開元釋教錄 17.9

17.9

菩薩境界奮迅法門經十卷　元魏三藏菩提
留支譯（出寶唱錄）
右一經。即薩遮尼乾子經之異名。周錄別
載。復云闕本者誤也。
新道行經七卷（或十卷）　西晉三藏竺法護譯
（出長房等錄）
右一經。撿諸藏本並與小品般若文句全
同者其本錯也。護公所譯新道行經時無
其本（承聞東都有護譯本尋之未獲）。
大方等大集經八卷
右一經。唐內典錄及大周錄二錄俱載。今
撿其文即是合部大集經第六帙也。初之
二卷名十方菩薩品。即是明度五十挍計
經。後之六卷乃是無盡意經。其明度五十
挍計經不知何故編入大集。以有差殊今
存別部之者。此既重載今故刪除。
阿耨達龍王經二卷
右一經。與弘道廣顯三昧經文句全同。但
名別異。今存一本。
合道神足經三卷
右一經。與道神足無極變化經文同名異。
哀泣經三卷（或二卷六品）
右一經。與方等般泥洹經文同名異。其方
等泥洹初品名為哀泣。乃取此品名目以
作經題。比於方等泥洹。後闕三品文不足
矣。
寶田慧印三昧經一卷
右一經。與慧印三昧經文句全同名廣略
異。長房錄云。慧印三昧經亦名寶田慧印
三昧經。周入藏錄二本俱載。一單一重誤
之甚也。
鹿子經一卷
右一經。與鹿母經文同名異。據其文義合
從母立名。長房錄云。鹿子經吳代優婆塞
支謙譯者謬也。
小無量壽經一卷
右一經。與阿彌陀經文同名異。其宋代三
藏求那跋陀羅所譯小無量壽經。時無其
本。
胎藏經一卷（出長房錄）
右一經與無垢賢女經文同名異。
聞城十二因緣經一卷
右一經。與貝多樹下思惟十二因緣經文
同名異。此聞城經合有異本。尋之未獲。
大安般經一卷（或二卷內典錄云二卷長房錄云一卷）
右一經與大安般守意經文句全同名廣略
異。群錄之中存其二本者誤之甚也。
申日經一卷
右一經。與大乘藏中月光童子經文同名
異。父名申日。子號月光。約此不同立經名
別。長房錄云。申日經吳代優婆塞支謙譯
者謬也。
輪轉五道罪福報應經一卷
右一經與罪福報應經文句全同名廣略異。
栴陀越經一卷
右一經。與栴陀越國王經文句全同名廣
略異。周入藏中栴陀越經編在單本。栴陀
越國王經在於重譯。二處載者誤之甚也。
真偽沙門經一卷（長房錄云一名摩訶比丘經亦名迦葉禁戒經）
右一經。即迦葉禁戒經之異名文句全同。
或云宋代鹿野寺沙門慧蕳譯者謬也。
轉法輪經一卷
右一經。撿無其本。諸經藏內皆以轉法輪
論替之者誤也（近於東都尋得正本編入藏訖）。
賓頭盧為王說法經一卷
右一經與賓頭盧突羅闍為優陀延王說法
經文句全同名廣略異。
阿蘭若習禪法經二卷
右一經與坐禪三昧經文同名異。
禪祕要經五卷
右一經。云是宋代三藏曇摩蜜多譯。云與
姚秦三藏鳩摩羅什所譯禪祕要法同本異
出。今撿尋上下文極交錯非是本經。初之
一卷乃是治禪病祕要法文。仍不盡至半
而止。第二卷已去即是羅什所譯禪祕要
法。從第一卷過半生起至第三卷末。文亦
不盡欠十餘紙。均為四卷通前成五。其曇
摩蜜多譯者。時闕其本。

