法華文句記 2.15

2.15

次釋旃延中，初因緣具四悉者：初是世界，「增一」去為人，「與外道論」，對治及第一義，斷見及世典各有破邪及得道故也。言「文飾」者，善讚詠故。言「扇繩」者，若作「肩乘」二字並誤，以其生時父已去世，此兒礙母不得再嫁，如扇繫繩，亦可言好肩，好肩胛故。言「思勝」者，思是慧數，論義功強得思勝名。所引《長含》十重問答者，借彼迦葉童女比丘破弊宿文，以之為例。計斷者計死後神滅，故以不滅為難，若計常者反增其計，故應別以念念不住破之。第一重中言「今之日月」等者，初反質答者，如今日月為自立耶？為為他耶？若為他者，為天為人？秖緣天人他故，故有明日。若無他世應唯今日，若無明日亦無昨日，以今日即是昨之明日。言「析薪」者，具緣有火如有神，緣謝無火如無神，豈析無神之身而能見神？如析闕緣之本而欲見火者，遠矣。言「貝聲」者，人身是色為眼所見，神則非色云何可見？如貝可見聲不可見，若欲於可見中求不可見者，須更具緣。緣既闕已更反轉求，終無得理，神亦如是，緣具在身緣闕神去。至第八番無理可難，但云執久拒而固違。第九答中「兩商人」者，正邪二見，鬼如汝師，汝師雖僻亦假稱智，故詐為人像說邪干正，以邪涅槃而云安樂，故云前路豐米草也。舊米草者，世正見也。新米草者，出世正見。人是能乘行者，牛是所乘之智，信邪師鬼言，如汝棄舊，尚失人天況復涅槃？故云人牛皆死為邪所噉，壞世出世故云皆噉。次一商者，世正見人，得出世正見方棄人天有漏諸法，我說正見汝何不棄，辭理既窮固拒亦息。又「世典」者，《增一》第八云：「佛在釋翅尼拘留園與五百人俱，集普義堂。時世典婆羅門往釋種所，作如是言：諸君頗有人能與我論不？諸釋言：此中二人正覺眾中無黠無聞，言語醜拙不別去就，若與論者當供與千兩純金。世典心念：此國中人多諸虛偽，設得勝者何足為奇？或得我便，乃為愚者所伏。思是事已。乃云：我不論。語已便去，道逢槃特。世典念言：我今當往問彼人義。便往問曰：汝字何等（如疏）迦旃延天耳遙聞，作槃特形而語之曰：汝若言我但有神足不堪論者，吾當報汝向義，更引喻汝汝字何等？世典曰：梵天。又問：丈夫乎？答丈夫。又問：人乎？答是人。又問：人亦丈夫豈非繁重，盲與無目此義不同。世典曰：何名為盲？答：猶如不見。今世後世生者滅者，善業惡業不如實知，永無所覩稱之曰盲。云何無目？答：即是無有如上智眼。世典曰（如疏）。又問：五陰有緣生無緣生？答：有，非無緣。又問：五陰何緣？答：愛為緣。又問：何者是愛？答：生是。又問：何者是生？答：愛是生（如疏）。世典聞已得果，命終，槃特報諸釋，令辦薪而闍維之，為起偷婆。」又《長含》中外道諸計甚廣，如云：不得手障形，不得兩臂中間食、二人中間食、二刀中間食、二杵中間食、二家中間食。又云：先言義者不得食，不得兩器食，一餐一咽至七餐止，更益不過三度，或一日一食二日，或至七日一食，食米食菜牛糞鹿糞樹根華果等，自落者食，或草衣樹衣毛衣皮衣莎衣、留鬢留鬚等，當舉一足、常坐座（今世已有）、常蹲臥棘臥糞臥瓜，三日一浴、一夜三浴，如是等於我法中名不淨法。如是等略須識之。比有執專坐者，未契大道。言專坐者，以不臥為功，不以不行為德，豈有居暗室，乃四儀同凡，覩來眾則端拱若聖，君子之行尚闕，菩薩之道永虧，自任胸襟無教可準，使後輩不鑒者許之尚之，覩行動者輕若芻芥；佛猶四儀動作，豈未學者過之？夫道在心不在事法、由己非由人，既不能縮德露疵且顯晦均等。

