妙法蓮華經玄義 8.19

8.19

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?