Concordance
行由品 — the verse contest (clean-slate rebuild)
Each passage is broken into its natural lines of original Chinese. For every line you can switch which English translation shows — one existing English translation (Hwa Deh Temple, 2016), quoted verbatim. Only one translation exists in this version, so both toggle positions currently show the same text — using the switch at the top.
Two kinds of dotted underline appear under the Chinese, and they mean different things:
And when a character’s pronunciation itself is disputed (異讀), the mark rides on the pinyin instead of the character — the underlined syllable opens the rival readings (e.g. 鵬 as péng or fèng), grounded in the 經典釋文.
釋義 interpretation is the one that’s easy to mistake for a wording dispute: the character isn’t in doubt, only its sense — so it is not rival wording, and never gets the red mark. (Separately, where our translations diverge, a “Why they differ” button opens the anatomy and lets the Chinese commentary settle it; “註疏 commentary” opens the 4th–7th c. Chinese explanation of the line, and “據 grounding” shows which vetted authority backs each of our own choices — so the page shows its receipts.)
This text survives in more than one recension — different historical editions that genuinely diverge, not just in wording but in which whole passages they contain. Section headers carry a badge (≡ present in both / ⊘ absent from witness, etc.) showing how that passage fares in the other recension; where a counterpart exists, a “compare” button opens it alongside. This is a different, coarser axis than the 異文/釋文 marks above — those mark disputes over one character, this marks whether a whole episode is even present.