What This Concept Is About
Literal breakdown: 「依」 (yī) means to rely upon, to take as one's basis; 「经」 (jīng) means scriptural texts (not just one particular sūtra, but the entire body of sacred teachings recognized by Buddhism); 「解」 (jiě) means to explain, to elucidate; 「义」 (yì) means meaning, principle, doctrine. The four characters 「依经解义」 describe a methodology of interpretation (hermeneutics) — when faced with a piece of Buddhist doctrine, one does not speak from personal intuition, contemporary buzzwords, or momentary emotion, but first returns to the original textual context of the scriptures, drawing out the principle from the words confirmed by the Buddha and the patriarchs.
But in the context of Chinese Buddhism, 「依经解义」 is not as simple as "consulting the scriptures." It has at least four layers that must be unfolded.
One: What Is 「经」 (the Scriptures)?
「经」 here does not narrowly mean "one particular sentence from one particular sūtra," but rather the entire authoritative source of sacred teaching (śāsana). In the Chinese Buddhist tradition, it includes at least:
- 經藏 (sūtra-piṭaka, the scriptural collection): The Buddha's teachings given on various occasions (from the *Āgamas* to the *Prajñāpāramitā* sūtras, from the *Ratnakūṭa* to the *Lotus Sūtra* and the *Avataṃsaka Sūtra*). - 律藏 (vinaya-piṭaka, the disciplinary collection): The rules for saṅgha functioning and personal practice. - 論藏 (abhidharma-piṭaka, the scholastic collection): The profound elucidations of the Dharma by bodhisattvas and śrāvaka disciples (e.g., the *Abhidharmakośa*, *Cheng Weishi Lun* (*Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi-śāstra*), *Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra* (T1509), *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra*, etc.). - Patriarchal commentaries and recorded sayings: In the Chinese tradition, the developments of scriptural meaning by patriarchs such as Dao'an, Sengzhao, Zhiyi (Tiantai), Jizang, Dushun, Fazang, Kuiji, Yongjia Xuanjue, Xuanzang, Hanshan Deqing, and Ouyi Zhixu constitute authoritative secondary literature when "relying on the scriptures." - Positioning within the doctrinal classification framework (pànjiào, 判教): The Tiantai school's Five Periods and Eight Teachings, the Huayan school's Five Teachings and Ten Doctrines, and the Yogācāra school's Three Turnings of the Wheel all provide, for "relying on the scriptures," a map of "what position this sūtra occupies within this doctrinal system."
To "rely on the scriptures" means relying on this entire system of texts and interpretations validated by the tradition — not picking out a single sentence by personal preference and claiming it to be the Buddha's intent.
Two: 「解」 (Interpretation) Is Not Arbitrary Interpretation
「解」 is not what we today call "interpretation" — anyone can interpret. In traditional Buddhism, "explaining the scriptures" (解經) is an activity with method, with stages, and with lineage, and must at minimum satisfy the following conditions:
- 隨文入觀 (following the text into contemplation): Understanding along the textual thread of the sūtra, without detaching from its context. - 依教奉持 (respecting the doctrinal hierarchy of the teaching): Honoring the levels of meaning within the scripture itself — which are skillful means (provisional, 不了義, *neyārtha*) and which are ultimate (definitive, 了義, *nītārtha*). This requires the discernment of doctrinal classification. The traditional *Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra* (T1509) states explicitly: "Within the Buddha's Dharma there are two kinds of meaning: definitive meaning and provisional meaning." To read the scriptures without understanding this distinction is to mistake expedient teachings for ultimate ones. - 傳承印可 (confirmation within the tradition): The meaning derived from interpretation must find resonance in the commentaries and recorded sayings of the patriarchs — it cannot be a solitary invention.
The ancients often said: 「依文解義，三世佛冤；離經一字，允同魔說」 — "Interpreting the meaning by clinging to the letter betrays the Buddhas of the three times; departing from the scriptures by even one character is tantamount to demonic speech." Reading the surface of the sūtra may kill a living meaning; but completely leaving the scriptures to speak on one's own falls into heretical views. What 「依经解义」 requires is the middle path: faithful to the text, but not bound by the letter; applying the meaning flexibly, but never departing from the text.
