御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 1.6

1.6

明傳譯年代者。自漢明感夢。摩騰振錫。世高赴洛之後。僧會遊吳之前。微言雖被於中州。茲典未流於震域。始從符秦之日。暨乎皇運之年通應有期。凡經六譯。第一後秦弘始四年。鳩摩羅什法師。於長安草堂寺譯（十一紙）名舍衛國。第二元魏天平二年。菩提流支三藏。於洛陽譯（十四紙）名婆伽婆。于時并譯天親菩薩論三卷。金剛仙記十卷。第三陳太康元年。真諦三藏。於南朝譯（十五紙）名祇陀樹林。并出本記四卷。第四隋開皇十年。達摩笈多譯（十六紙）名剛斷割。并譯無著菩薩論兩卷。第五大唐三藏玄奘法師。貞觀年。於玉華宮譯（十八紙）名能斷金剛。又有三藏地婆訶羅。此云日照。譯功德施菩薩論兩卷。第六大周義淨三藏。聖曆二年於佛授記寺譯（十二紙）亦云能斷金剛。文云薄伽梵在名稱大城戰勝林等。并再譯世親菩薩論三卷。前後傳燈。異代俱美。文雖少別。法寶無差。良由所得梵本。互有不同。或翻之人。廣略有異。遞相參照。理義思圓。若乃經論合舉。則周魏各分。唐梵不虧則貞觀最備。至於文約義著當根赴緣。書寫盛於寰區。持誦周於道俗者。期惟舍衛國乎。聖札光輝諒在茲矣。故今用隋魏之論附姚秦之經。問。經本可知諸家論請申作者。答。佛滅度後九百年中。無著初地之聖人。世親煗頂之高士。俗則昆季。法乃師資。各製論文。讚弘此典。然金剛仙記判世親論云。長行是彌勒菩薩。為無障礙菩薩說。無障礙轉授世親。世親後尋經論意。更作偈頌　廣興問答。以釋此經者。不然眾論之作偈頌為主長行釋之。豈有先釋後偈。亦猶子先父後。又尋長行屢牒偈文。豈補處慈尊。引地前菩薩偈頌為證。故不可依今據慈恩三藏等所傳八十行。誦是彌勒菩薩造。西方具有傳記。若爾何故淨三藏譯論題云。無著造頌。世親作釋。答。偈頌定是慈尊所說。以授無著。無著傳授世親。世親得之造長行釋。故彼論初歸敬頌云。大智通達教我等。歸命無量功德身。應當敬彼如是等。頭面禮足而頂戴。即是通敬本論大師。及傳授者而後論本題云。無著造者。據傳授說。亦不相違。問。慈尊造頌。理為准的因。何無著更自造論。別起異端。答。法歸分別。理有多途。前論所無。更補其闕。尋文雖異。據理不差。待至釋文。一一通會。若唯依無著。斷疑之旨未明。必獨天親行位之門蓋闕。兼而雙辨類曦舒之。合耀或乃偏棄。惜珠寶之不全。勿怖廣聞當勤勉勵。其功德施論依附天親時。有異釋不乖於本。總是第一教興門訖。

