傳法正宗記 1.23

1.23

評曰。付法於大迦葉者。其於何時。必何以而明之耶曰。昔涅槃會之初。如來告諸比丘曰。汝等不應作如是語。我今所有無上正法。悉已付囑摩訶迦葉。是迦葉者。當為汝等作大依止。此其明矣（見涅槃第二卷）然正宗者。蓋聖人之密相傳受。不可得必知其處與其時也。以經酌之。則法華先。而涅槃後也。方說法華而大迦葉預焉。及涅槃而不在其會。吾謂。付法之時其在二經之間耳。或謂。如來於靈山會中拈花示之。而迦葉微笑。即是而付法。又曰。如來以法付大迦葉。於多子塔前。而世皆以是為傳受之實。然此未始見其所出。吾雖稍取。亦不敢果以為審也。曰他書之端。必列七佛。而此無之。豈七佛之偈非其舊譯乎。曰不然。夫正宗者。必以親相師承。為其効也。故此斷自釋迦如來已降。吾所以不復列之耳。吾考。其寶林傳燈諸家之傳記。皆祖述乎前魏支彊梁樓與東魏之那連耶舍。此二梵僧之所譯也。或其首列乎七佛之偈者。蓋亦出於支彊耶舍之二譯耳。豈謂非其舊本耶。然寶林傳其端不列七佛。猶吾書之意也。

Evaluation: At what time was the Dharma entrusted to Mahākāśyapa? By what must it be clarified? Answer: Long ago, at the beginning of the assembly of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], the Tathāgata told all the monks: "You should not speak such words. The unsurpassed true Dharma I now possess has all been entrusted to Mahākāśyapa. This Kāśyapa shall serve as a great refuge for you." This is clear (seen in the second fascicle of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]). However, as for the orthodox lineage, because it is the sages' secret transmission to one another, it is impossible to know its precise place and time with certainty. Deliberating by the scriptures, the Lotus Sūtra comes before and the Nirvāṇa Sūtra comes after. When the Lotus Sūtra was being expounded, Mahākāśyapa was present; when it came to the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, he was not in the assembly. I say that the time of entrusting the Dharma was merely between the two sūtras. Some say that when the Tathāgata held up a flower and showed it to the assembly on Vulture Peak, Kāśyapa smiled, and that this was the entrustment of the Dharma. It is also said that the Tathāgata entrusted the Dharma to Mahākāśyapa in front of the Many-Children Stūpa, and the world all regards these as the reality of the transmission. Yet the origin of these has never been seen. Though I adopt them slightly, I do not dare make them definitive either. Question: At the beginning of other books, the seven Buddhas are necessarily listed, but this one does not have them; could it be that the verses of the seven Buddhas were not in the old translations? Answer: That is not so. The orthodox lineage must take personal transmission from master to disciple as its proof. Therefore, this [work] cuts off from Śākyamuni Tathāgata downwards, which is why I did not list them again. I have investigated: the historical records of various schools, such as the Baolin [zhuan] and the Chuandeng [lu], all trace their patriarchal succession to Zhi Jianglianglou of the former Wei and Narendrayaśas of the Eastern Wei, translated by these two Indian monks. If their beginnings list the verses of the seven Buddhas, it was also derived from the two translations of Zhi Jiang[lianglou] and [Narendra]yaśas. How could one say that it was not an old text? However, the Baolin zhuan does not list the seven Buddhas at its beginning, which aligns with the intention of my book.