首楞嚴義疏注經 1.17

1.17

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.