Regarding the explanation of the eras of translation: Ever since Emperor Ming of the Han was moved by his dream, Kāśyapa Mātaṅga brandished his monk's staff, and An Shigao arrived in Luoyang, down to before Kang Senghui traveled to the state of Wu, although subtle words were disseminated throughout the Central Plains, this scripture had not yet circulated in the Eastern Realm. From the days of Fu Qin down to the reign era of the August Dynasty, its transmission was destined for specific times, having undergone six translations in all. First, in the fourth year of the Hongshi era of the Later Qin, Dharma Master Kumārajīva translated it at the Caotang Monastery in Chang'an (eleven sheets), entitled *Śrāvastī*. Second, in the second year of the Tianping era of the Yuan Wei, Tripiṭaka Master Bodhiruci translated it in Luoyang (fourteen sheets), entitled *Bhagavat*. At that time he also translated Bodhisattva Vasubandhu's treatise in three fascicles and the *Vajrarṣi-ṭīkā* in ten fascicles. Third, in the first year of the Taikang era of the Chen, Tripiṭaka Master Paramārtha translated it in the Southern Dynasties (fifteen sheets), entitled *Jetavana*. He also produced an original commentary in four fascicles. Fourth, in the tenth year of the Kaihuang era of the Sui, Dharmagupta translated it (sixteen sheets), entitled *Vajracchedikā*. He also translated Bodhisattva Asaṅga's treatise in two fascicles. Fifth, Tripiṭaka Master Xuanzang of the Great Tang, in the Zhenguan era, translated it at the Yuhua Palace (eighteen sheets), entitled *Vajracchedikā*. Furthermore, there was Tripiṭaka Master Divākara (which translates as 'Sunlight'), who translated Bodhisattva Guṇaprabha's treatise in two fascicles. Sixth, Tripiṭaka Master Yijing of the Great Zhou, in the second year of the Shengli era, translated it at the Foshouji Monastery (twelve sheets), also entitled *Vajracchedikā*, with the text reading: "The Bhagavān was in the great city of Famous Renown, in the Victor's Grove...", and he also retranslated Bodhisattva Vasubandhu's treatise in three fascicles. Passing on the lamp successively, each different era was equally fine. Though the wording differs slightly, the Dharma-jewel is without disparity. This is truly because the Sanskrit manuscripts obtained were mutually different, or because the translators had differences in being extensive or abridged. By cross-referencing them with one another, the principles and meanings become completely clear. If scripture and treatise are cited together, the Zhou and Wei translations differ from each other; if [measuring by] the full preservation of Tang and Sanskrit [readings], then the Zhenguan translation is the most complete. Yet when it comes to concise phrasing and manifest meaning, answering capacities and meeting circumstances, where transcription flourished throughout the realm and upholding and recitation encompassed both monastics and laity, can it be any other than the *Śrāvastī* version? The brilliance of the imperial commentary indeed rests upon this! Therefore, we now employ the treatises of the Sui and Wei to accompany the scripture of the Yao Qin. Question: The scriptural texts may be known, but please explain the authors of the various treatises. Answer: Nine hundred years after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, Asaṅga was an ārya of the first bhūmi, and Vasubandhu was an eminent master of the stages of warmth and peak. In worldly terms they were brothers; in the Dharma, master and disciple. Each composed treatises to praise and propagate this scripture. However, the *Vajrarṣi-ṭīkā* judges Vasubandhu's treatise by saying: "The prose was spoken by Bodhisattva Maitreya for Bodhisattva Apratihata. Apratihata transmitted it to Vasubandhu. Vasubandhu later investigated the meaning of the scripture and treatise, composed further verse stanzas, and extensively raised questions and answers to explain this scripture." This is not so. In the composition of treatises, verses are the principal text and the prose comments upon them. How could the commentary come first and the verses afterward? It would be like the son preceding the father. Furthermore, examining the prose, it repeatedly quotes the text of the verses; how could the Maitreya, the stage-bound successor [to the Buddha], cite the verses of a bodhisattva prior to the bhūmis as proof? Therefore, that cannot be relied upon. We now rely on the transmission of Tripiṭaka Master Ci'en and others, who hold that the eighty verses were composed by Bodhisattva Maitreya; this is fully recorded in the biographies in the Western Regions. If so, why does the title of Tripiṭaka Master Yijing's translation of the treatise say: "Verses composed by Asaṅga, commentary made by Vasubandhu"? Answer: The verse stanzas were definitely spoken by Maitreya, who transmitted them to Asaṅga, and Asaṅga transmitted them to Vasubandhu. Vasubandhu received them and composed the prose commentary. Therefore, the verse of homage at the beginning of that treatise says: "He of great knowledge fully mastered it and taught us; I take refuge in the body of immeasurable merit. One should venerate him and such others, bowing one's head at his feet and placing them on one's crown." This comprehensively pays homage to the master who authored the root treatise and to those who transmitted it. Thus, the title of the root treatise stating "composed by Asaṅga" is said in accordance with the transmission, and this does not conflict. Question: The verses composed by Maitreya are the definitive standard; why did Asaṅga independently compose another treatise, giving rise to divergent viewpoints? Answer: Phenomena reduce to differentiations, and principles have many paths. Where the previous treatise lacked something, he further supplemented the omission. Although their texts differ upon examination, based on principle there is no error. Awaiting the explanation of the text, each will be reconciled. If one relied solely on Asaṅga, the aim of severing doubts would not be illumined; if one solely followed Vasubandhu, the gate of practices and stages would surely be lacking. Examining both together is like the sun and moon shining in unison; if one were to favor one and abandon the other, one would regret the incompleteness of the gem. Do not fear broad learning; be diligent and strive onward. Guṇaprabha's treatise is based on Vasubandhu; though it occasionally has divergent explanations, it does not contravene the source. This concludes the first section on the origins of the teaching.