法華玄義釋籤 3.37

3.37

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.