貞元新定釋教目錄 6.10.5

6.10.5

婉約莫非淵奧。什為人神情映徹。傲岸出群
應機領會。鮮有其疋。且篤性仁厚汎愛為心。
虛己善誘終日無勌。時有沙門僧叡興甚喜
焉。什所譯經叡並參正。昔竺法護出正法華
受決品云。天見人人見天。什譯經至此乃言
曰。此語與梵本義同。但在言過質。叡應聲曰。
將非人天交接兩得相見乎。什大喜曰實然。
而叡與什共相開發皆此類也。甞聽秦僧道
融講法華。什乃歎曰。佛法之興融其人也。
俄而師子國有婆羅門。聰辯多學西土俗書
罕不披誦。而彼國外道之宗。聞什在關大行
佛法。乃即慨然謂其徒曰。寧可偏使釋氏之
風獨傳震旦。而今吾等正化之典不洽東
國。因遂乘駝負書遠涉來入常安。姚興見其
口眼便僻頗亦惑之。而婆羅門乃啟興曰。至
道無方各尊其事。今故遠來。請與秦僧捔其
辯力。隨有優者即傳其化。興即許焉。于時關
中四方僧眾相視缺然莫敢當者。什謂融曰。
此之外道聰明殊人捔言必勝。豈可得使無
上大道在於吾徒為彼而屈良可悲矣。若使
外道肆情得志。則是我等法輪摧軸。豈可然
乎。如吾所覩在君一人。道融自顧才力不減。
而彼西域外道經書未盡披讀。乃密令人寫
婆羅門所讀經目一披即誦。其後剋日將就
論義。姚興自出公卿皆會。關中僧眾四遠必
集。爾時道融與婆羅門擬相酬抗。鋒辯飛玄
彼所不逮。時婆羅門雖自覺知辭理已屈。然
意猶以廣讀為夸。道融乃列其所書。并更通
論秦地經史名目卷部三倍多之。什仍乘勢
因嘲之曰。君可不聞大秦廣學。那忽輕爾遠
來。婆羅門心生愧伏頂禮融足。旬日之中無
何而去。像運再顯鳩摩羅什道融力焉。又杯
渡比丘在彭城聞什在常安。乃歎曰。吾與
此子戲別今三百餘年。杳然未期遲有遇於
來生耳。什臨終力疾與眾僧告別曰。因法相
遇殊未盡伊心。方復異世惻愴。何言。自以暗
昧謬充傳譯。若所傳無謬焚身之後。舌不燋
爛。以弘始十五年四月十三日薨于大寺。春
秋七十。即於逍遙園依外國法焚尸。薪滅形
化唯舌不變。信弘法之有徵矣（什公卒時諸記不定。高僧傳云弘
始十一年八月二十日卒于常安。或云七十。或云八十。傳取十一為正。此不然也。准成實論後記云。大秦弘始十三
年歲次豕韋九月八日。尚書令姚顯請出論。至來年九月十五日訖。准此十四年末什仍未卒。又准僧肇上秦主姚
興涅槃無名論表云。肇在什公門下十有餘載。若什四年出經。十一年卒。始經八載。未滿十年。云何乃言十有餘載。今
准什誄癸丑之年四月十三日薨。其癸丑歲即弘始十五年也）。
然什出經部卷眾說多小不同。長房錄中其
數彌廣。今細參驗多是別生。或有一本數名。
或是錯上。具件如左。今悉刪之。
十誦律六十一卷（僧祐錄云是什譯出今以有五十八卷是什度語非什正翻後之三
卷卑摩羅叉續出置之於後已修餘錄此不存之）
放光般若波羅蜜經二十卷（第二出見別錄今以放光梵本與大品同
譯大品時興舊經什出新本若言放光什譯舊經何者是耶故知大品為新放光為舊重載二本誤之甚也）
般若經論集二十卷（房云見吳錄今與此集乃是廬山遠法師以大智論文句繁積
初學難尋乃刪煩剪亂今質文有體撰為二十卷亦云大智論要略亦云釋論要抄此乃遠公撮略前論非什別翻也）
禪法要三卷（下法云先譯弘始九年重挍叡製序既云先譯重挍不合存其二名准僧叡經
序即坐禪三昧經是）
阿蘭若習禪法經二卷（房云見別錄或無經字與坐禪同本異出今謂不然此即
坐禪三昧之別名也尋其文句首末文同是初出本非挍正者）
樂瓔珞莊嚴經一卷（房云見李廓錄今准經後記乃是曇摩耶舍所譯非什翻也今
移附彼錄）
寶相論一卷（高僧傳云二卷什為姚興譯出非梵本傳故闕之也）
往古性和佛國願行法典經（或作生和出文殊佛土嚴淨經）
佛磬咳徹十方經。佛齊化出菩薩經。魔業經。
過去無邊光淨佛土經。虛空藏菩薩問持經。

Graceful and concise, none failed to be profound. Kumārajīva's natural disposition was lucid and penetrating; aloft and preeminent, he grasped principles in response to occasions, and few were his match. Moreover, by nature he was deeply humane and generous, holding universal love in his heart; emptying himself, he was good at guiding others, tirelessly throughout the day. At that time there was the śramaṇa Sengrui, who rejoiced in this exceedingly. In the scriptures translated by Kumārajīva, Sengrui assisted in editing and rectifying them all. Formerly, when Zhu Fahu produced the *Zheng fahua* (Saddharmapuṇḍarīka), the chapter on Receiving Predictions stated: 'Gods see humans; humans see gods.' When Kumārajīva reached this point while translating the scripture, he remarked: 'This phrasing has the same meaning as the Indic text, but the wording is overly plain.' Sengrui responded immediately: 'Would it not rather be: "Humans and gods interact, and both are able to see each other"?' Kumārajīva was delighted and said: 'Indeed it is so!' Sengrui and Kumārajīva enlightened each other throughout in just this manner. Kumārajīva once listened to the Qin monk Daorong lecturing on the *Lotus Sūtra*, and Kumārajīva sighed: 'The flourishing of the Buddha's Dharma rests on Rong!' Shortly thereafter, in the Lion Kingdom (Siṃhala), there was a brāhmaṇa, intelligent, eloquent, and erudite; of the worldly books of the Western Lands, there were few he had not read. As a patriarch of the non-Buddhists of that land, hearing that Kumārajīva was broadly propagating the Buddha's Dharma in Guanzhong, he indignantly said to his disciples: 'How can we let the ways of the Śākya clan alone spread to China, while the scriptures of our own orthodox transformation do not reach the Eastern Lands?' Thereupon, riding a camel and bearing books, he traveled from afar and entered Chang'an. Yao Xing, seeing his glibness and quick wit, was also somewhat misled by him. The brāhmaṇa then petitioned Yao Xing: 'The supreme Way has no single direction; each reveres their own cause. Having now come from afar, I request to compete in debating prowess with the Qin monks. Whichever side proves superior, their teachings shall be propagated.' Yao Xing assented. At that time, the monastic assembly of Guanzhong and the four quarters looked at one