貞元新定釋教目錄 18.4.7

18.4.7

非。如人代存亡錄中。新小品等六經並云大品之同本者不然。義理雖通據會全異而言同本。一誤。菩薩淨行
經與寶髻菩薩經俱云竺法護譯。此是一經兩名。存其二本。二誤。弘道廣顯三昧經與阿耨達龍王經亦是一經兩
名。二本俱存。三誤。須彌藏經二卷。此是高齊耶舍所翻。前後重上。四誤。攝大乘論真諦譯者有十二卷本。有十五
卷成者。二本俱存。五誤。般若鈔經大乘錄中及集傳內二處俱載。六誤。又如分乘入藏錄中。深密解脫經前後
重上）。
（前與菩薩處胎經同帙後與解深密經同帙七誤以舊十輪經為單本新十輪經為重譯八誤以起世經為單本
樓炭經為重譯九誤此類非一不能備）。
（舉如舉要轉讀錄中信力入印法門經雖是華嚴支類大部中無同於度世漸備等經。攝歸大部不為轉讀之數一
不然也。諸部般若唯舉大品一經。放光等九部云重沓罕尋舉前以統大義斯盡玉華。後譯大般若者明佛一
化有十六會得在供養難用常行。今謂不然。豈可以凡愚淺智而堰截法海乎。人性不同所樂各異。豈以自情
好略令他同己見耶。般若大經轉讀極眾。佛記弘闡在東北方。而言難用常行。竊為未可。又小品大品據會全殊。
一廢一興。二不然也。如須彌藏經等雖是大集別分大部中無攝而不行。理為未當。又須彌藏經前則攝歸大
集後則別舉流行。前後差殊。三不然也。如樓炭經等攝入長含。起世一經別令轉讀。起世之與樓炭經。梵本何
殊。一廢一興。四不然也。如安般守意與大安般無殊。此乃何緣二俱轉讀。五不然也。如十八部論與部異執梵本
不殊。此復何緣俱令轉讀。六不然也。又云錄外有外道金七十論破外道涅槃論破外道四宗論未暇若闕者如
金七十論外道所撰。非是佛法。除之可然。涅槃四宗同彼刪削。將為未可。此是內論。破於外宗。一例刪除。七不然也。
又如人代存亡錄及舉要轉讀錄大乘錄中。三藏備見入藏錄中。大乘無律豈可前後俱有。中間獨無自為矛
盾。八不然也。如上所列。非無乖舛。而云革弊。或所未然。差錯極多。卒難陳委。明達之輩。幸自詳焉）。
續大唐內典錄一卷（開元庚午歲西崇福寺沙門智昇撰）
歷代眾經傳譯所從錄（從麟德元年甲子至開元十八年庚午前錄未載今
故錄之）。
大唐古今譯經圖紀四卷（大慈恩寺翻經沙門靖邁撰）
大慈恩寺翻經堂內壁畫古今翻譯圖變。
靖邁因撰題之于壁。但略費長房錄。翻經
之者紀之。餘撰集者不錄。逮至皇朝總成
四卷。房所錯者此亦同然。更欲廣陳恐繁
故止。
續古今譯經圖紀一卷（開元庚午歲西崇福寺沙門智昇撰）
從奘法師後至輪波迦羅前紀未載　今
故續之。
大周刊定眾經目錄十五卷（天后天冊萬歲元年乙未勅東都佛授記
寺沙門明佺等撰定）
大小乘經律論及賢聖集傳合三千六百一
十六部八千六百四十一卷（其見定入藏流行部卷不在此數）。
大乘單譯經目卷第一（三百八十三部五百二十五卷）
大乘重譯經目之一卷第二（一千七十八部一千三百九十四卷）
大乘重譯經目之二卷第三（一百六十八部三百三十八卷）
大乘重譯經目之三卷第四（一百八十部四百二十一卷）
大乘重譯經目之四卷第五（一百六十八部三百六十五卷）
大乘律大乘論目卷第六（一百六十二部七百一十六卷）
小乘單譯經目卷第七（二百二十八部三百一十卷）
小乘單譯經目之一卷第八（三百七十一部八百四十二卷）
小乘重譯經目之二卷第九（二百七十九部三百八十一卷）
小乘律論賢聖集傳目卷第十（一百九十四部一千三百十一
卷）
大小乘失譯經目卷第十一（三百七十七部五百八卷）
大小乘闕本經目卷第十二（四百七十八部六百七十七卷）
見定入藏流行目上卷第十三
見定入藏流行目下卷第十四
合大小乘三藏及賢聖集傳等八百七十四
部四千二百五十三卷（上卷入藏大乘經律論五百六十三部二千五百三

is wrong. For example, in the Catalogue of Extant and Lost Works Arranged by Dynasties, it claims that the new Xiaopin and other five sūtras are all identical versions of the Dapin; this is not so. Although the doctrines are compatible, the assemblies are completely different, yet it calls them identical versions: this is the first error. Both the Pusa jingxing jing and the Baoji pusa jing are stated to be translated by Zhu Fahu; these are two titles for one sūtra, yet both versions are preserved: this is the second error. The Hongdao guangxian sanmei jing and the Anouda longwang jing are also two titles for one sūtra, yet both versions are preserved: this is the third error. The Xumizang jing in two fascicles was translated by Yeśas of Northern Qi, yet it is repeatedly entered twice: this is the fourth error. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha translated by Paramārtha has a twelve-fascicle version and a fifteen-fascicle completion, and both versions are preserved: this is the fifth error. The Bore chao jing is recorded in two places, both in the Mahāyāna catalogue and among the anthologies and biographies: this is the sixth error. Furthermore, as in the Catalogue of Canon Entries Divided by Vehicle, the Shenmi jietuo jing is repeatedly entered twice. / (Earlier it shares a case with the Pusa chutai jing, and later it shares a case with the Jie shenmi jing: this is the seventh error. Taking the old Shilun jing as a single translation and the new Shilun jing as a retranslation: this is the eighth error. Taking the Qishi jing as a single translation and the Loutan jing as a retranslation: this is the ninth error. Errors of this sort are not singular, and cannot all be listed.) / (For instance, in the Selective Catalogue of Works for Recitation, the Xinli ruyin famen jing, although an offshoot branch of the Avataṃsaka, is absent from the major corpus, just like the Dushi and Jianbei sūtras. To subsume it under the major corpus so that it is excluded from the count of texts for recitation is the first unacceptable point. Among the various Prajñā texts, only the single sūtra of