大方廣圓覺修多羅了義經略疏 2.505

2.505

鍠字不定，恐譯人錯。遂為三釋：一、依鍠字音橫，準《切韻》，訓和、訓樂，不是器中之聲。今率愚詳之，取其聲勢，不取訓字，此應是金石等中聲相也。今且現聞擊鍾磬之類，其聲鍠鍠然，即知鍠是此類聲之相狀。譯人迴潤稍拙，應云：如今器聲鍠鍠出外。二、作[金*(廿/由/八)]字音同，即大鍾也。是諸器中之一數，故云如器中[金*(廿/由/八)]。準此則順本經文，迴潤非失，但筆受或寫錄錯誤，以[金*(廿/由/八)]為鍠爾。三者，皆簧，音黃，即笙簧之類。以有簧之器非一故，不局云笙中簧，乃云器中簧也。亦如管籥之屬，皆能發聲出于外故。準此則譯人不善此方聲韻文字，故字與音俱錯爾。後正釋喻者，前三雖異，合法皆通，皆器喻世界身心，聲喻靈明觀智，謂聲從器出，器不能拘，故聲聞四遠，器局本處，以喻觀智約身心修得，身心所不能拘。觀智廓爾無邊，身心不離舊處。但所喻相當，何爭喻所依物？愨云：「如萬釣之鏞，星樓受礙。搖杵一擊，聲振寰區。自體兼他不能留礙，豈以樓拘鍾相便響不通，形礙管聲令音不透？觀此文勢，未免懷疑。復不能決通，媕婀邈之而已。」意亦同前，仍法合最具，謂加樓喻世界。餘準上知。

The character huáng (鍠) is uncertain; perhaps the translator erred. Thus there are three interpretations: First, taking the character huáng as having the pronunciation héng: according to the Qieyun, it is glossed as "harmony" and "music", not the sound within a vessel. Now, considering it with my humble assessment, one takes its acoustic momentum rather than the gloss of the character; this must be the manifestation of sound within metal or stone. As we presently hear the striking of bells or chimes and the like, their sound rings resonantly (huáng-huáng); thus we know huáng is the characteristic of this kind of sound. The translator's polishing was somewhat clumsy, and it should have read: "like the sound of a vessel nowadays ringing out to the exterior." Second, reading it as the character zhong (𨬟), with the same pronunciation: that is, a great bell. It is one among various vessels, hence it says "like a great bell among vessels." According to this, it accords with the original sūtra text, and the polishing was not flawed; it was merely an error in transcription or copying, taking zhong to be huáng. Third, reading both as huáng (簧), pronounced huáng, that is, the reed of a mouth-organ (shēng) and the like. Because vessels having reeds are not just one, it does not narrowly say "the reed in a shēng", but rather "the reed in a vessel." It is also like the class of flutes and pipes, all of which are able to emit sound that issues outwards. According to this, the translator was not proficient in the phonology and script of this land, and thus both the character and pronunciation were mistaken. As for correctly explaining the simile subsequently: although the previous three differ, they all correspond to the Dharma; in all of them, the vessel is a simile for the world, body, and mind, while the sound is a simile for the contemplative wisdom of numinous illumination. That is, the sound comes out from the vessel and the vessel cannot restrict it; thus the sound is heard far in all four directions, while the vessel remains confined to its original place. This is a simile for contemplative wisdom being cultivated based on the body and mind, yet unable to be restricted by body and mind. Contemplative wisdom is vast and boundless, while body and mind do not leave their original place. As long as the simile is fitting, why dispute over the object on which the simile relies? Que says: "Like a bell of ten-thousand jun, obstructed within an astral tower: when the swinging striker delivers one hit, the sound shakes the world. Its own form and other things cannot detain or obstruct it. How could the tower's confinement of the bell's shape prevent the resonance from penetrating, or the physical obstruction of a pipe's sound prevent the tone from getting through? Looking at the phrasing of this text, doubts are inevitable. Again unable to resolve it definitively, one merely hesitates from afar." His intention is also the same as before, yet his correspondence to the Dharma is most complete, meaning that adding the tower is a simile for the world. The rest is to be understood as above.