集古今佛道論衡 3.32

3.32

勅。令玄奘法師與諸道士對共譯出。於時道士蔡晃成英二人李宗之望。自餘鋒頴三十餘人。並集五通觀。日別參議。詳覈道德。奘乃句句披析。窮其義類得其旨理。方為譯之。諸道士等並引用佛經中百等論。以通玄極。奘曰。佛教道教理致天乖。安用佛理通明道義。如是言議往還累日窮勘。出語濩落的據無從。或誦四諦四果。或誦無得無待。名聲雲涌實質俱虛。奘曰。諸先生何事遊言無可尋究。向說四諦四果道經不明。何因喪本虛談老子。且據四諦一門。門有多義義理難曉。作論辯之。佛教如是不可陷倫。向問四諦但答其名。諦別廣義尋問莫識。如何以此欲相抗乎。道經明道但是一義。又無別論用以通辯。不得引佛義宗用解老子斯理定也。晃遂歸情曰。自昔相傳祖承佛義。所以維摩三論晃素學宗致令吐言命旨無非斯理。且道義玄通洗情為本。在文雖異厥趣攸同。故引解之理例無爽。如僧肇著論。盛引老莊。成誦在心由來不怪。佛言似道如何不思。奘曰。佛教初開深經尚擁。老談玄理微附虛懷。盡照落筌滯而未解。故肇論序致聯類喻之。非謂比擬便同涯極。令佛經正論繁富人謀各有司南兩不諧會。然老之道德文止五千。無論解之。但有群注。自餘千卷事雜符圖。蓋張葛之胥附。非老君之氣叶。又道德兩卷詞旨沈深。漢景重之誠不虛。及至如何晏王弼嚴遵鍾會顧歡蕭繹盧景裕韋處玄之流數十餘家。注解老經。指歸非一。皆推步俗理莫引佛言。如何棄置舊蹤越津釋府。將非探賾過度同夫混沌之竅耶。於是諸徒無言以對。遂即染翰綴文。厥初云道此乃人言。梵云末伽。可以翻度。諸道士等一時舉袂曰。道翻未伽失於古譯。昔稱菩提。此謂為道。未聞末伽以為道也。奘曰。今翻道德。奉　勅不輕。須覈方言。乃名傳旨。菩提言覺末伽言道。唐梵音義確爾難乖。豈得浪翻冐罔天聽。道士成英曰。佛陀言覺。菩提言道。由來盛談道俗同委。今翻末伽。何得非妄。奘曰。傳聞濫真良談匪惑。未達梵言。故存恒習。佛陀天音。唐言覺者。菩提天語。人言為覺。此則人法兩異。聲采全乖。末伽為道。通國齊解。如不見信謂是妄談。請以此語問彼西人。足所行道彼名何物。非末伽者。余是罪人。非唯惘上。當時亦乃取笑天下。自此眾鋒一時潛退。便譯盡文。河上序胤闕而不出。成英曰。老經幽祕聞必具儀。非夫序胤何以開悟。請為翻度惠彼邊戎。奘曰。觀老存身存國之文。文詞具矣。叩齒咽液之序。序實驚人。同巫覡之婬哇。等禽獸之淺術。將恐西聞異國有愧鄉邦。英等不愜其情。以事陳諸朝宰中書馬周曰西域有道如李莊不。答彼土尚道。九十六家。並厭形骸為桎梏。指神我為聖本。莫不淪滯。情有致使不拔我根。故其陶練精靈不能出俗。上極非想終墜無間。至如順俗四大之術。冥初六諦之宗。東夏老莊所未言也。若翻老序彼必以為笑林。奘告忠誠。如何不相體悉。當時中書門下同僚咸然此述。遂不翻之。奘姓陳氏。頴川人也。後葉居於兩河。以慧解馳名。周行嶽瀆承梵學富誓願博求。以貞觀初入關住莊嚴寺。學梵書語。不久並通。上表西行。有司不許。因遂間行遠詣天竺。三年方達。所在王臣高勝無不重之。經十餘年備獲經論旋於京邑。天子降禮賜以優言。貞觀末年敬重尤甚。常處內禁行往畢隨。永徽已來不爽前敬。常以翻譯而為命家。今在北山玉華宮寺。領徒翻經勤注不絕。然其高行不可具陳。別有大傳。廣文如後。

An imperial decree ordered Dharma Master Xuanzang and several Daoist priests to translate it together. At that time, the Daoist priests Cai Huang and Cheng Ying were prominent figures of the Li clan [of Daoists], and alongside them more than thirty other keen minds gathered at the Wutong Abbey. Day after day they conferred, thoroughly examining the *Daodejing*. Xuanzang then analyzed it sentence by sentence, exhausting its conceptual categories and grasping its purport before rendering it into translation. The Daoist priests repeatedly cited Buddhist sūtras and treatises such as the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* and the *Śataśāstra* in order to fathom the profound mystery. Xuanzang said: 'The doctrines of Buddhism and Daoism are as far apart as heaven and earth. How can one use Buddhist principles to elucidate Daoist meanings?' Discussion and debate went back and forth for many days in thorough investigation, yet their words were diffuse and lacked any firm foundation. Some recited the four noble truths and the four fruits [of recluseship], while others recited non-attainment and non-dependence; their fame surged like clouds, but the reality was utterly void. Xuanzang said: 'Gentlemen, why engage in rambling speech that cannot be investigated? You have just spoken of the four noble truths and the four fruits, which are not clarified in the Daoist scriptures. On what grounds do you abandon your own foundation to speak empty words about Laozi? Furthermore, take merely the single gate of the four noble truths: this gate has many meanings, and its principles are difficult to comprehend, which is why treatises were composed to debate it. Buddhism is such that its categories cannot be breached. When asked just now about the four noble truths, you only answered with their names; when questioned on the detailed meanings of each truth, you knew nothing. How can you hope to rival us with this? The Daoist scriptures, when explaining the Dao, have only one single meaning, nor do they have separate treatises to debate and elucidate it. One cannot cite Buddhist doctrinal tenets to interpret Laozi: this principle is settled.' Huang thereupon yielded his true thoughts, saying: 'From of old, the tradition has been handed down from master to disciple inheriting Buddhist ideas. Thus the *Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa* and