大乘法苑義林章 1.22

1.22

第五得名懸隔，於中有二：初談古說、後論今釋。談古說者，古師解釋諸法名義，但隨己情各為一解，既無依據難可准憑，義與體乖遂成疎謬。或云當體以彰名，或云就義以為目，或云從能依以受稱，或云從所依以立名，或云從數就義為名，或從相應增強為號，或兩體相違，如是種種解釋不同，竝率己情未為典據。所以諸師紛亂互起異端，令後學徒無可從受。皆由翻譯之主不善方言，語設將融玄旨猶隔，師既墮矣，資亦負焉。

Fifth, the disparity in deriving names. In this, there are two parts: first, discussing the ancient explanations; second, examining the contemporary interpretations. As for discussing the ancient explanations: ancient masters in interpreting the names and meanings of various dharmas merely followed their own personal inclinations, each producing an interpretation. Since there was no authoritative basis, they were difficult to rely upon; the meanings contradicted the essences, ultimately becoming loose and erroneous. Some said that the name is manifested based on the entity itself; some said that it is designated according to the meaning; some said that the appellation is received from that which relies; some said that the name is established from that upon which it relies; some said that the name is given based on number according to the meaning; some called it based on the predominance of association; or that two entities are mutually contradictory. Such various and differing explanations all followed personal inclinations and were not canonical authorities. For this reason, the various masters fell into confusion, mutually giving rise to deviant views, leaving subsequent students with nothing to receive and follow. This was entirely because the translation directors were not skilled in regional vernaculars; even if the language seemed harmonized, the profound meaning remained separated. The teachers having fallen into error, the disciples also bore the consequences.