[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736) › 5.26 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 5.26 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 5.26 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [5.26](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.5.26) 疏「若兼順義」下，二半奪也。縱其經是敵對，奪其不名聖教，是故一名含於多實，應須順義立名。如仙陀婆一名四實，若譯經中五味之處，應譯為鹽；若譯經中王之所乘仙陀婆者，應譯為馬，不可言水言器。今譯佛經云修多羅，合名聖教也，言線言索非全愜當，故云經自屬於席，經敵對應名聖教。「梁攝」已下引文為證，即第一論。然此所引上兩句全是論文，「為成聖教」下乃取義釋。以彼本論云「攝大乘論即阿毘達磨教及修多羅。」釋論云「此言大乘者，欲揀小乘阿毘達磨。何不但說阿毘達磨名，復說於修多羅名？有阿毘達磨非是聖教故。」此中意云：若但言阿毘達磨，揀濫不盡，故加修多羅言，揀異凡夫所造之論，明是聖教之論故。今引意者，本論牒修多羅，釋論之中乃云聖教，明是譯修多羅為聖教也。 > Regarding the commentary's phrase “If also according with the meaning” and below, this is the second, a partial rebuttal. Granting that “scripture” (warp-thread) is an exact equivalent, it rebuts the claim that it is not named “sacred teaching.” Therefore, one name contains multiple realities, and one must establish the name according with the meaning. For example, saindhava is one name with four realities: when translating a passage concerning the five flavors in a scripture, it should be translated as “salt”; when translating the saindhava ridden by a king in a scripture, it should be translated as “horse”; one cannot say “water” or “vessel.” Now in translating the Buddha's scriptures as sūtra, it ought to be named “sacred teaching”; calling it “line” or “cord” is not entirely fitting; hence it says that warp-thread naturally belongs to a mat, while the exact equivalent of sūtra should be called “sacred teaching.” > From “the Liang Saṃgraha” onwards, it cites texts as proof, which is the first treatise. However, the first two lines cited here are entirely the text of the treatise, while from “to establish sacred teaching” downwards, it explains by extracting the meaning. For that root treatise says: “The Mahāyānasaṃgraha is the Abhidharma teaching and sūtra.” The explanatory treatise says: “Saying 'Mahāyāna' here is intended to distinguish it from the Hīnayāna Abhidharma. Why not merely state the name Abhidharma, but also state the name sūtra? Because there are Abhidharmas that are not sacred teaching.” The meaning here is: if one only says Abhidharma, it does not completely distinguish the ambiguous; hence the word sūtra is added to distinguish it from treatises composed by ordinary beings, making clear that it is a treatise of sacred teaching. The intention in citing it now is that the root treatise notes sūtra, and in the explanatory treatise it actually says “sacred teaching,” making clear that sūtra is translated as sacred teaching. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 5.25](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.5.25) - [Next: 5.27](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.5.27) - [Up: 5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.5) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.5.26) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.5.26](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.5.26) · Pramāṇa