Introduction
i.1In Teaching the Ripening of Virtuous and Nonvirtuous Actions, Nanda asks the Buddha why different beings experience different fortunes and what types of past actions have now ripened into their respective conditions. The Buddha answers this question by elucidating the inconceivable dynamics of karma through a series of examples of virtuous and nonvirtuous actions along with their positive and negative results. While these one-to-one correspondences might strike the reader as an oversimplification of a very subtle and complex process, such pedagogical devices are common in the Buddhist tradition. Notably, in the classical presentation of the three types of karmic results (Tib. las kyi ’bras bu gsum), the second is said to be the “correlated effect” (Tib. rgyu mthun pa’i ’bras bu), which describes how results mirror their causes.
i.1在《善惡因果經》中，難陀詢問佛陀為什麼不同的眾生會經歷不同的際遇，以及什麼樣的過往行為現在已經成熟為他們各自的處境。佛陀通過一系列善與非善行為的例子及其積極和消極結果的闡述，來回答這個問題，說明業的不可思議的運作方式。儘管這些一一對應的因果關係可能對讀者來說顯得過於簡化了一個非常微妙和複雜的過程，但這樣的教學手段在佛教傳統中很常見。值得注意的是，在業果的三種古典呈現中，第二種被稱為「同行果」，它描述結果如何反映其原因。
i.2The Tibetan version of Teaching the Ripening of Virtuous and Nonvirtuous Actions is a translation of the Chinese sūtra titled Shanwo yinguo jing 善惡因果經 (Taishō 2881). One thing that is particularly intriguing about this Tibetan sūtra is that it is practically identical to another Tibetan translation, Teaching the Causes and Results of Good and Ill (Toh 354). Upon comparison, it is clear that these two Tibetan texts are simply different translations of the same Chinese sūtra. However, perhaps solely on account of their dissimilar titles, they are retained as two distinct yet adjacent entries in the Degé Kangyur.
i.2《善惡因果經》的藏文版本是對中文經典《善惡因果經》（大正藏2881）的翻譯。這部藏文經典特別有趣的地方在於，它實際上與另一部藏文翻譯《善惡因果經》（Toh 354）幾乎完全相同。經過比較可以看出，這兩部藏文文本只是同一部中文經典的不同翻譯版本。然而，或許僅僅因為它們的標題不同，在德格版大藏經中被保留為兩個不同卻相鄰的條目。
i.3The principal difference between these two sūtras is that Toh 355, translated here, employs a Sino-Tibetan lexicon whereas Toh 354 uses an Indo-Tibetan lexicon. These two lexicons refer respectively to the indigenous and presumably more archaic range of Tibetan terminology used to translate Chinese texts, whether they be Buddhist or otherwise, and the range of terminology that was constructed in the likeness of Sanskrit and implemented during the early ninth century in order to imbue translations with a more Indic flavor. This may suggest that Toh 355 is the older of the two translations, since the dominance of Indian Buddhism came at a later point in the Tibetan imperial period.
i.3這兩部經典的主要區別在於，這裡翻譯的丹珠爾編號355號使用漢藏詞彙，而354號則採用印藏詞彙。這兩種詞彙分別指的是用於翻譯漢文典籍（無論是佛教還是其他典籍）的藏文原生術語及可能更古老的術語範圍，以及在九世紀初為了賦予譯文更多印度風味而按照梵文方式構造並使用的術語範圍。這可能表明丹珠爾編號355號是兩個譯本中較早的一個，因為印度佛教的主導地位出現在藏帝國時期的較晚階段。
i.4The translator of Toh 355 is unknown, since the translation does not contain a colophon. Nor is its title present in either the Denkarma (Tib. ldan/lhan dkar ma) or Phangthangma (Tib. ’phang thang ma) catalogs of the early ninth century. The translator of Toh 354 was the prolific translator Chödrup (Tib. chos grub, alias Facheng 法成, c. 755–849), who was active in Dunhuang during the early ninth century. Given that Chödrup is known for his use of Indian vocabulary, it is quite certain that he did not also translate Toh 355.
i.4355號經的譯者不詳，因為該譯本沒有譯者記述。其標題也未出現在九世紀初期的丹噶目錄或朋唐目錄中。354號經的譯者是多產的譯師法成（藏名：法成，別名為法成，約西元755-849年），他在九世紀初期於敦煌活動。由於法成以使用印度詞彙著稱，可以相當肯定他並未翻譯355號經。
i.5Beyond the Tibetan, the sūtra was translated from Chinese into Sogdian and an English translation of the Sogdian has previously been published by David Neil MacKenzie (1970). While this translation corresponds more closely to Toh 354, it nevertheless helped clarify several passages in Toh 355. The present English translation was produced based on the Degé block print with reference to the Comparative Edition (Tib. dpe bsdur ma) and subsequently compared with the Chinese version.
i.5除了藏文版本外，這部經典也從中文被翻譯成粟特文，大衛·尼爾·麥肯錫（David Neil MacKenzie）在1970年發表過粟特文版本的英文翻譯。這個翻譯與德格版大藏經354號更為接近，但它幫助澄清了德格版大藏經355號中的幾個段落。本英文翻譯是以德格版大藏經的木版印刷本為基礎，參照對比版（藏文：dpe bsdur ma），並隨後與中文版本進行比對而製作的。