大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 5.24

5.24

疏「古譯為契經」下，第二敘古譯也。於中五：一標名；二「智論」下引證；三「契謂契理」下會義；四「即契理合機之經」下會六釋，以契對經即名依主，以契經對藏便名持業；五「復云」下會傍正。疏「有云按五印度至斥於古德經非敵對」者，第三敘古破。此古即是靜法寺苑公《刊定記》中義也。但言有云，即是《刊定記》主。若云古德，多是藏和尚，亦有此前諸德。此中總舉先古諸德。又此中疏撮略《刊定》之意耳。《刊定記》敘古義竟，便云「今詳諸論及以梵本，良恐不爾。所以者何？此中通辯有三失故：一敵對翻名失、二以義為名失、三總別不分失。」今疏所明即第一失，謂修多羅一名既含四實，線既敵對，經何得非？經亦是敵對，言非敵對，故云敵對翻名失。故今疏云「斥於古德經非敵對」。二以義為名失者，意云：經字是名、契字是義，以經有契理合機之義，故借契義以助經名。而呼契經兩字全作名者，即是以義為名失也。若是全名者，應云欲底修多羅。欲底之言，有其三義：一者契義、二順古所行、三依正道理。今取契義，既無欲底之言，明知名無契字也。又舉例云：如質多名心、集起為義，詎翻集起亦作名耶？意云：集起既非心名，契理豈是經目也。三總別不分失者，彼云：但藏部立名，各有兩重總別：一謂三藏十二部為總名，修多羅等為別稱；二謂修多羅為總號，毘奈耶、應頌等為別目。古來相傳，唯辯前門不論於後。今修多羅，依藏部中總相業用而立其名，餘藏部名依藏部中別相業用。所以者何？修多羅業能貫攝故。餘藏餘部所詮所化，由此貫攝彼方成故。故《涅槃》十五云「始從如是我聞，終至歡喜奉行，一切皆名修多羅故。」釋曰：《刊定記》文猶似難見，今更為釋。言各有兩重總別者，如三藏中兩重者，一云三藏是總、經律論為別；二修多羅是總稱、調伏對法為別稱故。三藏中修多羅即是總名，雖標總稱即受別名，故云今修多羅依三藏中總相業用。古人不知此從總相得名，但謂為別，故云總別不分失也。又如十二部亦有兩重總別者，一云十二部經是總名也，謂修多羅、祇夜等即為別稱。二云修多羅是總名，祇夜等十一為別稱。不取修多羅，以修多羅為總故。亦雖標總稱，即受別名。是則三藏中修多羅通於二藏，十二分中修多羅通餘十一故。若不通者，修多羅既稱契理合機，餘無此名應不契理合機。既俱契理合機，明知修多羅是從總相立名耳。三藏十二部皆有兩重總別，故云各有也。《刊定》之意，亦有理在。今謂若十二部中修多羅，則通十一及於三藏；若三藏中修多羅名，唯通十二，不通二藏。二藏之中有契合者，自屬十二分中修多羅耳。思之。以非苦要，故疏略不敘，唯明初一。恐欲知根本，故鈔具敘耳。彼復破於遠公三修多羅，至〈十藏品〉當說。

Regarding the commentary's phrase “Anciently translated as 'tallying scriptures' (契經)” and below, this is the second part: relating ancient translations. Within this are five points: first, indicating the names; second, citing evidence from “the Great Wisdom Treatise (智度論)” and below; third, harmonizing the meanings from “Tallying means tallying with principle” and below; fourth, harmonizing with the six compound analyses (ṣaṭsamāsa) from “Namely, scriptures that tally with principle and fit capacity” and below—matching “tallying” against “scriptures” is a determinative compound (tatpuruṣa), while matching “tallying scriptures” against “piṭaka” is an appositional determinative compound (karmadhāraya); fifth, harmonizing the primary and secondary from “It is also said” and below.

Regarding the commentary's words “Some say, according to the five Indias... up to criticizing ancient masters that 'scripture' is not an exact equivalent”: this is the third part, relating ancient refutations. This “ancient” refers to the master Huiyuan of Jingfa Monastery's position in his Kanding ji. Wherever it simply says “Some say,” it refers to the author of the Kanding ji. If it says “ancient masters,” it mostly means Preceptor Fazang, as well as earlier venerable masters before him. Here it generally refers to all ancient masters. Furthermore, the commentary here merely summarizes the general meaning of the Kanding ji.

