法華玄義釋籤 16.11

16.11

三和融中二：初斥，次「今和融」下正融通。初又三：初雙斥二家，次「釋論」下二家引證，三「舊云」下重斥無翻。初如文。次二家引證中初無翻家云「般若尊重、智慧輕薄」者，譯梵為漢，漢音浮淺，故安師云「譯經有五失及三不易」，譯梵為秦，如嚼食與人，令人嘔噦，據此似如非不可翻但薄淡也。今既已翻，非全不可。三重斥無翻者，意在共翻為經，故且廣斥無翻，次方融通二計。於中二：初立舊無翻家，次「此未必」下斥。又四：初總舉《大經》，次引今經並折，三「若謂」下縱折，四「若執」下以失意折。初二如文。第三又二：初直以滅度名折，次按經題以大滅度名折。四斥失意如文。次正和融中三：初以今家如前所釋融通，次「大經」下引證融通，何不專憑一理而雙是二家？故引《大經》明雙是意，凡立破之法皆先出彼非，彼二無大非何須固斥？故雙是二解，以三意助之，使雙益其美，復順如來善權益物。三「復次」下助一家用義處中而立，共翻為經。又為二：初明翻意，次「何者」下釋所以。又三：初略立，次「若餘」下重略斥二家，三「諸大小」下重立。

Three, harmonizing contains two parts: first, refutation; next, from 'now harmonizing' onwards, the proper harmonization. The first part again has three: first, refuting both schools together; next, from 'the explanatory treatise' onwards, the two schools citing proof; third, from 'the old view says' onwards, re-refuting 'not translated'. The first is as in the text. Next, in the two schools citing proof, first the 'no translation' school says: 'Prajñā is weighty and honoured, wisdom is light and shallow.' Translating Sanskrit into Chinese, Chinese sounds are light and shallow; therefore Master Daoan said, 'Translating scriptures involves five losses and three difficulties.' Translating Sanskrit into Qin is like chewing food and feeding it to someone, causing them to vomit. Based on this, it seems not that it cannot be translated, but merely that it becomes thin and bland. Now that it has already been translated, it is not completely untranslatable. Third, as for re-refuting 'not translated', the intention lies in jointly translating it as 'sūtra' (經), so he first broadly refutes 'not translated', and only then harmonizes the two positions. Within this there are two: first, establishing the old 'no translation' school; next, from 'this is not necessarily' onwards, refuting it. This again has four: first, generally raising the *Great Sūtra*; next, citing the present sūtra to refute together; third, from 'if one says' onwards, conceding and then refuting; fourth, from 'if one clings' onwards, refuting through the loss of meaning. The first two are as in the text. The third again has two: first, directly refuting through the name 'cessation-crossing' (extinction); next, refuting with the name 'great cessation-crossing' based on the sūtra's title. The fourth, refuting the loss of meaning, is as in the text. Next, in the proper harmonization, there are three: first, harmonizing through our school's previous explanation; next, from 'the Great Sūtra' onwards, citing proof to harmonize—why not rely solely on one principle instead of affirming both schools? Therefore he cites the *Great Sūtra* to clarify the intention of affirming both. Generally, the method of establishing and refuting always first exposes the other's errors; if those two have no great errors, why rigidly refute them? Therefore he affirms both interpretations, aiding them with three points of intent to double their merits, while also according with the Tathāgata's skillful means to benefit beings. Third, from 'furthermore' onwards, he assists one school in using the meaning to take a middle position, jointly translating it as 'sūtra'. This again has two parts: first, clarifying the intention of translating; next, from 'why is that' onwards, explaining the reason. This again has three: first, briefly establishing; next, from 'if the rest' onwards, again briefly refuting the two schools; third, from 'various great and small' onwards, re-establishing.