[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [佛祖統紀](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2035) › 32.22 # 佛祖統紀 32.22 佛祖統紀 32.22 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [32.22](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2035.32.22) 述曰。贍部一洲在西為五印度。飛行輪王之所治。是為梵天之種。東則震旦。皇王周孔之所化。是為君子之國。北為狄種。獫狁匈奴胡人之鄉。封域分殊。不為指梵為胡以自混濫。如舊稱胡跪胡經胡漢老胡。皆無稽之言不足用也。諸經言國城數不定者。古今離合不同也。如此方周千八百國。春秋七十餘國。秦七國。魏三國。晉十六國。或離或合。為國不一。要不出此一境也。又諸經華梵不同者。羅什恒河。奘師殑伽。什云須彌。奘云蘇迷盧。並指什譯為訛。此說未可為定。蓋由求法沙門所問土音中邊不同古今有異。而詮其實則一也。如此方南北音轉名處名物其語各殊。又如此方同一震旦而周秦漢晉為號不同。豈當定是非於古今之際。能識此意。則華梵不同。自可心會也。 > The commentary says: The continent of Jambudvīpa, in the west, is the Five Indias. It is the realm ruled by the flying Wheel-turning Kings; this is the lineage of Brahmā. In the east is Cīnasthāna, transformed by august sovereigns, King Wen, the Duke of Zhou, and Confucius; this is the country of noble persons (junzi). In the north are the Di tribes, the homeland of the Xianyun, Xiongnu, and Hu barbarians. The bounded domains are distinctly separated; one must not refer to the Brahmans as Hu and thereby create confusion. Old expressions like 'Hu kneeling' (kneeling on one knee), 'Hu scriptures', 'Hu-Han', and 'old Hu' are all unfounded talk and unworthy of use. Where the sūtras mention varying numbers of kingdoms and cities, it is because partition and unification have differed across past and present. Just as in this land there were eighteen hundred states under the Zhou, over seventy in the Spring and Autumn period, seven under the Qin, three under the Wei, and sixteen under the Jin—sometimes partitioned, sometimes united, the states were not one, yet in summary they never went beyond this single realm. Moreover, as for the differences between Chinese and Sanskrit across various sūtras: Kumārajīva translated 'Hénghé' (Gaṅgā) while Master Xuanzang wrote 'Jìngjiā'; Kumārajīva wrote 'Xūmí' (Sumeru) while Xuanzang wrote 'Sūmílú'. People commonly point to Kumārajīva's translations as erroneous, but this assertion cannot be considered definitive. This is because the local pronunciations queried by the Dharma-seeking monks differed between central and peripheral regions, and there were changes over time, yet what they signify in reality is one and the same. Just as in this land names of places and things shift in pronunciation between north and south and their expressions vary; and just as this land is identical as Cīnasthāna, yet its designations differed across the Zhou, Qin, Han, and Jin—how could one fix what is right and wrong between past and present? If one can comprehend this meaning, then the differences between Chinese and Sanskrit can naturally be understood in one's mind. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 32.21](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2035.32.21) - [Next: 32.23](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2035.32.23) - [Up: 32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2035.32) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2035~en-mt.32.22) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2035.32.22](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2035.32.22) · Pramāṇa