the Three Treatises have long been the core of my study, which is why whenever I open my mouth to express a meaning, it is never other than these principles. Moreover, the meaning of the Dao is profoundly pervasive and takes the cleansing of passions as its root. Although different in writing, their purports are identical. Hence citing them for interpretation is fundamentally without error. Just as when Sengzhao composed treatises, he abundantly cited Laozi and Zhuangzi, committing them to memory and taking them to heart, and no one ever found it strange. The words of the Buddha resemble the Dao—why will you not consider this?' Xuanzang said: 'When Buddhism first opened, its profound scriptures were still withheld. Laozi spoke of mysterious principles, slightly resembling an empty and receptive mind, but his mirror was exhausted by the fish-trap, remaining obstructed and unenlightened. Therefore, the prefaces and compositions of the Zhao treatises drew analogies between them, not intending that the comparison made them identical in ultimate reach. Now the correct treatises of the Buddhist scriptures are rich and vast; human designs each have their own guiding compass, and the two do not harmonize. Furthermore, Laozi's *Daode* consists of merely five thousand words, with no treatises to explain it, having only various commentaries. The rest of your thousand fascicles are mixed with talismans and diagrams; these were merely appended by Zhang [Daoling] and Ge [Xuan], and do not accord with the spirit of Lord Lao. Moreover, the two scrolls of the *Daode* are profound in diction and intent; Emperor Jing of the Han valued them, which was truly not in vain. Coming down to He Yan, Wang Bi, Yan Zun, Zhong Hui, Gu Huan, Xiao Yi, Lu Jingyu, and Wei Chuxuan, more than several dozen masters have annotated Laozi's scripture, and their ultimate purports are not identical; all of them deduced mundane principles without citing Buddhist words. Why have you abandoned their old traces and crossed over to borrow from the Buddhist mansion? Would this not be investigating the abstruse too excessively, resembling [the drilling of] the orifices of Hundun?' At this, the assembly was speechless and could not reply. They then dipped their brushes and composed the text. At the beginning, the word *dao* [occurred]: this is human speech; in Sanskrit it is *mārga*, which may be translated across. The Daoist priests all raised their sleeves at once and said: 'Translating *dao* as *mārga* departs from ancient translations. Formerly it was called *bodhi*, which was rendered as *dao*. We have never heard of *mārga* being taken as *dao*.' Xuanzang said: 'Now in translating the *Daode*, we have received an imperial decree that is not to be taken lightly; we must verify the regional speech before we can be said to convey the intent. *Bodhi* means awakening; *mārga* means path (dao). The phonetic and semantic distinctions between Tang and Sanskrit are firm and difficult to violate. How could we translate recklessly and deceive the heavenly hearing?' The Daoist priest Cheng Ying said: 'Buddha means awakening, and bodhi means the path (dao). This has long been widely discussed and is known to both monastics and laity. In now translating it as *mārga*, how can it not be false?' Xuanzang said: 'Rumours obscure the truth, but sound discussion is not deluded. Because people had not mastered Sanskrit, they preserved habitual usage. Buddha is the divine sound, which in Tang speech means "awakened one"; bodhi is the divine language, which in human speech means "awakening". Thus person and phenomenon are distinct, and sound and sense are entirely different. That *mārga* is the