another in dismay, and none dared confront him. Kumārajīva said to Daorong: 'This non-Buddhist is exceptionally intelligent and will surely win in debate. How can the unsurpassed Great Way be made to yield to him on account of our fellows? This would truly be lamentable! If this non-Buddhist is allowed to give free rein to his desires and succeed, then the axle of our Wheel of the Dharma will be broken. How can this be permitted? As I see it, the matter rests on you alone.' Daorong reflected that his own abilities were not deficient, but he had not thoroughly read the scriptures and books of the non-Buddhists of the Western Regions. So he secretly had someone copy the titles and contents of the scriptures read by the brāhmaṇa, and upon reading them once, he memorized them immediately. Later, on the appointed day, they were to debate the doctrines. Yao Xing attended in person, the dukes and ministers all assembled, and the monastic community of Guanzhong and the four quarters gathered without fail. At that time, Daorong engaged the brāhmaṇa in mutual opposition. His sharp eloquence soared into the profound, beyond the other's reach. Although the brāhmaṇa himself realized that his words and reasoning were refuted, he still took pride in his extensive reading. Daorong then enumerated the books the brāhmaṇa possessed, and further discussed the names and scroll counts of the classics and histories of the land of Qin, exceeding the brāhmaṇa's by threefold. Kumārajīva took advantage of the momentum to mock him: 'Have you not heard of the extensive learning of the Great Qin? Why did you come so lightly from afar?' The brāhmaṇa felt ashamed and submitted in his heart, prostrating himself at Daorong's feet. Within ten days, he departed without further incident. That the turning of the semblance [Dharma] shone forth again was due to the efforts of Kumārajīva and Daorong. Furthermore, Bhikṣu Beidu, upon hearing in Pengcheng that Kumārajīva was in Chang'an, sighed: 'It has been more than three hundred years since I playfully parted with this boy. Vast and distant with no fixed meeting, we can only hope to meet in a future life.' When Kumārajīva was on the verge of death, he gathered his strength despite his illness and bid farewell to the monastic assembly, saying: 'Having met by virtue of the Dharma, our hearts' wishes are far from fulfilled. When we are separated by different lifetimes, what sorrow can words convey? Considering myself ignorant, I mistakenly filled the office of translator. If what I transmitted is without error, then after my body is burned, my tongue will not be scorched or decayed.' On the thirteenth day of the fourth month of the fifteenth year of the Hongshi era, he died at the Great Monastery at the age of seventy. In the Xiaoyao Garden, his corpse was cremated according to foreign methods. The firewood was consumed and his form dissolved, but his tongue alone remained unchanged. This is truly proof of his propagation of the Dharma! (The various records regarding the time of Master Kumārajīva's death are inconsistent. The *Gaoseng zhuan* states that he died in Chang'an on the twentieth day of the eighth month of the eleventh year of Hongshi, and some say at age seventy, while others say eighty; that biography took the eleventh year to be correct. This is not so. According to the afterword of the *Chengshi lun*, on the eighth day of the ninth month in the thirteenth year of Hongshi of the Great Qin, year-star in Shiwei, Minister of the Secretariat Yao Xian requested the translation of the treatise, which was completed on the fifteenth day of the ninth month of the following year. According to this, at the end of the fourteenth year Kumārajīva had still not died. Furthermore, according to Sengzhao's memorial presenting the *Niepan wuming lun* to Yao Xing, Lord of Qin, Sengzhao