After setting forth the ancient views, the Kanding ji immediately states: “Now, carefully examining the various treatises as well as the Sanskrit originals, I truly fear it is not so. Why? Because throughout this there are three errors: 1. the error of inexact translation of names; 2. the error of taking a meaning as a name; 3. the error of not distinguishing between the general and the particular.”
What the commentary clarifies now is precisely the first error: that since the single term sūtra contains four realities, and “thread” is an exact equivalent, why would “scripture” not be one? “Scripture” is also an exact equivalent; stating that it is not an exact equivalent is called the error of inexact translation of names. Hence the commentary now says: “Criticizing ancient masters that 'scripture' is not an exact equivalent.”

The second, the error of taking a meaning as a name, means: the word “scripture” (經) is the name, while the word “tallying” (契) is its meaning; because a scripture has the meaning of tallying with principle and fitting capacity, the meaning of “tallying” was borrowed to support the name of “scripture.” Calling both words “tallying scripture” an entire name is the error of taking a meaning as a name. If it were the complete name, it should be called yukti-sūtra. The term yukti has three meanings: first, the meaning of tallying; second, according with what was anciently practiced; third, relying on correct principle. Here, adopting the meaning of tallying, since there is no word yukti [in the Sanskrit title], one clearly knows that the name lacks the word “tallying.” Furthermore, providing an analogy, it says: just as citta is named “mind,” and “accumulation and arising” is its meaning, could one translate “accumulation and arising” as its name as well? It means: since “accumulation and arising” is not the name of the mind, how could “tallying with principle” be the name of a scripture?

The third, the error of not distinguishing between the general and the particular, says: in establishing names for the piṭakas and the textual genres, each has a twofold general-and-particular relation. First, the three piṭakas and the twelve textual genres are general designations, while sūtra and the rest are specific appellations. Second, sūtra is the general title, while vinaya, geya, and so on are specific designations. What was traditionally transmitted only explained the former perspective without discussing the latter. Now, sūtra establishes its name based on the general function within the piṭakas and genres, whereas the names of the other piṭakas and genres rely on specific functions within them. Why? Because the function of a sūtra is able to thread and hold. For the teachings and those to be transformed in the other piṭakas and other genres are only accomplished through this threading and holding. Hence the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], fascicle fifteen, says: “From 'Thus have I heard' at the beginning to 'rejoicing, they received and practiced it' at the end, all are called sūtras.”

Explanation: The text of the Kanding ji is still somewhat difficult to understand, so I shall explain it further now. Saying that each has a twofold general-and-particular relation: for example, the twofold relation in the three piṭakas means: first, the three piṭakas are general, and scriptures, monastic discipline, and treatises are particular; second, sūtra is the general designation, and vinaya and abhidharma are specific designations. Sūtra within the three piṭakas is the general name; although bearing a general title, it receives a specific name; hence it says: “Now sūtra relies on the general function within the three piṭakas.” The ancients did not know it receives its name from the general characteristic, but only thought it was specific; thus it is called the error of not distinguishing the general and the particular. Furthermore, the twelve genres also have a twofold general-and-particular relation: first, the twelve genres of scripture are the general name, while sūtra, geya, etc., are specific designations; second, sūtra is the general name, and the other eleven including geya are specific designations. One does not take sūtra [as merely one among twelve], because sūtra is the general. Also, although bearing a general title, it receives a specific name. If so, sūtra within the three piṭakas extends through the other two piṭakas, and sūtra within the twelve divisions extends through the other eleven. If it did not extend through them, then since sūtra is called “tallying with principle and fitting capacity,” the others lacking this name would not tally with principle and fit capacity. Since all tally with principle and fit capacity, one clearly knows that sūtra is established as a name from its general characteristic. Both the three piṭakas and the twelve genres have a twofold general-and-particular relation; hence it says “each has.”

The intention of the Kanding ji also has its reason. Now, I say: if it is sūtra within the twelve genres, it extends to the eleven genres and the three piṭakas; if it is the name sūtra within the three piṭakas, it only extends to the twelve genres, but not to the other two piṭakas. What tallies and fits within the other two piṭakas naturally belongs to sūtra among the twelve divisions. Reflect on this. Because this is not strictly essential, the commentary abbreviates and does not relate it, only clarifying the first point. Fearing that some might wish to know the roots, this subcommentary relates it in full. He further refuted Master Huiyuan's three sūtras, which will be explained when we reach the “Chapter on the Ten Treasuries.”