眾經目錄 1.28

1.28

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.