the Dapin is cited, while nine texts including the Fangguang are called redundant and rarely consulted, claiming that citing the former comprehends them all and that its major significance is exhausted. At Yuhua, when the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra was subsequently translated, it clarified that the Buddha's single period of teaching had sixteen assemblies; to say it can be kept for offerings but is difficult to use for regular chanting—I now deem this not so. How could one use the shallow wisdom of an ordinary fool to dam and cut off the ocean of the Dharma? Human nature is not uniform, and what people delight in differs. How could one, out of a personal love for brevity, make others conform to one's own view? Those who chant the great Prajñā sūtra are extremely numerous. The Buddha prophesied that its propagation would be in the northeast. Yet to say it is difficult to use for regular chanting—in my humble view, this is unacceptable. Furthermore, the Xiaopin and the Dapin are completely distinct according to their assemblies; to abolish one and promote the other is the second unacceptable point. Texts such as the Xumizang jing, although separate portions of the Mahāsaṃnipāta, are absent from the major corpus, yet subsuming it and not keeping it in circulation is conceptually improper. Moreover, with the Xumizang jing, it was earlier subsumed under the Mahāsaṃnipāta, but later cited separately for circulation; this inconsistency between earlier and later is the third unacceptable point. Texts such as the Loutan jing are subsumed under the Dīrghāgama, while the Qishi jing is separately designated for recitation. Between the Qishi jing and the Loutan jing, what difference is there in their Indic originals? To abolish one and promote the other is the fourth unacceptable point. As the Anban shouyi is not different from the Da anban, for what reason are both designated for recitation? This is the fifth unacceptable point. As the Shiba bu lun and the Buyizhi lun do not differ in their Indic originals, for what reason are both designated for recitation? This is the sixth unacceptable point. Furthermore, it says that outside the catalogue are the non-Buddhist Jin qishi lun, the Po waidao niepan lun, and the Po waidao sizong lun, and that if time was lacking or texts were missing: works like the Jin qishi lun were composed by non-Buddhists and are not the Buddha's Dharma, so excising it is acceptable; but to excise the Niepan and Sizong along with it, this I deem unacceptable. These are internal treatises refuting external schools; to excise them all alike is the seventh unacceptable point. Furthermore, in the Catalogue of Extant and Lost Works Arranged by Dynasties and the Selective Catalogue of Works for Recitation under the Mahāyāna sections, the Tripiṭaka is completely provided; yet in the Catalogue of Canon Entries, the Mahāyāna has no vinaya. How could both the earlier and later have it, while the middle alone lacks it? This is self-contradictory: this is the eighth unacceptable point. As listed above, these are not without discrepancies. To claim that it rectified abuses might not be the case. The mistakes are extremely numerous, difficult to detail all at once. May the discerning and clear-sighted investigate them for themselves.) / Sequel to the Great Tang Catalogue of Buddhist Texts in one fascicle (compiled in the gengwu year of Kaiyuan by the śramaṇa Zhisheng of West Chongfu Monastery). / Catalogue of Dynastic Transmissions and Translations of Various Scriptures and Works Followed (from the first year of Linde, jiazi, to the eighteenth