Three: At What Level Does 「义」 (Meaning) Operate?
「义」 has at least two levels:
- 文義 (the literal meaning, the phenomenal referents on the surface of the text): What the words of the sūtra express as phenomenal facts — e.g., what the five aggregates (五蘊, *pañcaskandha*), the twelve sense-fields (十二處, *dvādaśāyatana*), the four noble truths (四諦, *catvāri āryasatyāni*), and the eightfold path (八正道, *āryāṣṭāṅgika-mārga*) are. - 深義 (the profound meaning, the ultimate referent): The state of liberation that the words point toward — e.g., what the "emptiness" (空, *śūnyatā*) in "the five aggregates are all empty" is; what the "permanence" in "permanent, non-self" is; how the "non-abiding" in "should give rise to a mind that does not abide in anything" (應無所住而生其心) is to be actualized in daily life.
「依经解义」 does not stop at the literal meaning; it must move from the literal to the profound — and this requires the contemplation of prajñā (般若, wisdom), not mere philosophical analysis. But this contemplation itself still takes the scriptures as its signposts.
Four: Its Place Within the Entire Path of Liberation
The Buddhist path of liberation follows the sequence of "hearing — reflecting — cultivating — realizing" (聞思修證). Strictly speaking, 「依经解义」 corresponds to the "hearing and reflecting" stage; it is the preparation for "cultivation and realization."
- **聞 (hearing, *śruta*): Hearing the true Dharma. Hearing what? Hearing the Dharma that has been transmitted through "interpreting meaning in accordance with the scriptures" — not hearing personal inventions. - 思 (reflection, *cintā*): Reflecting in accordance with reality. Reflecting on what? On the meaning spoken by the scriptures. - 修 (cultivation, *bhāvanā*): Practicing in accordance with the meaning. - 證 (realization, *adhigama*)**: Personally realizing the meaning that has been understood.
Within these four stages, 「依经解义」 is the foundation — if the first two steps are not solid, later practice easily falls into quasi-Buddhism (*similar Dharma*, 相似佛法), heretical forms of meditation, or personal delusions. When Zhiyi (智者大師) explained the title of the *Lotus Sūtra* in his *Fahua Xuanyi* (*The Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sūtra*), he set forth the "fivefold profound meaning" (五重玄義): (1) explaining the name, (2) identifying the essence, (3) clarifying the principle, (4) discussing the function, and (5) classifying the teaching. This entire method is itself a mature paradigm of 「依经解义」 — an explanation of any concept must be aligned across these five levels before its meaning can be considered complete.
It is worth stating explicitly: 「依经解义」 is not the exclusive preserve of scholars; it is the basic discipline of every practitioner. Even the Chán patriarchs who spoke of "not establishing words and letters" (不立文字) — Yongjia Xuanjue, in his *Zhèngdào Gē* (*Song of Enlightenment*), still said, "The principle is penetrated, the explanation is penetrated; concentration and wisdom are perfectly clear, not stagnant in emptiness." Linji Yixuan cited the *Diamond Sūtra*, the *Vimalakīrti Sūtra*, and the *Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra* as his authority; Huangbo Xiyun's teachings flow from the *Śūraṅgama Sūtra* and the *Prajñāpāramitā* corpus. What Chán opposes is not "relying on the scriptures," but "clinging to words while discarding meaning" (執文廢義) — treating the scriptural text as a dead authority without allowing it to lead to a living mind.
Furthermore, in the *Lotus Sūtra*, the "Chapter on the Dharma Teacher" (*法師品*) describes five kinds of dharma-teacher practice for bodhisattvas; one of them is "relying on the scriptures and expounding them for others" (依於經典，為人演說). This means that 「依经解义」 is itself positioned as a bodhisattva practice — not merely an academic exercise.
