佛祖統紀 2.32

2.32

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.