法華玄義釋籤 3.37

3.37

料簡中二問答。初問可知。由前文云並是三乘所證之法，以自利利他俱有默故，故須問起。答中具出四悉，「脇比丘對破馬鳴」者，相傳釋云：「馬鳴未有大信之時來至脇比丘所，自立宗云：有言者屈，斬首以謝。比丘便默。馬鳴久久乃至云：比丘於我有屈，故默不言。比丘猶默。於是馬鳴便出其門，自思惟曰：本我立默，彼竟不言，而我有言乃成我屈。却至比丘所求自斬首。比丘曰：我法仁慈不斬汝首，汝當剃髮為我弟子。」若準《付法藏傳》，脇比丘法付富那奢，奢論勝馬鳴剃髮為弟子。馬鳴初於閑林之中自思惟言：智慧殊絕有難能通。計實有我，甚自貢高來至奢所。奢言：諸法無我。馬鳴言：所有言論我皆能破，此言若虛要當斬首。奢言：佛法之中凡有二諦，世諦有我，第一義諦無我。鳴猶未伏。奢云：汝諦思惟，無出虛言，定為誰勝？鳴思惟二諦然後乃伏，欲自斬首。奢令剃髮以為弟子。若準傳意，但以二諦破非默破也。若《婆沙》中云：「曾聞有大論師，名奢提羅，至罽賓國。於時佛跡林中有阿羅漢，名婆夷秀羅，具足三明，通達三藏。時奢提羅聞彼林中有大論師，即往其所，到已慰問在一面坐。時奢提羅語尊者曰：誰先立論？答：我是舊應先立論。奢提羅言：一切論有報。時婆夷秀羅默然而坐。婆夷秀羅諸弟子輩唱言：汝師若是奢提羅者自當知。從林起去展轉前行。其師作是思惟：沙門釋子何故作是言，汝師若是奢提羅者自當知。即便自憶我作是言，一切論有報。彼沙門默然，便是我論無報，沙門已勝。即報弟子言：我還往彼。弟子曰：已於眾中得勝，何故更往？師言：我寧於智者邊負，不於愚者邊勝。即時詣彼作如是言：汝是勝者，我是負者。汝是我師，我是弟子。」此婆夷秀羅正當默破，但與今文名字不同。

In the critical evaluation, there are two questions and answers. The first question is understandable. Because the earlier text stated that these are all dharmas realized by the three vehicles, and since both self-benefit and benefiting others involve silence, the question had to be raised. In the answer, the four siddhāntas are fully set forth. Regarding "the venerable Pārśva defeating Aśvaghoṣa": a traditional commentary explains: "Before Aśvaghoṣa had great faith, he came to the venerable Pārśva's place and established his own thesis: 'Whoever speaks is defeated; I will cut off my head in apology.' The monk remained silent. After a long while, Aśvaghoṣa even said: 'The monk is defeated by me; thus he is silent and does not speak.' The monk was still silent. Thereupon Aśvaghoṣa went out of his gate and reflected to himself: 'Originally I established silence; he ultimately did not speak, whereas I spoke, which turns out to be my defeat.' He went back to the monk's place and sought to cut off his own head. The monk said: 'My Dharma is benevolent and compassionate; I will not cut off your head. You should shave your hair and become my disciple.'" If one follows the Fu fazang zhuan (Account of the Transmission of the Dharma Treasury), the venerable Pārśva transmitted the Dharma to Puṇyayaśas, and Yaśas defeated Aśvaghoṣa in debate, who then shaved his hair and became his disciple. Aśvaghoṣa had at first reflected in a quiet forest: 'My wisdom is extraordinary; if there are difficult questions, I can penetrate them.' Reckoning that there is truly a self, he was very arrogant and came to Yaśas's place. Yaśas said: 'All dharmas are without self.' Aśvaghoṣa said: 'I can refute all assertions; if this statement is false, I must have my head cut off.' Yaśas said: 'Within the Buddha-Dharma there are generally two truths: in conventional truth there is a self, but in the ultimate truth there is no self.' Aśvaghoṣa was still not subdued. Yaśas said: 'Consider carefully: do not utter empty words. Who is definitively the winner?' Aśvaghoṣa contemplated the two truths and only then submitted, wanting to cut off his own head. Yaśas had him shave his hair and become his disciple. If one follows the purport of the biography, it was solely by the two truths that he was refuted, not by silence. If one follows the Vibhāṣā, it says: "Once it was heard that there was a great master of debate named *Śatira (Shetiluo) who arrived in the country of Kaśmīra. At that time, in the Buddha-Footprint Forest, there was an arhat named *Bhāyīśura (Bayixiuluo), endowed with the three knowledges and thoroughly conversant with the three piṭakas. Then *Śatira heard that there was a great master of debate in that forest, so he went to his place. Having arrived, he greeted him and sat to one side. Then *Śatira said to the venerable one: 'Who will set forth the thesis first?' The answer was: 'I am the resident; I should set forth the thesis first.' *Śatira said: 'All theses have a reply.' Then *Bhāyīśura sat in silence. The disciples of *Bhāyīśura called out: 'If your master is *Śatira, he will naturally understand.' They arose from the forest and proceeded step by step. Their master reflected: 'Why did the disciples of the Śākya mendicant make this statement: "If your master is *Śatira, he will naturally understand"?' He immediately remembered to himself: 'I made the statement: "All theses have a reply." That mendicant was silent, which means my thesis had no reply; the mendicant has already won.' He immediately told his disciples: 'I am going back to him.' The disciples said: 'You have already won in the assembly; why go again?' The master said: 'I would rather lose at the side of a wise man than win at the side of fools.' He immediately went to him and spoke thus: 'You are the winner; I am the loser. You are my master; I am your disciple.'" This *Bhāyīśura truly corresponds to refutation by silence, but the names differ from the present text.