眾經目錄 1.28

1.28

此二卷入藏目。貞觀九年四月。奉　勅苑內寫一切經。大總持寺僧智通。共使人祕書郎褚遂良等。附新譯經挍定申奏。奉　勅施行。有人將大集三十卷。日藏十卷。月藏十卷。無盡意六卷。明度挍計二卷。五部合為六十卷。大集者誤也。勘文大集前十方諸佛會。日藏月藏後十方諸菩薩會。無盡意是重譯。明度挍計是別部。又撿仁壽二年翻經大德彥琮法師等。奉　勅新定一切經目五部。各自別行。貞觀十一年四月。皇太子於延興寺造一切經。有人將六十卷大集本來諸德莫之能定。遂抄入藏。仍五本重抄目復不改。智通覩此參差。處處尋勘乃見八卷金光明序云。開皇十七年興善寺沙門寶貴。昔晉朝支敏度。合兩竺二支一百五本。首楞嚴為一部八卷。又合一支兩竺三本。維摩為一部五卷。斯既先哲遺蹤遂承規合。此大集為六十卷。今讀經文。集會時別。梵甲亦各不同。翻譯時代又異。流傳遍及海外。今忽合之。恐疑惑者多。所引楞嚴淨名注經等。只是私記。並不入藏。六十卷大集。豈得獨行。幸冀來哲詳而體焉。

Catalogue of texts admitted into the canon in these two fascicles: In the fourth month of the ninth year of the Zhenguan era, by imperial decree, an entire collection of scriptures was transcribed within the Palace Park. The monk Zhitong of Da Zongchi Monastery, together with imperial commissioner Chu Suiliang, Gentleman of the Palace Library, and others, collated and submitted them alongside newly translated scriptures to the throne, which was enacted by imperial decree. Some individuals combined the thirty-fascicle Mahāsaṃnipāta, the ten-fascicle Sūryagarbha, the ten-fascicle Candragarbha, the six-fascicle Akṣayamati, and the two-fascicle Calculation of Prajñā into five texts making up sixty fascicles, which they called the Mahāsaṃnipāta; this is an error. Examining the texts, before the Mahāsaṃnipāta is the assembly of the Buddhas of the ten directions; after the Sūryagarbha and Candragarbha is the assembly of the bodhisattvas of the ten directions; the Akṣayamati is a retranslation; and the Calculation of Prajñā is a distinct text. Furthermore, inspecting [the records of] the Great Virtuous Dharma Master Yancong and others who translated scriptures in the second year of the Renshou era, by imperial decree the newly fixed catalogue of all scriptures treated these five texts as each circulating separately. In the fourth month of the eleventh year of the Zhenguan era, the Crown Prince commissioned an entire collection of scriptures at Yanxing Monastery. Someone brought forward the sixty-fascicle Mahāsaṃnipāta edition; none of the venerable masters was able to resolve it, so it was transcribed into the canon, and yet the five texts were re-transcribed while the catalogue was again left unaltered. Witnessing this discrepancy, Zhitong investigated everywhere and found the preface to the eight-fascicle Suvarṇaprabhāsa stating that in the seventeenth year of the Kaihuang era, the monk Baogui of Xingshan Monastery noted that formerly, in the Jin dynasty, Zhi Mindu combined one hundred and five texts—two by the Zhu and two by the Zhi—merging the Śūraṅgama into one work of eight fascicles, and also combined three texts—one by the Zhi and two by the Zhu—merging the Vimalakīrti into one work of five fascicles; since these were precedents left by earlier sages, he followed this precedent and combined this Mahāsaṃnipāta into sixty fascicles. Now reading the sūtra texts, the occasions of their assemblies differ, their Sanskrit manuscripts are also each distinct, and the eras of their translations are also different, circulating widely abroad. To merge them abruptly now will, it is feared, give rise to many doubts. The citations of the Śūraṅgama and Vimalakīrti commentaries are merely private records and were never admitted into the canon; how could the sixty-fascicle Mahāsaṃnipāta circulate alone? It is hoped that future sages will examine and comprehend this.