出三藏記集 8.17

8.17

般若波羅蜜經者。窮理盡性之格言。菩薩成佛之弘軌也。軌不弘則不足以冥群異指其歸。性不盡則物何以登道場成正覺。正覺之所以成。群異之所以一。何莫由斯道也。是以異教慇懃。三撫以之頻發。功德疊校。九增以之屢至。如問相標玄而玄其玄。幻品忘寄而忘其忘。道行坦其津。難問窮其原。隨喜忘趣以要終。照明不化以即玄。章雖三十貫之者道。言雖十萬倍之者行。行凝然後無生。道足然後補處。及此而變一切智也。法華鏡本以凝照般若冥。末以解懸解懸理。趣菩薩道也。凝照鏡本告其終也。終而不泯則歸途扶疎。有三實之跡。權應不夷則亂緒紛綸。有惑趣之異。是以法華般若相待以期終。方便實化冥一以俠盡。論其窮理盡性夷明萬行則實不如照。取其大明真化解本無三則照不如實。是故歎深則般若之功重。美實則法華之用微。此經之尊三撫三囑。未足惑也。有秦太子者。寓跡儲宮擬韻區外。翫味斯經夢想增至准悟大品。深知譯者之失。會聞究摩羅法師。神授其文真本猶存。以弘始十年二月六日。請令出之。至四月三十日。校正都訖。考之舊譯。真若荒田之稼芸過其半。未詎多也。斯經正文凡有四種。是佛異時適化廣略之說也。其多者云有十萬偈。少者六百偈。此之大品。乃是天竺之中品也。隨宜之言。復何必計其多少議其煩簡耶。胡文雅質按本譯之。於麗巧不足樸正有餘矣。幸冀文悟之賢。略其華而幾其實也。

The Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra is the maxim that exhausts principle and plumbs nature, the grand guideline for bodhisattvas to achieve buddhahood. If the guideline were not grand, it would not suffice to unify differing views and point them to their return; if nature were not exhausted, how could beings ascend the place of awakening and achieve perfect enlightenment? The reason perfect enlightenment is achieved and the differing views are unified—how could it not stem from this path? Therefore, diverse teachings were diligently offered, and the three reassurances were repeatedly issued; merits were layered and compared, and the nine increases frequently occurred. As when questioning characteristics marks the mystery and makes mysterious its mystery; the chapter on illusions forgets attachment and forgets its forgetting; the Daoxing smoothens its ford; difficult questions exhaust its source; rejoicing forgets destinations to summarize the end; and illumination does not transform so as to identify with the mystery. Although the chapters are thirty, what runs through them is the Way; although the words are a hundred thousand, what doubles them is practice. When practice coalesces, there is non-arising; when the Way is sufficient, there is one life away from buddhahood (eka-jāti-pratibaddha); reaching this, it transforms into all-knowledge (sarvajñatā). The Lotus mirrors the root to coalesce illumination, while prajñā unifies the branches to release suspension. Releasing suspension guides the principle, heading along the bodhisattva path; coalescing illumination mirrors the root, announcing its conclusion. If the conclusion is not obliterated, the return path will branch out, leaving traces of three realities; if the provisional responses are not levelled, the chaotic threads will be tangled, giving rise to diverse bewildered destinies. Therefore, the Lotus and prajñā rely upon each other to await completion; expedient means and true transformation unify to exhaustively encompass all. Speaking of exhausting principle and plumbing nature, and levelling and illuminating the myriad practices, reality is not as good as illumination; taking its grand illumination of true transformation and realizing that originally there are no three, illumination is not as good as reality. For this reason, when praising profundity, the merit of prajñā is weighty; when extolling reality, the function of the Lotus is subtle. The veneration of this sūtra, with its three reassurances and three entrustments, is not at all surprising. There was a Crown Prince of Qin who lodged his presence in the eastern palace while matching his aspirations beyond the mundane realm. Savoring this sūtra, his dreaming aspirations intensified, and aligning his understanding with the Large Perfection, he deeply recognized the faults of earlier translators. Just then, he heard that Master Kumārajīva had divinely been conferred its text, and the true original was still preserved. On the sixth day of the second month of the tenth year of the Hongshi era, he requested that it be produced. On the thirtieth day of the fourth month, the collation was entirely completed. Examining it against the old translations, it was truly as if, in weeding the crops of an overgrown field, more than half had been weeded away, yet not excessively so. The authentic text of this sūtra has four versions in all, which are the Buddha's extensive and abridged expositions suited to conversions at different times. The longest is said to have one hundred thousand verses, and the shortest six hundred verses. This Large Perfection is indeed the medium version in India. Being words according with what was appropriate, why must one calculate their quantity or debate their complexity and simplicity? The foreign text was refined and plain; translating it according to the original, it fell short in ornate skill, but had an excess of simple correctness. Fortunately, I hope that worthy individuals of literary discernment will set aside its flourishes and approach its reality.