A Walkthrough in Daily Life
Let us bring 「依经解义」 out of the study and onto the commute, the family dinner table, and late-night social media, and see how it walks through various situations.
Scenario One: Scrolling Past a "Buddhist-Style Phrase"
You scroll past a post on social media that says: "The Buddha said, you do not need to cultivate. You only need to believe, and you will be liberated."
Here, 「依经解义」 requires you to ask three things:
1. Source: Which sūtra does this sentence come from? Which chapter? Which passage? On what occasion, and to what kind of person, did the Buddha say this? 2. Context: Is this a skillful means spoken by the Buddha to beings of dull faculties, or an ultimate teaching for those of sharp faculties? 3. How did the patriarchs comment on it?: Is there any commentary discussing the doctrinal level of this passage?
When you walk through this, you will find that most such phrases have no source at all, or the source has been severely distorted. For instance, the character 「信」 (faith, *śraddhā*) has a very finely differentiated structure in the scriptures and treatises (e.g., the *Awakening of Faith in the Mahāyāna* (*Dasheng Qixin Lun*), the *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra*, and the ten stages of faith (十信)) — it is by no means covered by the contemporary word "belief."
The result of the walkthrough: you may discover that this phrase is a contemporary "chicken-soup-for-the-soul" packaging, grounded in no doctrinal framework of any sūtra. 「依经解义」 prevents you from being persuaded by this kind of "counterfeit scripture."
The most common point of mis-mapping for the public: taking the two characters 「佛說」 ("the Buddha said") as authority in themselves, without asking "in which sūtra, in response to what question, and what exactly did the Buddha say." Authority resides in the specific context of the scriptural passage — not in the label "the Buddha said."
Scenario Two: A Friend Recommends a "Meditation Method"
Your friend enthusiastically says: "My teacher taught me that when sitting in meditation, you should think of nothing at all — don't even pay attention to your breath, just let your mind go blank."
The walkthrough with 「依经解义」:
- The "letting go blank" in the four dhyānas and eight attainments (四禪八定): What the treatises (the *Visuddhimagga* (*Qingjing Daolun*), the *Abhidharmakośa* (*Jushe Lun*), and the *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra*) describe as "letting go blank" is actually structured with extremely fine gradations — from the first dhyāna's "joy born of separation," the second dhyāna's "joy born of concentration," to the fourth dhyāna's "purity of equanimity and mindfulness," and then to the attainment of non-perception (*asaṃjñi-samāpatti*, 無想定) and the attainment of cessation (*nirodha-samāpatti*, 滅盡定) — each stage has specific descriptions of its state and methods for entering and leaving. - The place of "thinking of nothing" in the scriptures: This most closely resembles either the heretical attainment of non-perception (which non-Buddhists mistake for nirvāṇa) or the attainment of cessation (which the Buddha called a concentration, not liberation through wisdom). Neither is the ultimate state of prajñā. - The warning of the patriarchs: Yongjia Xuanjue's *Song of Enlightenment* says, "Damaging the wealth of Dharma, extinguishing merit — none of this is apart from this mind, intellect, and consciousness" (損法財，滅功德，莫不由此心意識) — reminding us not to mistake "no-mind" for the ultimate.
After the walkthrough, you will find that this "method" mistakes the level of concentration (the no-mind) for the level of wisdom (non-attainment). 「依经解义」 allows you to gently but clearly point out: "This method may help with relaxation, but from the standpoint of scriptural doctrine, this is not the path of liberation."
The most common point of mis-mapping for the public: equating "becoming still" and "letting go blank" with "enlightenment" or "liberation." The scriptures clearly distinguish śamatha (止, calm abiding) from vipaśyanā (觀, insight) — both are indispensable and cannot replace each other.
Scenario Three: Facing Your Own Pain, Wanting to Find a Scriptural Passage to Comfort Yourself
After a breakup, the death of a family member, or a failure at work, many people will turn to the *Diamond Sūtra* or the *Heart Sūtra*. This act itself is 「依经解义」 — you are not fabricating comfort out of thin air, but returning to words the Buddha himself spoke to find your ground.
