大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 5.26

5.26

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.