佛說佛名經 1.96

1.96

《開元錄》云：「經至晉土其年未遠，而憙事者以沙揉金，而無括正何以別真偽乎？農者禾草俱存，后稷為之歎息；金匱玉石同緘，卞和為之懷恥；涇渭淆雜龍蛇並進，豈不恥之。今列意謂非佛經者，以示將來學士共知鄙倍焉，遂摽此經而為其首。錄家懇囑如是，國本如何二重重載，彼十八卷經，乃似是《貞元錄》中奉　制所收入者，其分卷小異耳。後人見此三十卷本，認為異經，故加入耳。今欲刪正，則彼十八卷者乃無寶達偽經，稍正可存。然此三十卷經，本朝盛行，行來日久，國俗多有倚此而作福者，今忽刪之彼必眾怒，若俱存之理亦未可，且順人情存此而刪彼，因書古人之意，以告雅正君子，但其誤分錯合之處，今隨改之。如第十二卷云：『南無拘絺羅難陀。』此是二聖之名，經錯合之，今分為二。第十三卷云：『南無賓頭盧、南無頗羅墮。』此是一聖之名，經誤分之，今合為一。此類不少不能具敘。

The *Kaiyuan Record* says: "The scripture has not been in the Jin lands for very long, yet meddlesome people mix sand with gold; without critical correction, how could one distinguish the genuine from the spurious? If the farmer lets grain and weeds coexist, Hou Ji would sigh in grief; if gold caskets seal up jade and common stones together, Bian He would feel ashamed; if the Jing and Wei rivers are confused together, and dragons and snakes advance side by side, how could one not be ashamed? Now, listing those deemed not to be Buddha-sūtras to demonstrate to future scholars so that all may know their vulgarity and impropriety, this scripture is therefore designated at their head. The cataloguer's earnest injunction being such, why should the national edition duplicate it twice? That eighteen-fascicle scripture appears to be the one included by imperial decree in the *Zhenyuan Record*, differing only slightly in its division of fascicles. Later people, seeing this thirty-fascicle version, thought it was a different scripture, and so added it. Now, if one wishes to delete and correct it, that eighteen-fascicle text lacks the apocryphal *Baoda Sūtra* and is relatively correct and could be retained. However, this thirty-fascicle scripture is widely popular in our court and has circulated for a long time; among the national customs, many rely on this to create merit. If one suddenly deletes it now, the masses will surely be outraged. Yet keeping both is also unreasonable. For now, yielding to human sentiments, we retain this one and delete that one, taking this opportunity to write out the intentions of the ancients to inform noble gentlemen of refined correctness. But where there are erroneous divisions or mistaken combinations, we correct them accordingly. For instance, fascicle twelve states: 'Namo to Juchiluo-nanduo (Koṭṭhita-Nanda).' These are the names of two sages, which the scripture mistakenly joined into one; now they are divided into two. Fascicle thirteen states: 'Namo to Bindulu (Piṇḍola); namo to Poluoduo (Bhāradvāja).' This is the name of one sage, which the scripture mistakenly divided into two; now they are united into one. Cases of this sort are not few and cannot all be recounted.