御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 1.6

1.6

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.