Chinese
亦当供养承事诸法师，名花㨶香种种供养，无令有失。如是，阿难！当作是学。” 尔时，阿难及诸大会，闻佛所说，欢喜奉行。 佛说弥勒下生经 按《开元录》有译无本中有法护译《弥勒成佛经》，一名“弥勒当来下生经”者。乍观此经即彼失本而还得之，其实非也。何则？罗什译《弥勒成佛经》目下注云：“与《下生经》异本，与法护译《弥勒成佛经》同本。”两译一阙，则彼失本经，非此《下生经》六译三失之一者明矣。又按孤山智圆重校金刚般若后序云：“古德分经皆用纸数者，一纸有二十五行，一行十七字。今捡失本弥勒经目下注云：‘一十七纸’，则计有七千二百二十二字，此经只有三千一百七十六字，则尚未其半，岂是彼经欤？”则丹藏无此经为得。然此经文颇似汉晋经注，又有汉云之言，还恐此是三失本中第一本。录云今附西晋者耳，宋藏还得而编入之为得之矣。而二录并无《下生经》是法护译者，今云法护译者何耶？伏俟贤哲。 现代汉语译本：‘也应当供养承事各位法师，用名贵的鲜花和各种香料来供养，不要让他们有所缺失。像这样，阿难（Ananda）！应当这样学习。’ 当时，阿难（Ananda）和所有在场的大众，听闻佛陀所说，欢喜地接受并遵照奉行。 《佛说弥勒下生经》 按照《开元录》的记载，有译本但没有原本的经书中，有法护翻译的《弥勒成佛经》，又名《弥勒当来下生经》。乍一看这部经好像是那部遗失的原本又重新获得了，但实际上并非如此。为什么呢？鸠摩罗什（Kumarajiva）翻译的《弥勒成佛经》的目录下面注释说：‘与《下生经》是不同的版本，与法护翻译的《弥勒成佛经》是相同的版本。’两部译本都缺失，那么那部遗失的原本经书，就不是这部《下生经》六次翻译三次遗失中的其中一部，这很明显。另外，按照孤山智圆重校《金刚般若》的后序所说：‘古代的大德划分经书都用纸张的数量，一张纸有二十五行，一行有十七个字。现在查看遗失的原本《弥勒经》的目录下面注释说：‘一十七纸’，那么计算下来有七千二百二十二个字，这部经只有三千一百七十六个字，还不到那部经的一半，怎么会是那部经呢？’那么在丹藏中没有这部经是可以理解的。然而这部经的文句很像汉晋时期的经书注释，又有‘汉云’这样的说法，还是担心这部经是三次遗失的原本中的第一部。目录中说是附属于西晋的。宋藏重新获得并编入，就当是重新获得了。但是两部目录都没有《下生经》是法护翻译的，现在说是法护翻译的，这是为什么呢？希望有贤哲来解答。
English
English version: 'Also, [you] should make offerings and serve all Dharma masters, making offerings with famous flowers and various incenses, not allowing them to be lacking. Thus, Ananda! You should learn in this way.' At that time, Ananda (one of the principal disciples of the Buddha) and all the great assembly, hearing what the Buddha said, joyfully accepted and practiced it. 'The Sutra of Maitreya's Descent into the World Spoken by the Buddha' According to the 'Kaiyuan Catalogue', among the scriptures that have translations but no original texts, there is the 'Maitreya's Buddhahood Sutra' translated by Dharmaraksa (a translator of Buddhist texts), also known as 'The Sutra of Maitreya's Future Descent'. At first glance, this sutra seems to be the lost original that has been recovered, but in reality, it is not. Why? The catalog of the 'Maitreya's Buddhahood Sutra' translated by Kumarajiva (a famous translator) notes: 'It is a different version from the 'Descent Sutra', and the same version as the 'Maitreya's Buddhahood Sutra' translated by Dharmaraksa.' Since both translations are incomplete, it is clear that the lost original scripture is not one of the three lost out of the six translations of this 'Descent Sutra'. Furthermore, according to the postscript of 'Diamond Prajna' re-edited by Gushan Zhiyuan: 'Ancient virtuous monks used the number of sheets of paper to divide the scriptures, with twenty-five lines per sheet and seventeen characters per line. Now, examining the catalog of the lost original 'Maitreya Sutra', it notes: 'Seventeen sheets', which calculates to seven thousand two hundred and twenty-two characters. This sutra only has three thousand one hundred and seventy-six characters, which is less than half of that scripture. How could it be that scripture?' Therefore, it is understandable that the Danzang (a Tibetan Buddhist canon) does not contain this sutra. However, the wording of this sutra is quite similar to the commentaries on scriptures from the Han and Jin dynasties, and it also has expressions like 'Han Yun' (literally 'Han says'), so there is still concern that this sutra is the first of the three lost originals. The catalog says it is attached to the Western Jin dynasty. The Song Dynasty recovered it and included it, so it is considered recovered. But neither catalog has the 'Descent Sutra' translated by Dharmaraksa. Why is it now said to be translated by Dharmaraksa? I hope wise scholars can answer this. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------