首楞嚴義疏注經 1.17

1.17

八、傳譯時年。下云：大唐神龍元年乙巳歲五月二十三日，中天竺沙門般剌蜜帝，於廣州制止道場譯。先是三藏將梵本汎海達廣州制止寺，遇宰相房融知南銓，聞有此經，遂請對譯，房融筆受，烏長國沙門彌伽釋迦譯語。翻經纔竟，三藏被本國來取，奉王嚴制，先不許出，三藏潛來邊境被責，為解此難，遂即去迴。房融入奏，又遇中宗初嗣，未暇宣布，目錄闕書。時禪學者，因內道場得本傳寫，好而祕之，遂流此地。大通在內，親遇奏經，又寫隨身，歸荊州度門寺。有魏北舘陶沙門惠振，搜訪靈迹，常慕此經，於度門寺遂遇此本，初得科判。又據開元中沙門智昇撰《釋教目錄》二十卷，其第九云「大佛頂首楞嚴經十卷，大唐沙門懷迪於廣州譯。」迪循州人，住羅浮山南樓寺，久習經論，備諳五梵，因遊廣府，遂遇梵僧，未詳其名，對文共譯，勒成十卷。經之題目、紙數、文句與今融本竝不差異。迪筆受經旨，緝綴文理等。今詳二經，譯人雖別，譯本是同。或恐迪因證義各據流行，故今目錄書寫有異。不爾，豈無一處差別，譯主名字何得未詳耶？二本既同，今解融本。

Eighth, the period and year of transmission and translation. Below it states: In the Great Tang dynasty, the first year of the Shenlong era, the yisi year, on the twenty-third day of the fifth month, the Central Indian śramaṇa Pāramiti translated [it] at the Zhizhi Daocheng in Guangzhou. Prior to this, the Tripiṭaka master took the Sanskrit text and sailed across the sea, arriving at Zhizhi Monastery in Guangzhou. He met Chancellor Fang Rong, who was administering the southern selection of officials. Hearing of this sūtra, [Fang] thereupon requested him to translate it collaboratively; Fang Rong took it down with the brush, and the śramaṇa Meghaśikha of Uḍḍiyāna translated the spoken words. Just as the translation of the sūtra was completed, the Tripiṭaka master was pursued by his native country: obeying the strict royal decree that previously forbade [the text] from leaving, the Tripiṭaka master had secretly crossed the border and was reprimanded. To resolve this calamity, he immediately departed and returned. Fang Rong submitted it to the throne in a memorial; however, it coincided with Emperor Zhongzong's recent accession to the throne, so there was no leisure to disseminate it, and the catalogues lacked a record of it. At that time, chan practitioners obtained the manuscript through the imperial court chapel, transcribed it, prized it, and kept it secret, whereupon it circulated in this region. Datong, being at court, personally encountered the memorialised sūtra, made another copy to carry with him, and returned to Dumen Monastery in Jingzhou. There was the śramaṇa Huizhen of Guantao in Weibei, who searched and visited numinous traces and had always admired this sūtra; at Dumen Monastery he eventually came upon this manuscript and first produced an outline and commentary. Furthermore, according to the twenty-fascicle Record of Śākya's Teachings compiled by the śramaṇa Zhisheng during the Kaiyuan era, the ninth fascicle states: 'The Great Buddha-Crest Śūraṅgama Sūtra in ten fascicles was translated in Guangzhou by the Great Tang śramaṇa Huaidi.' Di was a man of Xunzhou who lived at Nanlou Monastery on Mount Luofu; having long studied the sūtras and treatises, he was thoroughly versed in the five dialects of Sanskrit. Travelling to Guangfu, he encountered an Indian monk whose name is not known, and translating it together against the original text, compiled it into ten fascicles. The title of the sūtra, the number of sheets, and the phrasing do not differ at all from Rong's current version. Di took down the purports of the sūtra with the brush, weaving together the text and principle. Now, examining the two sūtras in detail, although the translators are different, the translated original was identical. Or perhaps, because Di verified the meaning, each relied on what was circulated, which is why the current catalogues record them differently. If not so, how could there not be a single point of difference, and why would the chief translator's name remain unknown? Since the two texts are identical, we now explain Rong's version.