But here, it is easy to go astray:
- Common deviation A: Seizing the line 「一切有為法，如夢幻泡影」 ("All conditioned dharmas are like dreams, illusions, bubbles, shadows" — the gāthā in the fourth section of the *Diamond Sūtra*) and taking it to mean "everything is unreal, so my pain is also unreal." But in the *Diamond Sūtra*, this line is spoken *after* the question "how should one subdue the mind?" Its premise is the contemplative vision of prajñā — not a cognitive-level "denial." Grabbing the literal words and turning it into "persuading yourself that the pain does not exist" is actually avoidance — this is mistaking the phenomenon of karmic experience for the object of prajñā and negating it. This is a confusion of levels.
- Common deviation B: Seizing the line 「應無所住而生其心」 ("One should give rise to a mind that does not abide anywhere" — tenth section of the *Diamond Sūtra*) and understanding it as "I should be emotionally numb to everything." But "non-abiding" is a state of prajñā contemplation — it is not numbness — it is "knowing all phenomena without being stuck on any of them," not "not investing in anything." The *Diamond Sūtra* itself says in the same section: 「汝等比丘，知我說法，如筏喻者，法尚應捨，何況非法」 ("O monks, know that my teaching is like a raft — even the Dharma should be abandoned, how much more so what is not the Dharma"). Here "abandoning" (*捨*) means non-clinging — not non-engagement.
The role of 「依经解义」 here is to keep you from turning the scriptures into spiritual opium, and instead into a mirror: you bring your real pain to compare against it, and you see whether what the scriptures call "emptiness" is actually speaking of your suffering — or whether it is merely wordplay.
The most common point of mis-mapping for the public: thinking that "emptiness" (空) means "non-existence," so that pain can be eliminated by "recognizing that it does not exist." But the "emptiness" of the scriptures is dependent origination, illusion-like (緣起如幻) — phenomena are continuously arising and ceasing. It is not asking you to negate phenomena, but to stop being hijacked by them.
Scenario Four: Explaining to Family Members That "Buddhism Is Not Superstition"
A family member asks you: "You study Buddhism — do you believe in karma and rebirth? Isn't that superstition?"
Here, 「依经解义」 can guide you:
- You do not need to quote specific sūtra passages (your family member may not be interested in hearing them anyway). - But you can say: "The Buddhist teaching on karma is not 'fate determinism'; it is the principle of dependent origination (緣起法) — this is the Buddha's observation of the laws by which the world operates, just as science observes the laws of nature. It is verifiable and repeatable (from the standpoint of observing causes and conditions over long spans of time)." - Then add: "This is not something I am asking you to believe on faith. The scriptures (the *Saṃyuktāgama*, the *Abhidharmakośa*, the *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra*) contain a complete, systematic exposition — we can look at them together."
The role of 「依经解义」 here is to keep you from being trapped in the position of "you can only believe, you cannot explain," and instead places you in a position where you can articulate the doctrine and invite dialogue.
The most common point of mis-mapping for the public: treating "believing what the Buddha said" as "no thinking required." In fact, the Buddhist notion of "faith" (信) has many levels. Zhiyi (智者大師) divided it into "faith arising from encountering specific events" (隨事生信) and "deep faith with understanding and confirmation" (深信解了) — the former is preliminary belief, the latter is confirmation after understanding. 「依经解义」 is precisely the bridge that moves you from the former to the latter.
Why Contemporary People Need It
One: The "Plausible but False" in the Flood of Information
We live in an era of "everyone can preach the Dharma." On any Buddhist-related account on social media, you will see dozens of "the Buddha said," "Zen sayings," and "Dharma talks" every day — how many of them actually come from the scriptures? How many are personal reflections packaged as "the Buddha said"? How many are commercialized spiritual products?
