大乘光

大乘光之名，繫於一部疏與一長串譯場紀錄。《大乘百法明門論疏》二卷，卷端署「大慈恩寺沙門大乘光撰」〔T44n1837 0052c27〕；而《開元錄》《貞元錄》之中，「沙門大乘光筆受」一語自貞觀二十一年之《解深密經》起，歷《唯識三十論》《佛地經論》《說無垢稱經》《大乘阿毘達磨集論》，至顯慶五年起、龍朔三年畢之六百卷《大般若經》——十餘年間，玄奘譯場最重之數部，筆受欄上都有這三個字。

The name Dacheng Guang hangs on one commentary and a long file of bureau records. The two fascicles of the Commentary on the Hundred Dharmas are headed "composed by the śramaṇa Dacheng Guang of Great Ci'en monastery" 〔T44n1837 0052c27〕; and in the catalogues the phrase "the śramaṇa Dacheng Guang taking it down" runs from the Saṃdhinirmocana of the twenty-first year of Zhenguan through the Thirty Verses, the Buddhabhūmi treatise, the Vimalakīrti and the Abhidharmasamuccaya, to the six hundred fascicles of the Great Perfection of Wisdom begun in the fifth year of Xianqing and finished in the third of Longshuo — for more than a decade, the heaviest works of Xuanzang's bureau carry those three characters in the brush column.

而他是誰，藏中沒有結論。《宋高僧傳》一處以「大乘光」與「大乘基」並舉為龍朔三年同時各自奉表之二人〔T50n2061 0726b24〕；另一處則記普光隨奘往玉華宮譯《大般若經》，「時號大乘光」〔T50n2061 0727a13〕。同一部僧傳，一處當他是窺基的同時人，一處說他就是普光的時號。本編不判——本籍 puguang 與 dachengguang 分立二檔，據的是兩部書卷端署名之別，不是已判其為二人。

Who he was the canon does not settle. In one place the Song Biographies set "Dacheng Guang" beside "Dacheng Ji" as two men each submitting a memorial in the third year of Longshuo 〔T50n2061 0726b24〕; in another they record that Puguang went with Xuanzang to Yuhua Palace to translate the Great Perfection of Wisdom and "in that day he was styled Dacheng Guang" 〔T50n2061 0727a13〕. One and the same book of biographies takes him once for a contemporary of Kuiji and once for Puguang's style-name. This edition does not adjudicate: the separate files for Puguang and Dacheng Guang in this registry rest on the difference between two scroll-head attributions, not on a judgment that they were two men.

本編以其疏為《大乘百法明門論》之注家一鏡。於其生卒、鄉里、師承，藏中一概不繫，如實標不詳，不代為補；於其名實之二讀，並錄不判，待更早之證。

This edition takes his commentary as one of the commentarial mirrors on the Treatise on the Hundred Dharmas. Of his dates, his home and his teachers the canon says nothing, and this edition marks them honestly as unknown; of the two readings of who he was, it records both and adjudicates neither, pending earlier evidence.