開元釋教錄 10.4.7

10.4.7

seeking. Some relied on chronological eras; some depended on participating in translations. Each recorded a single corner, striving to preserve what they had observed. These were all investigations of antiquity in their own time, composed and edited by people of refined understanding and intellect. That they did not achieve thorough precision was not because their talent was insufficient or their wisdom incomplete […]’ The above brings together the titles of catalogues, consulting texts such as the Biographies of Eminent Monks to verify, collate, and determine them in detail. It then drew upon the catalogues of Sengyou, Fei Changfang, and others. The citations and evidence in Sengyou's catalogue have commendable phrasing and meaning, yet Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna are lumped together, the three piṭakas are intermingled, extracted compilations are mixed with canonical texts, and biographical records are confused with sūtras; when examining them from beginning to end, none can resolve these ambiguities. Fei Changfang's catalogue appeared later and was comprehensive of earlier lore, yet the three treasures share the same section, and the spurious and the authentic are commingled. As for the rest of the various catalogues, how could they all be mentioned? What I have now compiled aspires to reform earlier shortcomings. (The compiler of this catalogue [Zhisheng] says: What Duke Xuan compiled is clear and rigorous in its classification; it is truly worth examining, and the style of a master author is evident here. However, with a few inconsistencies and confusions, it is not yet entirely perfect. Authorship is indeed a difficult undertaking! I now briefly present several points to examine its errors, not wishing to pronounce on merits and demerits, but truly only to distinguish truth from falsehood. Just as in the Catalogue of Historical Translations, Extant and Lost, with Translators and Dynasties, the six sūtras such as the newly translated Aṣṭasāhasrikā are all said to be the same text as the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā; this is not so. Although the doctrine is coherent, the assemblies are entirely different; to call them the same text is the first error. The Bodhisattva-caryā-viśuddhi-sūtra and the Ratnacūḍa-bodhisattva-sūtra are both said to have been translated by Dharmarakṣa; this is one sūtra with two titles, yet he kept both texts; this is the second error. The *Mārgavipula-prakaṭana-samādhi-sūtra and the Anavatapta-nāgarāja-sūtra are also one sūtra with two titles, yet both texts are kept; this is the third error. The Sumerugarbha-sūtra in two fascicles was translated by Narendrayaśas of the Northern Qi, yet it is entered twice, earlier and later; this is the fourth error. For the Mahāyānasaṃgraha translated by Paramārtha, there is a twelve-fascicle text and a fifteen-fascicle completion, yet both texts are kept; this is the fifth error. The Prajñā-cāo-jing is recorded in two places, in both the Mahāyāna catalogue and the compilations and biographies; this is the sixth error. Furthermore, as in the Catalogue of Historical Sūtras by Vehicle Entered into the Canon, the Sandhinirmocana-sūtra is entered twice, earlier and later: first in the same case with the Bodhisattva-garbhastha-sūtra, and later in the same case with the Jie shenmi jing; this is the seventh error. Taking the old Daśacakra-sūtra as a sole translation and the new Daśacakra-sūtra as a retranslation is the eighth error. Taking the Qishi jing as a sole translation and the Loutan jing as a retranslation is the ninth error. Such cases are not singular, and cannot all be enumerated. As in the Catalogue of Essential Readings for Chanting, although the Xinli ruyin famen jing is an extracted branch of the Avataṃsaka, it is not present in the large work, being similar to sūtras such as Dushi jianbei jing; subsuming it back into the large work and not counting it for chanting is the first improper point. Among the various Prajñā texts, only the single sūtra of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā is cited, claiming that the nine works such as the Fangguang jing are repetitious and rarely investigated, and that citing the former subsumes them, so that the broad meaning is exhausted; regarding the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra later translated at Yuhua Palace, it explains that it clarifies the Buddha's lifelong teaching in sixteen assemblies and may be preserved for veneration, but is difficult to apply for regular recitation. I now say this is not so. How could one dam up the sea of Dharma with mundane foolishness and shallow intellect? Human natures are not the same, and what people delight in differs; how could one impose one's own preference for brevity onto others to match one's own view? The great Prajñā sūtra is chanted by very many people, and the Buddha prophesied that its broad dissemination would be in the northeast; to say that it is difficult to apply for regular practice is, in