*Pusa jingjie fenxun famen jing*, ten fascicles; translated by Bodhiruci, Tripiṭaka master of the Northern Wei (attested in Baochang's catalogue).
The one sūtra above is another name for the *Sache niganzi jing*. The Zhou catalogue listed it separately and furthermore called it a lost text, which is an error.
*Xin daoxing jing*, seven fascicles (or ten fascicles); translated by Dharmarakṣa, Tripiṭaka master of the Western Jin (attested in Changfang's and other catalogues).
Regarding the one sūtra above, when examining the various canon copies, all were completely identical in text and phrasing with the *Xiaopin bore*, so that text is mistaken. There is currently no copy of the *Xin daoxing jing* translated by Dharmarakṣa (I have heard that there is a copy translated by Dharmarakṣa in the Eastern Capital, but upon searching for it I have not obtained it).
*Dafangdeng daji jing*, eight fascicles.
Regarding the one sūtra above, the Tang *Neidian lu* and the *Da Zhou lu* both list it. Now upon examining its text, it is none other than the sixth case of the combined *Mahāsaṃnipāta-sūtra*. The first two fascicles are called the "Chapter of the Bodhisattvas of the Ten Directions," which is the *Mingdu wushi jiaoji jing*. The subsequent six fascicles are the *Wujinyi jing*. For what reason the *Mingdu wushi jiaoji jing* was compiled into the *Mahāsaṃnipāta* is unknown; because it differs, it is now preserved as a separate work. Since this has been doubly listed, it is now deleted.
*Anouda longwang jing*, two fascicles.
The one sūtra above is completely identical in text and phrasing with the *Hongdao guangxian sanmei jing*, differing only in title. One text is now preserved.
*Hedao shenzu jing*, three fascicles.
The one sūtra above is identical in text and different in title from the *Dao shenzu wuji bianhua jing*.
*Aiqi jing*, three fascicles (or two fascicles, six chapters).
The one sūtra above is identical in text and different in title from the *Fangdeng banniehuan jing*. The first chapter of the *Fangdeng niehuan* is called "Lamentation" (Aiqi); this chapter title was thus taken as the title of the sūtra. Compared to the *Fangdeng niehuan*, it lacks the final three chapters, making the text incomplete.
*Baotian huiyin sanmei jing*, one fascicle.
The one sūtra above is completely identical in text and phrasing with the *Huiyin sanmei jing*, differing only in having an expanded or abridged title. Changfang's catalogue states: "The *Huiyin sanmei jing* is also titled *Baotian huiyin sanmei jing*." The Zhou canon-entry catalogue listed both texts, one under single translations and one under retranslations, which is a gross error.
*Luzi jing*, one fascicle.
The one sūtra above is identical in text and different in title from the *Lumu jing*. Based on its textual meaning, it should take its title from the mother. Changfang's catalogue states that the *Luzi jing* was translated by the upāsaka Zhi Qian of the Wu dynasty, which is mistaken.
*Xiao wuliangshou jing*, one fascicle.
The one sūtra above is identical in text and different in title from the *Amituo jing*. There is currently no copy of the *Xiao wuliangshou jing* translated by Guṇabhadra, Tripiṭaka master of the Song dynasty.
*Taizang jing*, one fascicle (attested in Changfang's catalogue).
The one sūtra above is identical in text and different in title from the *Wugou xianlü jing*.
*Wencheng shi'er yinyuan jing*, one fascicle.
The one sūtra above is identical in text and different in title from the *Beidoushu xia siwei shi'er yinyuan jing*. This *Wencheng jing* ought to have had a different translation, but upon searching for it I have not obtained it.
*Da anban jing*, one fascicle (or two fascicles; the *Neidian lu* says two fascicles, Changfang's catalogue says one fascicle).
The one sūtra above is completely identical in text and phrasing with the *Da anban shouyi jing*, differing only in having an expanded or abridged title. That the various catalogues preserve both texts is a gross error.
*Shenri jing*, one fascicle.
The one sūtra above is identical in text and different in title from the *Yueguang tongzi jing* in the Mahāyāna piṭaka. The father was named Shenri, and the son was called Yueguang; the titles of the sūtra were differentiated based on this distinction. Changfang's catalogue states that the *Shenri jing* was translated by the upāsaka Zhi Qian of the Wu dynasty, which is mistaken.
*Lunzhuang wudao zuifu baoying jing*, one fascicle.
The one sūtra above is completely identical in text and phrasing with the *Zuifu baoying jing*, differing only in having an expanded or abridged title.
*Zhanduoyue jing*, one fascicle.
The one sūtra above is completely identical in text and phrasing with the *Zhanduoyue guowang jing*, differing only in having an expanded or abridged title. In the Zhou canon catalogue, the *Zhanduoyue jing* was compiled under single translations, while the *Zhanduoyue guowang jing* was under retranslations; listing them in two places is a gross error.
*Zhenwei shamen jing*, one fascicle (Changfang's catalogue states: "also titled *Mohe biqiu jing*, and also titled *Jiaye jinjie jing*").
The one sūtra above is another name for the *Jiaye jinjie jing*, and is completely identical in text and phrasing. Some say it was translated by the śramaṇa Huijian of Luye Temple during the Song dynasty, which is mistaken.
*Zhuanfalun jing*, one fascicle.
Upon examining this one sūtra, there was no copy found. That the various sūtra collections all substituted the *Zhuanfalun lun* for it was an error (recently, a correct copy was found in the Eastern Capital and has already been incorporated into the canon).
*Bintoulu wei wang shuofa jing*, one fascicle.
The one sūtra above is completely identical in text and phrasing with the *Bintoulu tuluoshe wei youdayan wang shuofa jing*, differing only in having an expanded or abridged title.
*Alanruo xi chanfa jing*, two fascicles.
The one sūtra above is identical in text and different in title from the *Zuochan sanmei jing*.
*Chan miyao jing*, five fascicles.
Regarding the one sūtra above, it is said to have been translated by Dharmamitra, Tripiṭaka master of the Song dynasty, and is said to be a different translation of the same original as the *Chan miyao fa* translated by Kumārajīva, Tripiṭaka master of the Later Qin. Now upon examining the context, the text is exceedingly confused and is not the original sūtra. The first fascicle is text from the *Zhi chanbing miyao fa*, yet it is incomplete and breaks off halfway through. From the second fascicle onwards, it is the *Chan miyao fa* translated by Kumārajīva, beginning past the middle of the first fascicle and continuing to the end of the third fascicle; its text is also incomplete, lacking more than ten sheets. It was divided into four fascicles, making five together with the preceding. As for the translation by Dharmamitra, its text is currently lost.