大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 3.8

3.8

第九泯絕是非不妄破斥者，昔人勝負氣高、是非情厚，上古妙義用而不言、先賢小瑕廣申破斥，如娑婆形如虛空，便云良由譯人不閑經論，謬預譯場，誤累聖教。一朝至此，先師在其譯內，斧鑿太深；纖芥在於珠中，何須擊破。又如〈十行品〉內釋不住中流，廣申異釋。晉經失旨，致古釋枝辭；今文分明，何須敘昔。若斯之類，其事頗多。終日是非，豈合大道？凡破義者，其猶毒蛇螫手不得不斬、毒樹生庭不得不伐。若邪解亂轍，事須決之。若易知其非，略而不述；若似正不正，則並決分明。如欲識真金，須明鍮石。蓋不獲已，情忘是非。設有破斥，須存禮樂，不得自尊己德、下視先賢。須知草剏者難、因循者易，縱有舉非顯是，不是自衒自媒，故今疏文是非全少。

Ninth, putting an end to disputation and not recklessly refuting others: In the past, people had a high spirit of rivalry and strong sentiments regarding right and wrong; they used the wondrous meanings of antiquity without acknowledgment, while broadly launching refutations against the minor flaws of past sages. For instance, regarding the phrase "the Sahā world is shaped like space", they asserted that it was because the translator was unfamiliar with sūtras and treatises and improperly participated in the translation bureau, erroneously encumbering the holy teachings. When it came to this point, our former master took part in that translation bureau, and his carving and chiseling were overly severe; when there is a tiny speck inside a pearl, why must one crush it? Furthermore, in explaining "not dwelling in midstream" in the "Ten Practices Chapter", divergent interpretations were broadly presented. Because the Jin translation lost the purport, ancient commentators were led to verbose digressions; now that the text [of the Tang translation] is clear, why is there any need to recount past errors? Matters of this sort are quite numerous. Engaging in right and wrong all day long—how could this accord with the Great Way? Whenever one refutes a doctrine, it is like a poisonous snake biting one's hand: one cannot but sever it; or a poisonous tree growing in the courtyard: one cannot but chop it down. If a perverse understanding deranges the correct track, it must be resolved. But if its error is easy to recognize, I pass over it without recounting; if it appears correct but is not, I resolve it clearly. Just as when one wishes to recognize genuine gold, brass must be clarified. Out of unavoidable necessity, sentiments of right and wrong are forgotten. Even if refutations are made, propriety and harmony must be preserved; one must not exalt one's own virtue and look down upon past sages. One should know that creating something from scratch is difficult, while following along is easy. Even if an error is raised to display what is right, it is not to flaunt or praise oneself. Therefore, in the present commentary, disputes are extremely rare.