傳法正宗記 5.52

5.52

契嵩少聞耆宿云。嘗見古祖圖引梁寶唱續法記所載。達磨至梁。當普通元年九月也。而寶林傳云。在普通八年丁未。即其年過魏。當明帝太和十年。然太和非明帝年號。又曰。達磨滅度亦在明帝太和十九年。而明帝在位秖十二歲。即無十九年。又以丁未推之。即是明帝末年神獸之歲。其歲明帝已崩。若果以普通八年丁未十二月過魏。即達磨在魏九年默坐少林。其歲數不登。若以普通元年庚子推之。即其事稍等。今取元年庚子為準。其諸家所見八年丁未。亦不敢即削。且兩存之。識者詳焉。又以譯禪經之年算。達磨此時正年二十七歲。其說禪經。必在此二十七已前也。從此算來以合諸傳記。所謂達磨既出家得法後。尚隨侍其師四十餘年。又依師所囑。且在南天竺行化。更六十七年。又東來在路二年。及到中國九年方化去。恰是其壽一百五十歲。如此則諸家所載達磨。支竺兩處事跡稍不差也。若以普通八年丁未至中國。及寶林所載達磨四十年不受國位以待般若多羅而出家。却計其在西隨師四十餘年。及到中國已一百五十歲矣。其在魏九年始化。却成一百六十餘歲。故知其云四十不受國位及普通八年到梁。大差訛也。不可為準。

In my youth, Qisong heard senior elders say they had seen an ancient patriarch chart citing the Xu faji by Baochang of Liang, which recorded that Bodhidharma's arrival in Liang occurred in the ninth month of the first year of Putong. But the Baolin zhuan states it was in the eighth year of Putong, dingwei, and that he crossed into Wei in that same year, corresponding to the tenth year of Taihe of Emperor Ming. Yet Taihe was not a reign title of Emperor Ming. It also says Bodhidharma passed away in the nineteenth year of Taihe of Emperor Ming; but Emperor Ming was on the throne for only twelve years, so there was no nineteenth year. Moreover, calculating by dingwei, that was the year of Shenshou at the end of Emperor Ming's reign, the year Emperor Ming had already died. If he truly crossed into Wei in the twelfth month of the eighth year of Putong, dingwei, then Bodhidharma's nine years of silent sitting at Shaolin in Wei would not fit the count of years. If calculated from the first year of Putong, gengzi, the events match fairly well. Now I take the first year, gengzi, as the standard. As for the eighth year, dingwei, seen by various schools, I do not dare to delete it immediately either, so I retain both for the discerning to examine in detail. Furthermore, calculating from the year the Chan sūtra was translated, Bodhidharma was exactly twenty-seven years old at that time. His preaching of the Chan sūtra must have been prior to this age of twenty-seven. Calculating from this to harmonize with the various biographies and records: Bodhidharma, having left household life and attained the Dharma, still attended upon his master for more than forty years; then, relying on his master's entrustment, he carried out transformation in South India for another sixty-seven years; he then came east, spending two years on the road, and after arriving in China stayed for nine years before passing away, which exactly equals an age of one hundred and fifty years. In this way, the deeds of Bodhidharma in both China and India recorded by various authors do not diverge much. If he arrived in China in the eighth year of Putong, dingwei, and according to the Baolin zhuan's record that Bodhidharma did not accept the royal throne for forty years awaiting Prajñātāra before leaving home, then adding the forty-odd years he followed his master in the west, he would already have been one hundred and fifty years old when arriving in China. Beginning his transformation in Wei for nine years, he would have reached more than one hundred and sixty years. Thus we know that the claims of forty years of not accepting the throne and arriving in Liang in the eighth year of Putong are great errors and cannot be taken as standard.