大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 5.24

5.24

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.”