佛祖統紀 2.32

2.32

述曰。如來降靈示滅之相。記年月者。其說紛然。今作正義。異說兩番。以區別之。初正義者有六。其一。周書異記昭王二十四年甲寅歲。四月八日。有五色光。入貫太微。遍於西方。太史蘇由曰。有大聖人生於西方。穆王五十二年壬申歲。二月十五日旦白虹十二道。南北通貫。太史扈多曰。西方有大聖人。終亡之相。其二。法本內傳。摩騰法師對明帝曰。佛以甲寅之歲四月八日生。此當周昭王二十四年。其三。魏書沙門曇謨最曰。佛以周昭王二十四年四月八日生。穆王五十二年二月十五日滅。其四。南岳願文云。佛以甲寅四月八日降生。其五。輔行云。悉達生淨飯王宮。當周昭王甲寅之歲。其六。唐太宗。勅尚書劉德威。問法琳法師。佛降生入滅。何故傳述乖亂。琳乃論定。周昭甲寅生。穆王壬申滅。次列異說有八。石柱銘。周桓王乙丑。法顯法師傳。殷武乙甲午。像正記。平王戊子。南山感通傳。天人云夏桀世。度律師眾聖點記貞定王甲戌。開皇三寶錄。王簡棲頭陀寺記。皆以為周魯二莊。甚至孤山亦作此說。其所注四十二章經。則取淨名疏云。周時佛興。星殞如雨。蓋準瑞應經所言沸星下侍之事。天台秖言佛興。未嘗定指周莊。雖云如雨。乃是借文左傳。孤山誤認此語。遂作二莊以釋。以致淨覺作記。妄稱天台正取二莊。然荊溪明言昭王甲寅。初無二莊之論。是知異說自此可息矣。若欲會同左傳如雨之說。則如文殊般涅槃經云。佛滅度後。二百五十年。文殊至雲山化五百仙人訖。還歸本土放大光明遍照世界入於涅槃。自昭王至莊王。正當二百五十餘年。恒星之騐其在此乎（左傳。魯莊公七年甲午四月辛卯。夜恒星不見。星殞如雨。即周莊王十年）又孤山垂裕記。依周歷以十一月建子為正。言四月即今二月。今准因果瑞應本行諸經。並云四月八日。法本內傳。魏書。亦皆四月八日。三經既非周譯。二書亦非周世。則知非建子之正明矣。蓋自漢武改寅為正。至於今日遵而用之。則經傳之言四月。非為差錯。不當遠據周歷改為二月也。此大略出翻譯名義。今更增益文證。以祛昔人之異見云。

The author remarks: The accounts concerning the years and months of the Tathāgata's descent of the spirit and manifestation of extinction are conflicting. I now present two sets of accounts—the orthodox view and divergent theories—to distinguish them. First, the orthodox view has six [authorities]: First, the Zhoushu yiji states that in the twenty-fourth year of King Zhao, a jiayin year, on the eighth day of the fourth month, a light of five colors penetrated the Taimi enclosure and spread across the western regions. The Grand Astrologer Su You said, 'A great sage has been born in the west.' In the fifty-second year of King Mu, a renshen year, on the morning of the fifteenth day of the second month, twelve white rainbows spanned from north to south. The Grand Astrologer Hu Duo said, 'This is a sign of the passing of the great sage in the west.' Second, the Neizhuan of Dharmamūla states that Dharma Master Mātanga said to Emperor Ming: 'The Buddha was born in a jiayin year on the eighth day of the fourth month, which corresponds to the twenty-fourth year of King Zhao of the Zhou.' Third, the Weishu states that the śramaṇa Tanmoxui said: 'The Buddha was born in the twenty-fourth year of King Zhao of the Zhou on the eighth day of the fourth month, and entered extinction in the fifty-second year of King Mu on the fifteenth day of the second month.' Fourth, the Nanyue yuanwen states that the Buddha was born in a jiayin year on the eighth day of the fourth month. Fifth, the Fuxing states: 'Siddhārtha was born in the palace of King Śuddhodana in the jiayin year of King Zhao of the Zhou.' Sixth, Emperor Taizong of the Tang ordered Minister Liu Dewei to inquire of Dharma Master Falin why the transmissions of the Buddha's descent and entry into extinction were so contradictory and disordered. Lin then determined that he was born in the jiayin year of King Zhao of the Zhou and entered extinction in the renshen year of King Mu. Next, there are eight divergent accounts: The pillar inscription has it as the yichou year of King Huan of the Zhou; Faxian's Faxian zhuan has it as the jiawu year of Wu Yi of the Yin; the Xiangzheng ji has it as the wuzi year of King Ping; the Nanshan gantong zhuan records a deva saying it was the era of Jie of the Xia; Master of Vinaya Du's Record of the Dots of the Many Sages has it as the jiaxu year of King Zhending; and the Kaihuang sanbao lu and Wang Jianqi's Record of the Dhūta Monastery both take it to be the eras of Duke Zhuang of Zhou and Duke Zhuang of Lu. Even Gushan adopted this view; in his commentary on the Sūtra of Forty-two Sections, he cited the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Commentary as stating, 'In the Zhou era the Buddha arose; stars fell like rain,' which is based on the account in the Ruiying jing of the falling of shooting stars to attend him. Tiantai merely stated that 'the Buddha arose,' never definitively identifying it with King Zhuang of the Zhou; although he said 'like rain,' he was merely borrowing text from the Zuo zhuan. Gushan misunderstood these words and consequently interpreted them using the two Zhuangs, leading Jingjue to write a record falsely claiming that Tiantai had truly adopted the two Zhuangs. However, Jīngxī clearly stated King Zhao's jiayin year, and made no mention of the two Zhuangs. Thus we know that the divergent theories may be laid to rest from here. If one wishes to harmonize this with the Zuo zhuan's statement that '[stars] fell like rain,' the Mañjuśrīparinirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Two hundred and fifty years after the Buddha's extinction, Mañjuśrī went to the Cloud Mountain, and having converted five hundred immortals, returned to his native land, emitted a great light illuminating the worlds, and entered nirvāṇa.' From King Zhao to King Zhuang is precisely over two hundred and fifty years; the verification of the fixed stars perhaps lies in this! (The Zuo zhuan states: 'In the seventh year of Duke Zhuang of Lu, a jiawu year, in the fourth month on the xinmao day, at night the fixed stars were not visible; stars fell like rain.' This was the tenth year of King Zhuang of the Zhou.) Furthermore, Gushan's Chuiyu ji relies on the Zhou calendar taking the eleventh month (zi) as the first month of the year, claiming that the fourth month is the present second month. Now, consulting the Yingua, Ruiying, and Benxing sūtras, all state the eighth day of the fourth month; the Faben neizhuan and Weishu also both state the eighth day of the fourth month. Since the three sūtras were not translated during the Zhou, nor do the two histories date from the Zhou period, we clearly know that they did not adopt the zi month as the start of the year. From the time Emperor Wu of the Han changed the beginning of the year to yin down to the present, it has been followed and used; thus the mention of the fourth month in the sūtras and commentaries is not an error, and one should not remotely rely on the Zhou calendar to alter it to the second month. This is roughly drawn from the Fanyi mingyi [ji]; now I have added further textual evidence to dispel the divergent views of earlier men.