had been Kumārajīva's disciple for more than ten years. If Kumārajīva produced scriptures in the fourth year and died in the eleventh year, that would only be eight years, not yet ten full years; how then could he say 'more than ten years'? Now, according to the eulogy for Kumārajīva, he died on the thirteenth day of the fourth month in the year Guichou; that Guichou year is indeed the fifteenth year of Hongshi.) However, the various accounts of the scriptures, treatises, and scroll counts produced by Kumārajīva differ somewhat. In the *Changfang lu*, their number is even broader. Now, upon careful examination and verification, most are separate extracts, multiple titles for a single text, or erroneous entries. They are fully listed as follows, and are now entirely deleted: The *Sarvāstivāda-vinaya* (Shi song lü) in 61 scrolls (Sengyou's catalogue says it was translated by Kumārajīva. Now, because 58 scrolls were orally translated by Kumārajīva and not his regular translation, and the remaining 3 scrolls were later produced in succession by Vimalākṣa and placed after them, this has already been revised in other catalogues and is not retained here). The *Fangguang bore boluomi jing* (Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra) in 20 scrolls (second translation; appears in the Detailed Catalogue. Now, because the Indic text of the *Fangguang* is identical to the *Dapin*, when translating the *Dapin*, Yao Xing held the old scripture while Kumārajīva produced the new text. If one says that Kumārajīva translated the *Fangguang*, which one was the old scripture? Therefore, we know that the *Dapin* is the new and the *Fangguang* is the old; to record two texts repeatedly is a grave mistake). The *Bore jing lun ji* (Collection of Prajñā Sūtras and Treatises) in 20 scrolls (Changfang says it appears in the Wu Catalogue. Now, regarding this collection, Dharma Master Huiyuan of Mount Lu, finding the sentences of the *Da zhidu lun* cumbersome and difficult for beginners to study, abridged the redundancies and trimmed the disarray so that substance and style were balanced, compiling it into 20 scrolls; it is also called *Da zhi lun yaolüe* and *Shilun yaochao*. This was Master Huiyuan's condensation of the previous treatise, not a separate translation by Kumārajīva). The *Chan fayao* (Essentials of the Methods of Meditation) in 3 scrolls (the second text says it was translated earlier and re-collated in the ninth year of Hongshi, with a preface written by Sengrui. Since it is called an earlier translation re-collated, keeping two titles is improper; according to Sengrui's preface, this is indeed the *Zuochan sanmei jing*). The *Alanruo xichan fa jing* (Sūtra on the Method of Practicing Meditation in an Āraṇya) in 2 scrolls (Changfang says it appears in the Detailed Catalogue, or lacks the word 'jing', and is a different translation of the same text as the *Zuochan*. Now I say this is not so: this is simply an alternative title of the *Zuochan sanmei jing*. Examining its sentences, the beginning and end are textually identical; this is the first-translated text, not the collated and corrected one). The *Le yingluo zhuangyan jing* in 1 scroll (Changfang says it appears in Li Kuo's catalogue. Now, according to the afterword of the sūtra, it was translated by Dharmayaśas, not Kumārajīva; it is now transferred and appended to his catalogue). The *Baoxiang lun* in 1 scroll (the *Gaoseng zhuan* says 2 scrolls, translated by Kumārajīva for Yao Xing. Since it is not an Indic text transmission, it is omitted here). The *Wanggu xinghe foguo yuanxing fadian jing* (also written *Shenghe*; extracted from the *Wenshushi li fotu yanjing jing*). The *Fo qingke che shifang jing*; the *Fo qihua chu pusa jing*; the *Moye jing*; the *Guoqu wubian guangjing fotu jing*; the *Xukongzang pusa wenchi jing*.