year of Kaiyuan, gengwu; what was not recorded in the previous catalogue is now recorded). / Illustrated Chronicle of Ancient and Modern Scripture Translations of the Great Tang in four fascicles (compiled by the scripture-translating śramaṇa Jingmai of Da Cien Monastery). / Murals of ancient and modern translation tableaux inside the scripture translation hall of Da Cien Monastery. / Jingmai accordingly composed inscriptions for them upon the wall, but merely abridged Fei Changfang's catalogue, recording only those who translated scriptures and omitting other compilers. Reaching down to the present imperial dynasty, it formed four fascicles in total. Where Changfang erred, this also followed suit. Wishing to detail them further, but fearing redundancy, I desist. / Sequel to the Illustrated Chronicle of Ancient and Modern Scripture Translations in one fascicle (compiled in the gengwu year of Kaiyuan by the śramaṇa Zhisheng of West Chongfu Monastery). / From after Dharma Master Xuanzang down to Prabhākaramitra, what was not recorded in the previous chronicle is now continued. / Zhou Dynasty Catalogue of Authoritative Buddhist Scriptures in fifteen fascicles (authorized in the first year of the Tiance wansui era of the Heavenly Empress, yihai, and compiled by the śramaṇa Mingquan and others of Foshouji Monastery in the Eastern Capital). / The scriptures, vinayas, treatises, and anthologies and biographies of sages and saints of the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna total 3,616 works in 8,641 fascicles (the works and fascicles currently determined to enter the canon and circulate are not included in this count). / Catalogue of Mahāyāna Single Translations of Scriptures, fascicle 1 (383 works, 525 fascicles). / Catalogue of Mahāyāna Retranslations of Scriptures, Part 1, fascicle 2 (1,078 works, 1,394 fascicles). / Catalogue of Mahāyāna Retranslations of Scriptures, Part 2, fascicle 3 (168 works, 338 fascicles). / Catalogue of Mahāyāna Retranslations of Scriptures, Part 3, fascicle 4 (180 works, 421 fascicles). / Catalogue of Mahāyāna Retranslations of Scriptures, Part 4, fascicle 5 (168 works, 365 fascicles). / Catalogue of Mahāyāna Vinayas and Mahāyāna Treatises, fascicle 6 (162 works, 716 fascicles). / Catalogue of Hīnayāna Single Translations of Scriptures, fascicle 7 (228 works, 310 fascicles). / Catalogue of Hīnayāna Single Translations of Scriptures, Part 1, fascicle 8 (371 works, 842 fascicles). / Catalogue of Hīnayāna Retranslations of Scriptures, Part 2, fascicle 9 (279 works, 381 fascicles). / Catalogue of Hīnayāna Vinayas, Treatises, and Anthologies and Biographies of Sages and Saints, fascicle 10 (194 works, 1,311 fascicles). / Catalogue of Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna Scriptures of Lost Translators, fascicle 11 (377 works, 508 fascicles). / Catalogue of Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna Scriptures of Missing Texts, fascicle 12 (478 works, 677 fascicles). / Catalogue of Texts Currently Determined to Enter the Canon and Circulate, Upper Part, fascicle 13. / Catalogue of Texts Currently Determined to Enter the Canon and Circulate, Lower Part, fascicle 14. / In total, the Tripiṭaka of the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna along with the anthologies and biographies of sages and saints comprise 874 works in 4,253 fascicles (the upper fascicle contains 563 works in 2,532 fascicles of Mahāyāna scriptures, vinayas, and treatises entering the canon; the lower fascicle contains 299 works in 1,620 fascicles of Hīnayāna scriptures, vinayas, treatises, and anthologies and biographies).