present version was translated in the first year of the Shengli era of the Great Zhou by the Khotanese Tripiṭaka Master Śikṣānanda at the Fo Shouji Monastery in the Divine Capital [Luoyang], after he finished translating the Avataṃsaka Sūtra and soon received an imperial decree ordering him to retranslate the Laṅkāvatāra. Before the text was completed, an imperial carriage entered the capital and ordered him to be accommodated near the court at Qingchan Monastery; after a rough translation was finished without a second verification, the Tripiṭaka master was ordered by imperial decree to return to his homeland. In the second year of Chang'an, there was the Tokharan Tripiṭaka Master Mitraśānta, who had previously spent twenty-five years in India, had completely mastered the Tripiṭaka, and was especially adept in the Laṅkāvatāra; he received an imperial decree ordering him, together with the translation monks Feli, Fazang, and others, to verify and translate it once again. Feli polished the text, and an imperial sūtra preface was composed praising it as such. The four-fascicle version had incomplete phrasing and its wording followed Western syntax, causing eminent scholars and luminaries to have no way to grasp its meaning, while foolish and ordinary men forcibly deduced aberrant interpretations. Although the ten-fascicle version was somewhat complete in text and chapters, the holy intention was difficult to reveal; those who added characters and confused the text clung rigidly to their own views or caused errors, ultimately causing the brilliant, correct principle to be obstructed by regional speech. His Holy Majesty lamented this lack of clarity and again commanded a retranslation. Now, comparing five Sanskrit manuscripts and examining the two Chinese versions, adopting their strengths and correcting their defects, through accumulated years of diligent effort we have fully exhausted its purport, so that future scholars may fortunately be free from error.