「依经解义」 is a minimal-standard sieve: when you see a claim, first ask "does it have a scriptural basis," rather than being directly conscripted by the three characters "佛說" ("the Buddha said"). This is not conservatism; it is the way to maintain basic judgment in a chaotic information environment.
Especially today, when artificial intelligence can rapidly generate text that "looks like Buddhist scripture," this sieve becomes increasingly important. AI will not deceive you — but it can generate text that "sounds like a Chán exchange" without any actual scriptural basis. Without the literacy of 「依经解义」, such texts can easily circulate as genuine Dharma.
Two: A Stable Foundation for Practice
One of the greatest risks for contemporary Buddhist practitioners is "practicing for a lifetime and discovering that what one practiced was plausible but false."
A few common cases of deviation:
- Someone understands "letting go" (*放下*) as "abandoning" — abandoning family affection, abandoning responsibility, abandoning career, believing this is what Buddhist practice means. In the scriptures, "letting go" means letting go of clinging — not letting go of responsibility. These two are worlds apart. - Someone understands "non-self" (*無我*) as "I do not exist" — which is actually a deeper form of attachment to self (clinging to the idea that "the self has been destroyed"). The "non-self" in the scriptures (the *Saṃyuktāgama*, the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā*) is: upon observing the five aggregates, no substantial "self" can be found — but the dependent-origination functioning of the aggregates continues. - Someone understands "non-attachment" (*不執著*) as "not striving" — the result is drift and passivity, not diligence. The scriptural "non-attachment" means striving without being bound by the results of striving — not not striving at all.
Without the groundwork of 「依经解义」, these concepts will be deformed in each person's own understanding, eventually producing a personalized version of Buddhism — perhaps outwardly pious, but internally no longer the path of liberation spoken by the Buddha.
Three: Countering the Trap of "Absolutizing Personal Experience"
Contemporary culture emphasizes "personal feeling" — any feeling is considered subjectively real. But in Buddhism, personal feeling (self-verification, 自證分) is not the highest standard — the highest standards are the "teaching of the Tathāgata" (*śāsana-pramāṇa*, 教證分) and the "thusness of the nature of phenomena" (*tattva-pramāṇa*, 理證分).
「依经解义」 reminds us: even if you feel during meditation that "everything has disappeared," "I am one with the universe," "I am enlightened" — all of this must be examined against the doctrinal meaning of the scriptures. In history, there have been many who claimed enlightenment and were in fact mistaken; their experiences do not become truth simply because "I felt it."
This is not a denial of personal experience, but a reasonable constraint on personal experience — which is especially needed in a contemporary culture of "self-centering."
A contemporary analogy can be offered (but not exaggerated into equivalence): contemporary neuroscience has also observed that the brain, under certain states (deep meditation, temporal lobe epilepsy, near-death experiences), produces subjective feelings of "unity with the universe" or "dissolution of the self." Neuroscientists would remind us: subjective feeling is not objective fact. This self-constraint within science shares a structural affinity with Buddhism's constraint of personal experience through 「依经解义」 — but this is only a structural analogy. Buddhism's standard of "truth" is far deeper and broader than that of neuroscience (involving liberation, buddhahood, and other categories that transcend subjective feeling), and the two cannot be equated.
Four: A Basis for Dialogue Between Groups
When different Buddhist traditions or different Buddhist communities engage in dialogue, 「依经解义」 provides a common language. You can say "in the *Lotus Sūtra*, chapter X, section Y, the Buddha said such-and-such," and both parties can discuss on the basis of the same text; if you only say "I think Buddhism is like this," the dialogue cannot advance.
This is a necessary methodological literacy for dialogue among contemporary Buddhists, and between Buddhism and other religious or philosophical traditions.
