[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) › [翻譯名義集](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131) › 4.30 # 翻譯名義集 4.30 翻譯名義集 4.30 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.30](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131.4.30) 【修跋挐】（此言金）【婆頗婆】（此言光）【欝多摩】此言明。天台言法性之法，可尊可貴，名法性為金。此法性寂而常照，名為光。此法性大悲，能多利益，名為明。此三字題，《玄義》別釋，乃立五科。文雖明著，人自固迷，或言從法而立號，或曰單譬以為題，或文義以兩存，欲利鈍而䨥濟。宮商各奏，丹素競舒，既惑異端，孰能一貫。余因臨講，遂輒議之。觀此題之旨也，依文正意，唯在於法；就名旁通，乃該於喻。所謂佛入禪那，妙契原寂，遂唱真號，以赴利機。欲令安住於其中，故從當體而立稱。是以依文唯在於法，雖義推譬喻，無有一文。而名通世象，似與喻同，無妨鈍根而作譬解。是故就名旁通於喻，雖利鈍兼攝，法喻咸通，佛元意故，文之旨故，七種立題，當單法也。問：「《搜玄錄》據《玄義》云：『若利根人，即法作譬。』既云作譬，豈是單法？此之一難，詎可通乎？」答曰：「根鈍者，以金光明為物象之號；根利者，以金光明是法性之名。此則即用顯體，金寶是真如，乃知全性成相；真如為金寶，故云即法作譬。既解即法作譬，則了全事是理，所以利人不假譬喻。故《妙玄》曰：『利根即名解理，不假譬喻。』但作法華而解，茲意幽深，逐語奚曉。」問：「邇來匠者，解此經題，分文義之二途，定法喻之兩向。人既僉允，獨何不從？」答：「文是能顯，義是所詮。能詮之文，必召所詮之義；所詮之義，必應能詮之文。今若抗分，則成水火；余不用者，由過在斯。」問：「先達立隨機之義，以伸此題，待人問云：『法耶？喻耶？』乃應之曰：『為問利根？為問鈍根？若問利根，即是單法；若問鈍根，即是單譬。』此義通方，何藉重釋？」答：「隨機雖爾，其如佛唱此名，為依法立？為作喻陳？是則祇圖答問縱橫，不顧釋名淆混。」問：「四明《記》文，據經定題，言從法立；及乎釋義，云被二根。淨覺謂自語相違，前後矛楯，未知此斥，義實然乎？」答曰：「此不可也。何哉？言從法立者，依文之正意也；云被二根者，就名之旁通也。祇由題旨含蘊，遂致釋義通方。其有瑕者，但不合云順古作譬。不知其喻，出自題名，由是輒伸管見，粗述大綱。欲以塵霧之微，少益山海之廣。遂附此集，流布四方，冀觀覽者，塞世情焉。」 > \[Suvaṇṇa\] (this means "gold"); \[prabhāsa\] (this means "light"); \[uttama\] (this means "splendour"). Tiantai states that the Dharma of dharmatā is venerable and noble, hence dharmatā is called "gold". This dharmatā is quiescent yet ever luminous, hence it is called "light". This dharmatā possesses great compassion and can bring vast benefit, hence it is called "splendour". When the Xuanyi separately explained the title formed by these three words, it established five headings. Although the text is clear and distinct, people have remained stubbornly confused: some say the title was established from the Dharma, some say it is purely a metaphor, and some say that both text and meaning are preserved, intending to deliver equally both the sharp and the dull. The musical notes are played separately, and vermilion and white are displayed in rivalry; bewildered by disparate doctrines, who can grasp the single unity? When called upon to lecture, I therefore ventured to discuss it. Examining the purport of this title: according to the primary intent of the text, it resides solely in the Dharma; extending by association to the name, it encompasses the metaphor. That is to say, the Buddha entered dhyāna, wondrously tallying with primal quiescence, and then pronounced the true name to respond to sharp faculties. Wishing to have them abide peacefully within it, he established the designation from the essence itself. Therefore, according to the text, it resides solely in the Dharma; although by inferring the meaning it is a metaphor, no text explicitly says so. Yet because the name is shared with worldly phenomena, it seems identical to a metaphor, so there is no harm in those of dull faculties taking it as an explanation through metaphor. Hence, extending by association from the name, it applies to the metaphor: although it embraces both the sharp and dull, and Dharma and metaphor both communicate, by the Buddha's original intent and the purport of the text, among the seven ways of establishing titles, it should be categorized as purely Dharma. Question: "The Souxuan lu, relying on the Xuanyi, says: 'If it is a person of sharp faculties, they take the Dharma as a metaphor.' Since it says 'take as a metaphor', how could it be purely Dharma? How can this single objection be resolved?" Answer: "Those of dull faculties consider 'Golden Light' to be the name of a material object; those of sharp faculties consider 'Golden Light' to be the name of dharmatā. This is to manifest the essence through the function: the golden jewel is true suchness, and so one knows that the entirety of the nature forms the marks; true suchness is the golden jewel, hence it is said to 'take the Dharma as a metaphor'. Once one understands taking the Dharma as a metaphor, one realizes that the entirety of phenomena is principle; therefore, persons of sharp faculties do not rely on metaphors. Hence the Miaoxuan says: 'Those of sharp faculties understand principle directly from the name, without relying on metaphors.' Understanding it merely as the Lotus of the Dharma, this meaning is profound; how could it be understood by clinging to the words?" Question: "Masters of recent times, in explaining this sūtra's title, divide the two paths of text and meaning, determining the two directions of Dharma and metaphor. Since everyone agrees, why alone do you not follow it?" Answer: "The text is that which reveals, and the meaning is that which is expressed. The expressing text must summon the expressed meaning; the expressed meaning must correspond to the expressing text. If one now sets them in opposition, they become like fire and water; that I do not adopt it is because the fault lies precisely here." Question: "Predecessors established the principle of according with faculties to expound this title, waiting for someone to ask: 'Is it Dharma? Or is it metaphor?' Then they would reply: 'Are you asking for sharp faculties or dull faculties? If asking for sharp faculties, it is purely Dharma; if asking for dull faculties, it is purely a metaphor.' This meaning is universally applicable; why is there any need for a re-explanation?" Answer: "Although it accords with faculties in this way, what of the Buddha's pronouncing this name—was it established according to Dharma, or was it set forth as a metaphor? Doing this only seeks versatility in answering questions, heedless of the confusion in explaining the name." Question: "The Siming commentary, determining the title on the basis of the sūtra, says it is established from Dharma; but when explaining the meaning, it says it addresses both faculties. Jingjue called this a self-contradiction, inconsistent from beginning to end. Is this criticism really well-founded?" Answer: "This is not acceptable. Why? Saying it is established from Dharma is the primary intent according to the text; saying it addresses both faculties is the extended sense according to the name. It is simply because the title's purport is so comprehensive that the explanation of the meaning became universally applicable. Where there is a flaw is only in improperly saying that one follows the old tradition in taking it as a metaphor, without knowing that the metaphor arises from the title's name. For this reason I have ventured to express my humble view, roughly setting out the broad outline. Wishing to use the minuteness of dust and mist to add a little to the vastness of mountains and oceans, I have appended it to this collection to circulate in the four directions, hoping that those who read it will bring an end to worldly sentiment." > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.29](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131.4.29) - [Next: 4.31](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131.4.31) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131~en-mt.4.30) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131.4.30](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131.4.30) · Pramāṇa