妙法蓮華經玄義 8.19

8.19

三、和融有無者，昔佛法初度，胡漢未明，言無翻者，乃是河西群學所傳。晚人承用，加以此代彼，今傳譯煥爛，方言稍通，豈苟執無翻，猶以多含為解？若多含者，何局五耶？若有翻者，以何為正？義寧種種，翻那得多？若翻脩多羅為經者，脩多羅有九，謂通別脩多羅藏等，何不見周正十二部中經部，三藏中有經藏耶？若翻為契法本等者，亦應改正十二部中有契部、法本部、線部、善語、教部，三藏中應有線等藏，彼諸處皆不從此翻，何獨通脩多羅耶？《釋論》云：「般若尊重，智慧輕薄，何得用輕翻重？」若爾，即是無翻家證。夫實相尊重不可說，遂得作胡言而說。何不得作漢語而翻？若不可翻，亦不可說，此即有翻家證。舊云：涅槃含三德，不可用滅度為翻。又梁武云：滅度小乘法，不可用翻大涅槃。此未必爾。經言有涅槃、大涅槃，亦應有滅度、大滅度。此經云：「如來滅度」，豈非大滅度？既以小滅度翻小涅槃，何得不以大滅度翻大涅槃？

Third, reconciling existence and non-existence [of translation]: In the past, when the Buddha-Dharma was first transmitted, Indian and Chinese were not yet clearly distinguished; the statement that it was untranslatable was in fact transmitted by the scholars of Hexi. Later scholars accepted and used it, moreover substituting this for that. Now translations are resplendent and regional languages are broadly understood; how could one obstinately cling to untranslatability, still taking "containing manifold meanings" as the explanation? If it contains manifold meanings, why restrict it to five? If there is a translation, which should be taken as the standard? If meanings are multiple, how could translations be many? If one translates sūtra as "classic" (經), there are nine kinds of sūtras, namely the general and specific sūtra-piṭakas, etc.—why do we not see it properly corresponding to the sūtra section among the twelve divisions, and to the sūtra-piṭaka among the Tripiṭaka? If one translates it as "tallying," "root of dharmas," and so forth, then one should also alter the twelve divisions to contain a "tallying division," a "root of dharmas division," a "string division," and a "good speech and teaching division"; and among the Tripiṭaka there should be a "string-piṭaka," etc. Since those various places do not follow these translations, why alone use it for sūtra in general? The Treatise states: "Prajñā is weighty and revered, while 'wisdom' (智慧) is slight and light; how can one use the light to translate the weighty?" If so, this is evidence for the school of non-translation. Now, the real mark is weighty, revered, and ineffable, yet one could speak it in Indian speech; why could one not translate it into Chinese speech? If it cannot be translated, it also could not be spoken: this is evidence for the school of translation. The ancients said: Nirvāṇa contains the three virtues and cannot be translated by "extinction and crossing over" (滅度). Furthermore, Emperor Wu of Liang said: "Extinction and crossing over" is a Hīnayāna dharma and cannot be used to translate the Great Nirvāṇa. This is not necessarily so. Sūtras state that there are nirvāṇa and Mahānirvāṇa; likewise there should be extinction and crossing over, and great extinction and crossing over. This sūtra says: "The Tathāgata's extinction and crossing over"; how could this not be the great extinction and crossing over? Since one translates lesser nirvāṇa by lesser extinction and crossing over, why can one not translate Mahānirvāṇa by great extinction and crossing over?