維摩經玄疏 5.40

5.40

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.