維摩經玄疏 5.40

5.40

今謂：若不得佛法正意，有翻、無翻俱是執滯，其得意者，無翻有翻，皆可從也。所以者何？若知悉檀起教是一，無翻、有翻，皆具三義，含一切佛法。執諍既息，正義圓通，此有何過？故經云「依義，不依語也」，雖然今解釋直用「經」字，則無所不該。又，無翻、有翻，幸得縱容。所以者何？言無翻者，亦用「經」字標題；言有翻者，亦以「經」字標題，並不見用法本、契、綖、善語教，標教首也。若存「經」字，是則有翻、無翻，兩情皆愜，即是通和二家執諍義也。如舊解《涅槃》，或言有翻、無翻；《般若》或言有翻、無翻。若深解此意，無所滯也。

Now I say: If one does not grasp the correct intention of the Buddha's teaching, both "translatable" and "untranslatable" are rigid attachments. For one who grasps the intent, both "untranslatable" and "translatable" may be followed. Why is this? If one knows that the giving rise to the teachings through the siddhāntas is one, both "untranslatable" and "translatable" possess the three meanings and contain all of the Buddha's teachings. Once disputes and attachments cease and the correct meaning is completely unobstructed, what fault is there? Therefore, a sūtra says: 'Rely on the meaning, do not rely on the phrasing.' Even so, in our present explanation, directly using the character "jing" leaves nothing unincluded. Moreover, both "untranslatable" and "translatable" fortunately attain accommodation. Why is this? Those who say it is untranslatable also use the character "jing" for the title; those who say it is translatable also use the character "jing" for the title. Neither is seen to place "root of dharmas", "tally", "thread", or "teaching of good speech" at the head of the teaching. If the character "jing" is retained, then both sentiments of "translatable" and "untranslatable" are satisfied, which reconciles the disputed meanings of the two schools. Just as ancient explanations of Nirvāṇa said either "translatable" or "untranslatable", and for Prajñā said either "translatable" or "untranslatable": if one deeply understands this intention, there is no impediment anywhere.