[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [宋高僧傳](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2061) › 15.44 # 宋高僧傳 15.44 宋高僧傳 15.44 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [15.44](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2061.15.44) 系曰：刊正二宗，會歸一見，庶幾知有定分，不橫馳求。何以諸師却請雙行，不其惑歟？通曰：「是此舉也，則元載所請，帝乃曰俞。究其始因，乃新章也，挾力輪摧相部，獨存於我，專利於人。亦猶紀昌俄遇飛衛，併其箭術，成我材官。御大輅而廢其椎輪，得火生而焚其木母。竊量諸德，微憤不平，故奏雙行，同不僉定，則何異乎眼頭生目，匪成三點之『伊』？必須聲後知音，方驗一夔之足。因排法礪，三本生焉；舊有南山，四家出矣！又如東漢季也，滅一跋扈，生四強臣。初止政出一門，末云賂歸四貴。若然者，駢拇懸瘤，雖多無用。然則吾善用多矣。《大集經》云：『如是諸見，不妨諸佛法界及大涅槃，依之修行，皆得解脫。』此通方之大解也哉。」 > The appraisal states: To correct the two lineages and unite them under a single viewpoint would hopefully enable one to know definite boundaries and not pursue things in vain. Why did the masters nevertheless request that both circulate side by side? Was this not baffling? In response to this objection, one may say: This measure was requested by Yuan Zai, and the emperor gave his consent. Investigating its initial cause, it was the New Commentary that relied on the wheels of power to crush the Xiangbu lineage, aiming to preserve itself alone and monopolize benefit for its own proponents. It was like Ji Chang suddenly encountering Fei Wei: by taking over the archery arts of the latter, he made himself an accomplished warrior; or like driving a great chariot while discarding the rough-hewn wheel, or kindling fire and then burning the wooden mother that gave it birth. I surmise that the various bhadantas felt a subtle indignation and discontent, and therefore memorialized that both circulate side by side, which was the same as not settling on a single one. How then does this differ from growing an extra eye upon one's eye, rather than forming the harmonious three dots of the letter 'i'? One must understand sound only after hearing notes, and only then verify that one Kui is sufficient. Because of rejecting Fali, three commentaries came into being; when the original Nanshan tradition was included, four houses arose! Again, it is like the end of the Eastern Han: destroying one tyrannical figure gave rise to four powerful ministers. At first, government commands had issued from a single gate, but in the end, bribes flowed to four lords. If so, they are like webbed toes and dangling wens: though numerous, they are useless. And yet, I am skilled at making good use of multiplicity. The \*Mahāsaṃnipāta-sūtra\* says: 'Such views do not obstruct the dharmadhātu of the Buddhas or great nirvāṇa; practicing according to them, all attain liberation.' Is this not the grand comprehension of an all-embracing understanding? > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 15.43](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2061.15.43) - [Next: 15.45](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2061.15.45) - [Up: 15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2061.15) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2061~en-mt.15.44) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2061.15.44](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2061.15.44) · Pramāṇa