佛祖統紀 3.122

3.122

述曰。四教儀所列。般若諸經名。總別重出。難於分別。今但總標大般若經云。若大品。小品。天王。文殊。金剛十經。皆大般若中重譯。別行之文。今故不列。蓋摩訶即是大品。又釋籤云。古判般若有五時。一摩訶。二金剛。三天王。四光讚。五仁王。此未可用。光讚秖是大品上帙。案此則又知光讚不當重出也。此未可用之言。乃是荊溪。總破古師五時之失。

The commentary states: The names of the various Prajñā sūtras listed in the Sijiaoyi duplicate the general and the specific, making them difficult to distinguish. Here we merely designate them collectively under the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra. Ten sūtras—such as the Larger Prajñā, the Smaller Prajñā, the Heavenly King, the Mañjuśrī, and the Diamond Sūtras—are all texts that were retranslated or circulated independently from within the Mahāprajñāpāramitā; hence they are not listed here now. For 'Mahā' is simply the Larger Prajñā. Furthermore, the Shiqian states: 'In antiquity, the Prajñā was classified into five periods: first, the Mahā; second, the Diamond; third, the Heavenly King; fourth, the Guangzan; and fifth, the Benevolent Kings. This cannot yet be adopted. The Guangzan is merely the first part of the Larger Prajñā.' Examining this, we also know that the Guangzan should not be listed redundantly. The statement 'this cannot yet be adopted' is Jīngxī's overall refutation of the ancient teachers' error regarding the five periods.