Common Misreadings and Clarifications
Misreading One: "「依经解义」 Means 'Dead Reading of the Scriptures, Ignoring Practice'"
Clarification: 「依经解义」 has never opposed actual practice; it opposes blind practice without a doctrinal foundation. Even the Chán patriarchs, while "not establishing words and letters," never said "you do not need to understand the scriptures." Huangbo Xiyun, when teaching Linji, cited the *Śūraṅgama Sūtra*, the *Diamond Sūtra*, and the *Vimalakīrti Sūtra*; Yongjia Xuanjue cited the *Vimalakīrti Sūtra* and the *Awakening of Faith*; Dongshan Liangjie entered enlightenment through the *Lotus Sūtra*; and even the phrase "not establishing words and letters, a separate transmission outside the teachings" — the standard summary of Chán — is itself words.
In fact, 「依经解义」 makes the starting point of practice clear — you are cultivating the Buddhist path of liberation, not some personalized version of spiritual exploration. If practice has no doctrinal root, it is like an expedition without a map — you may be very diligent, but the direction is uncertain.
Misreading Two: "「依经解義」 = Every Word and Every Sentence Must Be Taken Literally"
Clarification: This narrows "relying on the scriptures" into "clinging to the letter." Buddhism itself has always acknowledged that "above the literal meaning there is a deeper meaning" —
- The scriptures explicitly distinguish ultimate definitive meaning (*paramārtha-nītārtha*, 勝義了義) from conventional provisional meaning (*saṃvṛti-neyārtha*, 世俗不了義). According to the tradition, texts such as the "Chapter on the Nature of No Self-Nature" (*無自性相品*) of the *Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra* (*Jie Shenmi Jing*) set forth this hermeneutical principle: dharmas that are unborn, unceasing, primordially calm, and naturally nirvāṇic are of ultimate definitive meaning; dharmas taught as the various afflictions and defilements, set forth for the purpose of taming beings, are of conventional provisional meaning. - Tiantai master Zhiyi's "fivefold profound meaning" is itself a complete method for moving from the literal into the profound. - The Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra also explicitly discusses the distinction between definitive and provisional meaning.
Understanding "relying on the scriptures" as literal transcription reduces a methodology to formalism — precisely committing the error the ancients criticized: "interpreting the meaning by clinging to the letter betrays the Buddhas of the three times."
Misreading Three: "I Have Experienced It Myself — I Do Not Need the Scriptures to Tell Me"
Clarification: This is the absolutization of personal experience, which traditional Buddhism calls the trap of "taking self-verification as ultimate" (以自證分為究竟) — potentially approaching the blind spot of non-Buddhist practitioners.
Buddhism never denies self-verification (*svasaṃvedana*), but it never treats self-verification as the highest standard. In the three-aspect framework of the *Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra* (the aspect of phenomenal characteristics, the aspect of phenomenal nature, and the aspect of phenomenal function), self-verification (inner realization) is only one kind of "sphere of practice" (*gocara*), and it must be mutually confirmed with the "teaching" (the scriptural words) and the "principle" (the nature of things).
The Chán patriarchs emphasized "not establishing words and letters," but they never said "words are not needed" — Linji's "one phrase that follows the circumstances and reveals the substance" is itself words; Zhaozhou Congshen's "go drink some tea" (吃茶去) is a *gōng'àn* (kōan) that arises from the doctrinal meaning of "non-abiding" in the *Diamond Sūtra*; every patriarch of the Five Houses and Seven Schools has a scriptural lineage on which he relies.
True Buddhist practice has never been an opposition of "me vs. the scriptures," but rather: with the scriptures as the mirror, with self-verification as the water — water and mirror illuminating each other.
Misreading Four: "「依經解義」 Means Reading Only One Sūtra"
Clarification: The "reliance on the scriptures" in Chinese Buddhism has never been the exclusive veneration of a single text. When Zhiyi classified the teachings, he acknowledged that the Buddha spoke different teachings at different times; Kuiji's *Commentary on the Cheng Weishi Lun* (*Cheng Weishi Lun Shuji*) extensively cites the *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra*, the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* (*She Dasheng Lun*), the *Madhyāntavibhāga* (*Bian Zhongbian Lun*), and many other treatises; Yongming Yanshou's *Zongjing Lu* (*Records of the Mirror of the Source*) cites over a hundred sūtras and śāstras, attempting to harmonize the various schools.
