宋高僧傳 7.50

7.50

玄默垂文，聖人俯察。河、雒之流有告，圖書之法作程，禹受斯符，乃為經緯，本六十餘字，訓第表明，號〈洪範〉以開章，得彝倫而逌敘。帝王之法粲然可觀，祖述之家翕爾宗此。我之佛道可弗然耶？教自西傳，若龜、馬之文乍辯；聲由此盛，如夏、商之美惟揚。及其講訓相資，籤箋互出，因分異轍，各競顓門，施巧智之莫京，致慧心之懸合。宜乎得正信者必開正眼，見正道者必事正修，倒本前因，則以決擇為主。原夫能詮之教喻圖書也，所詮之理喻訓第也，經容緯入，緯變經存，令表顯之名言，從體義之相雜。《唯識》僉推於護法，成即司南；《婆沙》奄有於餘師，說同衍字。良以各迷己見，皆未極成，正不正之說恢張，玄又玄之談崛起。大抵無名相法作名相說，非如色法影質易尋。名、色交加，喜生迷競。又以言存一意，義止一途，隨情取舍之時，未為允當，隨轉理門之處，蓋涉無文。加復教有弛張，意關詳略。討尋者非英明而莫悟，承領者非行位而那知？在人亡書，以教為折中。故論中以四種徵理，理則難隱。一觀待，二作用，三法爾，四證成。用斯道理，義豈惑乎？譬如甲氏背人而去，有二、三子相問曰：「彼去者誰耶？」一云：「乙也」。一云：「丙也」。此俱未是。彼有識人云：「甲也」。迴面視之，是甲非乙。由其不識，遂有多名。識者一呼，應聲而至。親得自體，不涉異緣，故曰「精義無二」也。因義生解，解必虛通，除其執情，令生正解，斷其迷執。執情斷，故所執便遣。既能生解，則斷障。二重斷染，依他清淨，依他圓成，故得二勝果焉。不然者，認相似法，墮惡取空，曳曲木於稠林，泛膠舟於苦海，又不可勝道也。《瑜伽論》中：「契經體有二，一文二義。文是所依，義是能依。如是二種，總名一切所知境界也。」

The treatise says: When profound stillness suspended the texts, the sage looked down and observed. The flows of the Yellow River and the River Luo yielded proclamations; the models of the River Chart and the Luo Writing became the standard. Yu received these tallies and thereby created the warp and the woof: originally sixty-odd characters, systematically arranged into numbered instructions, titled the "Great Plan" to begin the chapters, by which the constant social norms were duly ordered. The laws of emperors and kings are dazzling and magnificent to behold; those families who transmit and elucidate them unanimously venerate this source. Could our Buddha-Dharma be otherwise? The teaching was transmitted from the west, just as the markings on the tortoise and the horse were first discerned; its reputation flourished here, just as the glories of the Xia and Shang dynasties spread abroad. By the time lectures and instructions supplemented one another, and marginal notes and subcommentaries appeared in succession, different paths branched out as a consequence, each contending within its own school. They exercised clever wits beyond compare, bringing their perceptive minds to remote consensus. Rightly so, those who have attained right faith must open the right eye, and those who see the right path must engage in right practice. Tracing from effect back to prior cause, everything pivots upon discriminating discernment. Truly, the teaching that is the expressive medium is likened to the Chart and the Writing; the principle that is the expressed meaning is likened to the numbered instructions. The warp admits the entry of the woof, and while the woof shifts, the warp endures, so that the manifesting names and phrases follow the intermingling of essence and meaning. Regarding the Consciousness-Only doctrine, all defer to Dharmapāla, and his completion of it became the guiding compass; the *Vibhāṣā* was completely annexed by other masters, and their explanations resemble superfluous words. This was truly because each was deluded by his own views, none having reached perfect consensus; teachings whether orthodox or heterodox were widely proclaimed, and discourse upon discourse of the dark and yet darker arose. In general, to speak of phenomena devoid of names and characteristics in terms of names and characteristics is not like seeking the shadows and forms of physical matter, which are easily traced. When name and form intermingle, delusion and contention readily arise. Furthermore, because words contain a single intent and meaning is restricted to a single path, whenever one adopts or discards them according to subjective inclination, it fails to be proper; and where one follows conventional ways of expounding the principles, it often lacks canonical authority. In addition, the teachings have relaxation and tension, and the purport involves elaboration and brevity. Those who investigate, unless possessing exceptional brilliance, will never awaken; those who receive and uphold, unless established in the stages of practice, how could they understand? Men pass away while texts remain; take the teaching as the arbiter. Therefore, in the treatises four kinds of reasoning are used to examine the principle, so that the principle can hardly remain concealed: first, dependence; second, function; third, nature of things; fourth, proof. By applying these lines of reasoning, how could the meaning be confounded? For example, when a person named Jia walks away with his back turned, two or three individuals ask one another: "Who is that person walking away?" One says: "It is Yi." Another says: "It is Bing." Both are incorrect. There is a discerning person who says: "It is Jia." When that person turns his face to look, it is indeed Jia and not Yi. Because they did not recognize him, many names arose. Once the one who knows calls out, he responds to the voice and arrives. Directly attaining the self-nature without involving external conditions, it is therefore said, "The refined meaning is without duality." From the meaning understanding is born, and understanding must be empty and penetrating, removing clinging sentiments to give rise to right understanding, and severing deluded attachments. Clinging sentiments severed, that which was clung to is dispatched. Once able to generate understanding, one severs the obstacles. Double-severing defilements, the other-dependent is purified; with the other-dependent completely perfected, the two supreme fruits are thereby attained. Otherwise, mistaking a semblance of the Dharma, falling into the wicked nihilistic void, dragging crooked wood through a dense forest, or sailing a glued-together boat upon the sea of suffering—[such errors] can never be fully told. In the *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra* it says: "The essence of a sūtra has two aspects: first, the text; second, the meaning. The text is the basis, and the meaning is that which relies upon it. These two together are called the entire realm of the knowable."