my humble opinion, unacceptable. Moreover, the Aṣṭasāhasrikā and the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā are completely different based on their Indian texts; to discard one and promote the other is the second improper point. Works such as the Sumerugarbha-sūtra, although an extracted section of the Mahāsaṃnipāta, are not found in the large work; subsuming it and not allowing it to circulate is unreasonable. Furthermore, the Sumerugarbha-sūtra was earlier subsumed into the Mahāsaṃnipāta, and later cited separately for circulation; this discrepancy between earlier and later is the third improper point. Works such as the Loutan jing were subsumed into the Dīrghāgama, while the Qishi jing was individually commanded to be chanted; how does the Sanskrit text of the Qishi jing differ from that of the Loutan jing? Discarding one and promoting the other is the fourth improper point. The Anban shouyi jing does not differ from the Da anban; on what basis are both commanded to be chanted? This is the fifth improper point. The Samayabhedoparacanacakra-śāstra does not differ in Sanskrit text from the Buyizhi lun; on what basis are both commanded to be chanted? This is the sixth improper point. Furthermore, it is said that outside the catalogue are the non-Buddhist Sāṃkhya-kārikā-bhāṣya (*Suvarṇasaptati), the Treatise Refuting the Non-Buddhist Nirvāṇa, and the Treatise Refuting the Four Non-Buddhist Tenets, which were omitted due to lack of leisure. A work such as the *Suvarṇasaptati was composed by non-Buddhists and is not the Buddha's Dharma; removing it is acceptable. But to excise the Nirvāṇa and Four Tenets texts alongside it is unacceptable: these are Buddhist treatises refuting non-Buddhist traditions, and deleting them uniformly is the seventh improper point. Furthermore, in the Catalogue of Historical Translations, Extant and Lost, with Translators and Dynasties and the Catalogue of Essential Readings for Chanting, the three piṭakas are fully present in the Mahāyāna catalogue, yet in the Catalogue of Works Entered into the Canon there is no Mahāyāna vinaya. How could it be present before and after, yet uniquely absent in the middle, creating a self-contradiction? This is the eighth improper point. What has been listed above is not without errors, and as for claiming to reform shortcomings, perhaps that is not the case; the errors are extremely numerous and difficult to recount in full quickly. May the discerning examine them for themselves.)
Continuation of the Great Tang Catalogue of Inner Canonical Texts, one fascicle (compiled in the gengwu year of Kaiyuan by the śramaṇa Zhisheng of the West Chongfu Temple)
Catalogue of the Provenance of Canonical Translations across the Dynasties (from the jiazi year, the first year of Linde, to the gengwu year, the eighteenth year of Kaiyuan; not recorded in the earlier catalogue, now continued).
Pictorial Records of Ancient and Modern Sūtra Translations of the Great Tang, four fascicles (compiled by the translation śramaṇa Jingmai of Da Cien Temple)
Inside the translation hall of Da Cien Temple, there are mural illustrations and tableaux of ancient and modern translations.
Jingmai thereupon wrote inscriptions for them on the wall. He merely abridged Fei Changfang's catalogue, recording those who translated sūtras and omitting other authors and compilers. Down to the present imperial dynasty, it formed four fascicles in total. Where Changfang erred, this catalogue follows suit. Wishing to elaborate further, I feared it would be too verbose and therefore stopped.
Continuation of the Pictorial Records of Ancient and Modern Sūtra Translations, one fascicle (compiled in the gengwu year of Kaiyuan by the śramaṇa Zhisheng of the West Chongfu Temple)
From Master Xuanzang down to Śubhakarasiṃha; not recorded in the earlier record, now continued.
Great Zhou Catalogue of Canonical Scriptures Authorized upon Revision, fifteen fascicles (compiled and fixed by imperial order in the yiwei year, the first year of Tiancedanwan, by the śramaṇa Mingquan and others of the Fo Shouji Temple in the Eastern Capital)
Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna sūtras, vinayas, and śāstras, and compilations and biographies of sages (totaling 3,616 works in 8,641 fascicles; the works and fascicles currently established as entering the canon and circulating are not included in this count)
Catalogue of Mahāyāna Sole Translations of Sūtras, Fascicle 1 (283 works, 528 fascicles)
Catalogue of Mahāyāna Retranslations of Sūtras, Part 1, Fascicle 2 (178 works, 1,394 fascicles)
Catalogue of Mahāyāna Retranslations of Sūtras, Part 2, Fascicle 3 (168 works, 338 fascicles)
Catalogue of Mahāyāna Retranslations of Sūtras, Part 3, Fascicle 4 (180 works, 421 fascicles)
Catalogue of Mahāyāna Retranslations of Sūtras, Part 4, Fascicle 5 (168 works, 365 fascicles)
Catalogue of Mahāyāna Vinayas and Mahāyāna Śāstras, Fascicle 6 (162 works, 716 fascicles)
Catalogue of Hīnayāna Sole Translations of Sūtras, Fascicle 7 (128 works, 310 fascicles)