大乘法苑義林章 1.22

1.22

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.