大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 19.42

19.42

疏「然有引梵本」下，因釋此句，便彈古人有無益之文。意云：如不獲已須引梵文，若無異轍何要繁引？因示體式。言「譯梵為唐誠乃不易」者，案道安法師云：「譯梵為秦，有五失本、三種不易。」即叡公《摩訶般若經．序》所明。言五失本者，一梵語盡倒，而使從秦，一失本也。二梵經尚質，此方好文，傳可眾心非文不合，二失本也。三梵經委悉，至於歎詠叮嚀反覆，或三或四不嫌其繁，而今裁斥，三失本也。四梵有義說正似亂辭，尋說向語文無以異，或千或百刈而不存，四失本也。五事已全成將更傍及，反謄前辭已乃復今說，而悉除之，此五失本也。又三種不易。何者？然《般若》逕三達之心，覆面所演。聖必因時，時俗有險易。而刪古雅以適今時，一不易也。愚智天隔，聖人叵階，乃欲以千載之上微言，傳合百王之下末俗，二不易也。阿難出經去佛未久，尊者大迦葉令五百六通迭察迭書，今雖千年，而以近意裁量，彼阿羅漢乃競競若此，此生死人而平平若此，豈將不知法者勇乎？斯三不易也。涉茲五失本、逮三不易，譯梵為秦詎可不慎乎？今用此意，故云「誠乃不易」。

Regarding the Commentary's text from 'However, some cite the Sanskrit text' onward: occasioning the explanation of this line, it immediately criticizes the ancient masters for having useless passages. The meaning is: if as a last resort one must cite the Sanskrit text, then if there is no differing path, why must one cite it so redundantly? This serves to demonstrate the proper standard. Regarding the phrase 'Translating from Sanskrit into Chinese is truly not easy', upon checking Dharma Master Dao'an, he stated: 'Translating from Sanskrit into Qin involves five losses of the original and three difficulties.' This is what was clarified in Master Sengrui's Preface to the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra. As for the five losses of the original: First, Sanskrit syntax is entirely inverted, yet it is made to follow Qin [syntax]—this is the first loss of the original. Second, Sanskrit sūtras esteem plainness, whereas this region prefers literary refinement; to transmit them acceptably to the minds of the multitude, unless they are literary they will not suit—this is the second loss of the original. Third, Sanskrit sūtras are meticulous, even to the point of exclamations, detailed exhortations, and repetitions, three or four times without disliking their redundancy, yet now these are pruned away—this is the third loss of the original. Fourth, in Sanskrit there are thematic expositions that look just like disorderly words, yet upon tracing what was said before, the phrasing is no different, and tens or hundreds of words are cut out and not preserved—this is the fourth loss of the original. Fifth, when a matter is already completely accomplished and is about to turn to another topic, it copies out the previous phrases again before proceeding to the present exposition, and all of these are removed—these are the five losses of the original. Furthermore, there are three kinds of difficulties. What are they? The Prajñā traverses the mind of the three penetrations and is expounded with a tongue covering the face. The sage must adapt to the times, and worldly customs have difficulties and ease. To prune the ancient elegance to suit the present day is the first difficulty. Ignorance and wisdom are separated like heaven [and earth], and the sage cannot be stepped up to; yet wanting to transmit the subtle words of a thousand years ago to suit the decadent customs below a hundred kings is the second difficulty. When Ānanda brought out the sūtras, it was not long after the Buddha; the Venerable Mahākāśyapa ordered five hundred [arhats] with the six supernormal powers to examine and record them alternately. Now though a thousand years have passed, one tailors them with a narrow contemporary perspective; those arhats were so scrupulous and cautious, while these mortal beings of saṃsāra are so complacent—can it be that those who do not know the Dharma are bold? This is the third difficulty. Venturing into these five losses of the original and encountering these three difficulties, how could one not be cautious in translating from Sanskrit into Qin? Now adopting this intention, it therefore says 'is truly not easy'.