佛說佛名經 1.96

1.96

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.