貞元新定釋教目錄 18.4.7

18.4.7

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).