般若波羅蜜多心經贊 1.4

1.4

言宗體者，體即總明能詮教體，宗者別顯諸教所詮。然佛教體，諸說不同，薩婆多宗用聲為體，名等無記，聲是善故。依經部宗，相續假聲，離聲無別名、句等故。依大乘宗，諸教不同，有處唯聲，如《無垢稱》，或有佛土聲為佛事；有處但用名等為體，如《成唯識》，法無礙智，名等為境；有處合說聲及名等，如《十地經》云，說、聽之者皆依二事，謂聲、名等。如何諸教有此異者，據實以假從實，皆用聲及名等以為體性，而諸聖教各據一義，故不相違。所以者何？以假從實，用聲為體，離聲無別名、句等故；以體從用，名等為體，能詮諸法自性、差別二所依故。假、實相藉，合說為體，隨闕一種，說不成故。以境從心，用識為體，經說諸法不離識故；攝妄歸真，用如為體，《仁王》等說諸法性故。

Regarding the tenets and essence: "essence" generally clarifies the expressive essence of the teaching; "tenet" specifically reveals what is expressed by the various teachings. Now, regarding the essence of the Buddha's teaching, the various assertions are not the same. The Sarvāstivāda school takes voice as the essence, because names and the like are neutral, while voice is wholesome. According to the Sautrāntika school, it is conventional continuous sound, because apart from voice there are no separate names, phrases, and so forth. According to the Mahāyāna school, the various teachings differ: in some places it is solely voice, as in the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa, where in some Buddha-lands voice performs the Buddha's work; in some places it takes only names and the like as the essence, as in the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi, where the unhindered cognition of dharmas takes names and the like as its intentional object; in some places it speaks of voice and names together, as the Daśabhūmika-sūtra says that both the speaker and the hearer rely on two things, namely voice and names, and so forth. Why is there this difference among the various teachings? In fact, subsuming the conventional under the real, both voice and names and so forth are taken as the essential nature, but the various noble teachings each rely on one particular meaning, and thus they do not contradict one another. Why is this? Subsuming the conventional under the real, voice is taken as the essence, because apart from voice there are no separate names, phrases, and so forth. Subsuming the essence under its function, names and the like are the essence, because they are the two bases that express the intrinsic nature and distinctions of all dharmas. The conventional and the real depend on each other, and they are spoken of together as the essence, because if either one is lacking, the teaching cannot be established. Subsuming the object under the mind, consciousness is taken as the essence, because sūtras state that all dharmas are not separate from consciousness. Subsuming the false and returning to the true, suchness is taken as the essence, because the Benevolent King Sūtra and others speak of the true nature of all dharmas.