True "interpreting meaning in accordance with the scriptures" is "interpreting in accordance with the entire system of Buddhist sūtras and śāstras" — not in accordance with one passage from one particular sūtra. If a person takes a single line from the *Diamond Sūtra* or the *Heart Sūtra* to explain everything in Buddhism, that is "interpreting meaning in accordance with a fragment" — not 「依经解義」.
Misreading Five: "「依經解義」 Is Academic, Not Practice"
Clarification: This is a common split between the modern academic world and the practice world. In the ancient tradition, "understanding" (解) and "practice" (行) were never separated — Zhiyi was both the author of the *Fahua Xuanyi* and the practitioner of the *Móhē Zhǐguān* (*Great Calming and Contemplation*); Ouyi Zhixu was both a commentator on the *Śūraṅgama Sūtra* and a practitioner of the Pure Land; Hanshan Deqing was both a commentator on the *Avataṃsaka Sūtra* and a guide of the Chán hall; Yongming Yanshou was both the compiler of the *Zongjing Lu* and a practitioner of "ten thousand good deeds returning to the same goal."
「依经解義」 is itself a part of practice — it corresponds to "hearing and reflection," and hearing and reflection are indispensable in the sequence of "hearing, reflection, cultivation, realization." If someone claims "I do not study the scriptures, I only sit in meditation," this very "not studying" may itself be a form of biased attachment — and this bias can be examined in the scriptures. The scriptures say that liberation comes from the three kinds of wisdom — hearing, reflection, and cultivation (聞思修三慧). These three wisdoms are to be cultivated together; none may be neglected.
Misreading Six: "「依經解義」 = Suppressing Personal Realization with Scriptural Authority"
Clarification: This misreads "relying on the scriptures" as "authoritarian suppression." In fact, relying on the scriptures is precisely what protects the practitioner:
- It protects you from being misled by "counterfeit patriarchs" — in history, there have indeed been people who claimed the status of patriarch and taught deviantly; the scriptures are the yardstick against which their claims are measured. - It protects you from being misled by your own "wrong views" — when a person is in certain mental states (extreme fatigue, emotional agitation, psychological crisis), they may produce "self-justifying" insights; relying on the scriptures can gently pull such insights back onto the normal track of doctrinal meaning. - It protects you from being hijacked by "authority worship" — what one relies on is the scriptures themselves, not "the present master" as an individual. A true practitioner of 「依经解義」 will examine any teacher's claims against the scriptures — this is, in fact, the most critical attitude of all.
Conclusion: Returning Authority to the Scriptures and the Tradition
The four characters 「依经解義」, in the contemporary ear, most easily sound like "the dogma of the bookworm." But what it truly says is one thing:
Your liberation is not your personal invention.
The Buddha, the bodhisattvas, and the patriarchs, over a transmission of 2,500 years, have taken the path of liberation to its ultimate expression and then turned back to record the path. This record is not meant to restrict you; it is meant to help you not waste time on roads already proven to be dead ends.
The most common error of contemporary Buddhist practitioners is treating "personal realization" as the highest standard — a misconception that is especially seductive in the individualistic culture of our time. 「依经解義」 gently reminds us:
- Your realization must be able to be examined within the context of the entire Buddhist path of liberation. - Your interpretation of a scriptural passage must be able to be cross-referenced with the interpretations of other transmitters of the tradition. - Your understanding of "emptiness," "non-self," and "enlightenment" must be able to be aligned back to the original texts.
This is not bondage. This is a relay race — the runners ahead have already passed the baton to this point. You are one of those receiving the baton, not the inventor of the starting line.
May you, before every time you think "I feel Buddhism is like this," gently ask yourself: "What is the scriptural basis for this claim? What is its context? What did the patriarchs say?" — ask these three questions, and you will discover that 「依经解義」 is not a restriction, but true freedom — not relying on the biases of the small self, but relying on the wisdom of the entire lineage of awakening.