path (dao) is understood throughout the whole land. If you do not believe me and think this is false talk, please ask those Westerners what word they use to name the path walked by the feet. If it is not *mārga*, then I am a guilty man, not only deceiving His Majesty but also making myself a laughingstock to the whole world.' From this point on, the many sharp intellects all retreated at once, and they translated the text to its end. The preface by Heshang Gong was omitted and not translated. Cheng Ying said: 'Laozi's scripture is abstruse and secret; hearing it requires complete etiquette. Without the preface, how can one attain awakening? Please translate it across to bestow upon those frontier barbarians.' Xuanzang said: 'Looking at Laozi's text on preserving the body and preserving the state, its wording is complete. But the preface about clicking the teeth and swallowing saliva is truly startling; it is like the lewd babble of shamans and equivalent to the shallow arts of beasts. I fear that if it is heard in western foreign lands, it will bring shame upon our homeland.' Ying and the others were displeased. They reported the matter to the court minister, Secretariat Director Ma Zhou, who asked: 'Does the Western Region have a Dao like that of Li [Laozi] and Zhuang [Zhuangzi]?' [Xuanzang] replied: 'That land esteems the Dao; there are ninety-six heterodox schools. All loathe the bodily frame as a fetter and point to the spirit-self (*ātman*) as the sacred root; none are not bogged down in attachment to existence, which prevents them from uprooting the root of the self. Therefore, their refined spirits cannot transcend the mundane world; reaching as high as the heaven of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, they ultimately fall into Avīci. As for their arts of conforming to the mundane four great elements and their doctrines of the primordial obscurity and the six categories, they were never spoken of by Laozi and Zhuangzi in this eastern land. If we translate Laozi's preface, they will surely treat it as a forest of laughter. I speak with utter sincerity—why can you not understand?' At that time, Ma Zhou's colleagues in the Secretariat and the Chancellery all agreed with this explanation, so it was not translated. Xuanzang, surnamed Chen, was a man of Yingchuan. In later generations his family lived between the two rivers. He was renowned for his wisdom and understanding. He travelled through the sacred peaks and rivers, and hearing of the richness of Sanskrit learning, he vowed to seek it broadly. In the beginning of the Zhenguan era, he entered the passes and resided at Zhuangyan Temple, where he studied Sanskrit writing and speech, soon mastering both. He submitted a memorial requesting to travel west, but the officials did not grant permission. Thereupon he traveled by stealth and went far to Tianzhu, taking three years to arrive. Wherever he went, kings, ministers, and eminent men all esteemed him. After more than ten years, having obtained a full complement of sūtras and treatises, he returned to the capital. The Emperor showed him courtesy and bestowed gracious words upon him. In the closing years of Zhenguan, he was held in the highest esteem, frequently remaining within the inner palace and accompanying the Emperor wherever he went. From the Yonghui era onwards, this former respect was not diminished. He made translation his life's vocation. At present, he is at the Yuhua Palace Temple on the Northern Mountain, leading his disciples in translating scriptures and writing commentaries without cease. His lofty conduct cannot be fully recorded here; there is a separate major biography, with detailed text as follows.