Introduction
i.1The Seal of Engagement in Awakening the Power of Faith consists of two lengthy discourses that address two separate inquiries voiced by the bodhisattva Mañjuśrī. At the beginning of the sūtra, the bodhisattva Mañjuśrī requests the Buddha to show how his followers should practice in order to attain the first bodhisattva level. This inspires the Buddha to embark on an extensive discourse that centers on the topic of how bodhisattvas can be inspired (Tib. dbugs ’byin pa, Skt. āśvasta) in their spiritual practice. The term āśvasta also means “encouragement” or “relief,” and, specifically in the context of the Great Vehicle, has the connotation of being revived from the complacent goal of individual quiescence that is said to characterize the Lesser Vehicle. Here, however, it evidently refers to a wide range of factors that support the altruistic practice of a bodhisattva. Still, the one thing shared by all the ways of finding inspiration mentioned by the Buddha is the necessity of first committing oneself to the practice in order to inspire others to pursue these trainings. The explanations given by the Buddha in this part of the sūtra all take the form of instructions presented in sets of five.
i.1《信力入印法門經》由兩篇長篇說法組成，分別回應菩薩文殊提出的兩個獨立的問題。在經典開始，菩薩文殊請求佛說明他的追隨者應如何修行才能達到第一菩薩地。這啟發了佛進行了一場廣泛的說法，重點討論菩薩如何在其精神修行中獲得歡喜。詞語「歡喜」也有「鼓勵」或「寬慰」的意思，特別是在大乘的背景下，具有從小乘所特有的個人寂靜這種自滿目標中被喚醒的含義。然而在這裡，它顯然指的是支持菩薩利他修行的各種因素。儘管如此，佛所提到的所有方便門都有一個共同之處，那就是必須先承諾自己的修行，才能啟發他人追求這些訓練。佛在經典這部分所提供的解釋都以五集的形式呈現。
i.2In the second part of the sūtra, Mañjuśrī reappears as the interlocutor, this time to ask the bodhisattva Samantabhadra a series of questions regarding the activity of buddhas. This shifts the topic of discussion from the realm of bodhisattvas to that of buddhas, and change of topic brings with it a different style of discourse. Samantabhadra’s reply breaks with the preceding pattern of recurring quintuples and offers an inspired portrait of how awakened beings manifest throughout the universe. This description of how buddhas enact their activity in manifold ways for manifold beings makes liberal use of analogies and metaphors, and is clearly meant to inspire in the listener a sense of profound awe at the magnificent activities of buddhas, activities which are altruistic to the highest degree while at the same time being utterly spontaneous and unpremeditated.
i.2在該經典的第二部分，文殊菩薩再次出現作為提問者，這一次向普賢菩薩提出了一系列關於佛陀事業的問題。這將討論的主題從菩薩的境界轉移到佛的境界，話題的改變帶來了不同的論述風格。普賢菩薩的回答打破了前面反覆出現的五組結構的模式，提供了一幅覺悟者如何在整個宇宙中顯現的靈感畫面。這種對佛如何以多種方式為無量眾生進行事業的描述，充分運用了比喻和隱喻，顯然是要在聽者心中激發起對佛陀事業的深刻敬畏之感——這些事業在最高程度上是利他的，同時又完全是自發的、無有預謀的。
i.3No complete Sanskrit manuscript of the sūtra remains, but the text is cited several times in Indian works. Its citations in the Sūtrasamuccaya suggest an affinity to the Buddhāvataṃsaka family of scriptures, since three of the five citations are made under the title Buddhāvataṃsaka, while the other two are made under the sūtra’s own specific title. In the Chinese Taishō canon, too, the sūtra (Taishō 305) is grouped together with the Buddhāvataṃsaka collection of scriptures. Indeed, the setting, the fact that Mañjuśrī and Samantabhadra are the principal interlocutors, and some other features of the sūtra do suggest an affinity with the Buddhāvataṃsaka scriptures, while the giving of teachings by the Buddha himself suggests otherwise. Whatever the case, in the Degé Kangyur the sūtra is found not in the Buddhāvataṃsaka section, but rather in the General Sūtra section (mdo sde), and unlike several other sūtras in the section that wholly or partly correspond to chapters of the Buddhāvataṃsaka it has no direct parallels with it.
i.3雖然完整的梵文經典已不存在，但該經文在印度著作中被多次引用。它在《經集論》中的引用表明該經與《華嚴》經典系列有關聯，因為五條引用中有三條是以《華嚴》的名義做出的，另外兩條是以該經自身特定的名義做出的。在漢文的大正藏中，該經（大正305）也與《華嚴》經典集合歸類在一起。實際上，該經的背景設定、文殊和普賢菩薩是主要對話者，以及經文的某些其他特徵確實暗示與《華嚴》經典有關聯，而佛陀本人傳授教法的事實則另作別論。無論如何，在德格甘珠爾中，該經並未出現在華嚴部分，而是出現在經部（經部）中，而且與經部中幾部完全或部分對應於《華嚴》章節的其他經典不同，它與華嚴經典沒有直接的平行關係。
i.4The inclusion of the sūtra in the Sūtrasamuccaya might tentatively suggest that the text was in circulation by Nāgārjuna’s lifetime (often thought to be circa 150-250 ᴄᴇ), but given the uncertainty over the Sūtrasamuccaya’s authorship no such dating could be conclusive. The sūtra is also briefly quoted four times by Śāntideva (seventh century) in his Śikṣāsamuccaya and twice in the Bhāvanākrama by Kamalaśīla (eigth century). In Chinese, we find a complete translation (T. 305, Hsin li ju yin fa men ching, 信力入印法門經), dated to 504 ᴄᴇ, by the Kashmiri translator Dharmaruci. The Tibetan translation is attributed to the Indian preceptor Surendrabodhi and the prolific translator Yeshé Dé, who were both active in Tibet in the late eighth and early ninth centuries. We can therefore date the Tibetan translation to this period, a dating that is also attested by the text’s inclusion in the early ninth century Denkarma (ldan dkar ma) catalogue.
i.4本經在《經集論》中被引用，這可能暗示該文獻在龍樹菩薩的時代（通常認為是公元150-250年左右）就已經在流傳，但由於對《經集論》作者身份的不確定性，這樣的年代推定並不能得出確定的結論。本經也被寂天菩薩（七世紀）在其《學集論》中簡要引用過四次，並在蓮花戒菩薩（八世紀）的《修習次第》中被引用過兩次。在漢文方面，我們發現有一個完整的譯本（大正藏305，《信力入印法門經》），時間為公元504年，由克什米爾譯者曇摩流支翻譯而成。藏文譯本歸功於印度教導者蘇若那菩提和多產的譯者智慧光，他們在八世紀末和九世紀初期間都活躍於藏地。因此我們可以將藏文譯本的時間定在這個時期，這一年代推定也得到了九世紀早期的《丹卡目錄》的記載證實。
i.5In producing this translation, we have primarily based our work on the Degé xylograph while also consulting the Comparative Edition (dpe bsdur ma).
i.5在製作本譯文時，我們主要以德格版為基礎，同時參考了對勘版。