宋高僧傳 3.50

3.50

或曰：「翻梵夾須用此方文籍者，莫招濫涉儒雅之過乎？」通曰：「言不關典，非子、史之言，用其翻對，豈可以委巷之談而糅于中耶？故道安云：『乃欲以千載上之微言，傳所合百王下之末俗。』斯為不易矣。」或曰：「漢、魏之際，盛行斯意，致使陳壽《國志》述臨兒國云：『浮屠所載，與中國《老子經》而相出入。蓋老子西出關，過西域，之天竺，教胡為浮屠。』」「此為見譯家用《道德》二篇中語，便認云與《老子經》互相出入也。設有華人能梵語，與西僧言說，兩相允會，可便謂此人為天竺人耶？盍窮其始末乎？是知若用外書，須招此謗。如童壽譯《法華》，可謂折中，有天然西域之語趣矣。今觀房融潤文於《楞嚴》，僧肇徵引而造『論』，宜當此誚焉。苟參鄙俚之辭，曷異屠沽之譜？然則糅書勿如無書，與其典也，寧俗。儻深溺俗，厥過不輕；折中適時，自存法語，斯謂得譯經之旨矣。故佛說法多依蘇漫多也。

Someone might say: 'In translating Sanskrit manuscripts, if one must use the literature of this land, would that not incur the fault of inappropriately mixing in Confucian elegance?' I reply to resolve this: 'If speech does not pertain to the classics and is not the language of the masters and histories, how could one, in using it for translation and correspondence, mix in the talk of winding alleys? Therefore Daoan said: "Seeking to convey subtle words from a thousand years ago to adapt to the degenerate customs of the hundred kings later—this is truly not easy." Someone might say: 'During the Han and Wei periods, this intention was prevalent, leading Chen Shou's Record of the Three Kingdoms to describe the country of Lin'er as saying: "What the Buddha records overlaps with China's Laozi jing. It seems Laozi went west through the pass, crossed the Western Regions, went to India, and taught the Hu people to become Buddhists."' This was because they saw that translators used terms from the two books of the Daodejing, and thereupon concluded that it overlapped with the Laozi jing. If there were a Chinese who knew Sanskrit and conversed with a Western monk, with both in complete accord, could one immediately call this person an Indian? Why not trace it to its beginning and end? Thus we know that if one uses non-Buddhist books, one is bound to incur this slander. For instance, when Kumārajīva translated the Lotus Sūtra, it can be called a golden mean, possessing the natural flavour of Western languages. Looking today at Fang Rong polishing the prose of the Śūraṅgama-sūtra, or Sengzhao citing authorities to compose his treatises, they should rightly face this reproach. If one inserts vulgar and colloquial expressions, how would it differ from the registers of butchers and wine sellers? However, mixing in books is not as good as having no books; rather than being overly ornate, it is better to be plain. Yet if one is deeply submerged in the vulgar, the fault is not light; striking the middle way and suiting the occasion, naturally preserving the language of the Dharma—this is what is called grasping the essence of translating sūtras. Therefore, the Buddha's preaching mostly relied upon subanta.