Next, in explaining Kātyāyana, the initial [explanation through] causes and conditions is complete with the four siddhāntas: the first is the mundane [siddhānta]; from 'the Ekottarika' onward is for the individual; 'debating with non-Buddhists' is the counteractive and the ultimate truth [siddhāntas], because the views of annihilationism and the mundane classics each involve refuting heterodoxy and attaining the Path. As for 'literary embellishment', this is because he excelled in praising and chanting. As for 'fan-cord' (shànshéng), to write the two characters 'shoulder-mount' (jiāndèng) is erroneous; because his father had already died when he was born, this child obstructed his mother from remarrying, like a fan tied to a cord. It may also mean 'fine shoulders', because he had fine shoulder blades. As for 'superior thought', thought is a mental factor of wisdom, and because of his powerful ability in debating he gained the name 'Superior Thought'. The ten rounds of questions and answers cited from the Dīrgha-āgama borrow that text where the nun Kumārī Kāśyapī refutes Pāyāsi, using it as an example. One who posits annihilationism posits that the spirit is annihilated after death, so he was questioned regarding non-annihilation; if he had posited eternalism, it would have reinforced his view, so he should instead be refuted by [the principle of] moment-to-moment non-abiding. In the first round, regarding 'the sun and moon of today', the initial response by cross-examination asks: 'Do the sun and moon of today stand by themselves, or are they for others? If for others, are they for gods or for humans? It is solely because of other gods and humans that there is a tomorrow. If there were no other world, there should be only today; and if there were no tomorrow, there would be no yesterday either, for today is yesterday's tomorrow.' As for 'splitting firewood', when conditions are complete, fire exists, just as when conditions are complete, the spirit exists; when conditions perish, there is no fire, just as without conditions there is no spirit. How could one split a spiritless body and be able to see the spirit? Like splitting the source that lacks conditions in hopes of seeing fire, this is far off. As for 'the sound of a conch', a human body is form and visible to the eye; the spirit is not form—how could it be seen? Just as the conch can be seen while the sound cannot be seen, if one wishes to seek the invisible within the visible, further conditions must be complete. Once conditions are lacking, to seek it conversely will never yield success; the spirit is also like this: when conditions are complete, it is in the body; when conditions are lacking, the spirit departs. By the eighth round, he had no further argument to raise and could only say that having held it so long, he stubbornly resisted and went against it. In the ninth answer, the 'two merchants' represent correct and wrong views. The demon is like your teacher: although your teacher was perverse, he also falsely claimed wisdom, so he fraudulently assumed human form to speak heterodoxy and disrupt the correct, speaking of a heterodox nirvāṇa as peaceful and joyful; thus it is said that 'the road ahead is abundant in rice and grass.' The old rice and grass are mundane correct view. The new rice and grass are supramundane correct view. The person is the practitioner who can ride; the ox is the wisdom ridden. Believing the words of the demon of the heterodox teacher is like your discarding the old: one loses even human and heavenly [rebirth], how much more so nirvāṇa? Thus it is said that both the person and the ox died and were devoured by heterodoxy; because it ruins both the mundane and supramundane, it says 'devoured both.' Next, the other merchant is a person of mundane correct view; only upon attaining supramundane correct view does he discard the contaminated dharmas of humans and heavens. 'I teach the correct view—why do you not discard it?' When both his words and logic were exhausted, his stubborn resistance also ceased. Furthermore, regarding 'mundane classics', Ekottarika fascicle eight says: 'The Buddha was in the Nigrodha Park in the Śākya territory together with five hundred people, assembled in the Universal Meaning Hall. At that time, a brāhmaṇa of the mundane classics went to where the Śākyas were and spoke thus: “Sirs, is there anyone who can debate with me?” The Śākyas said: “There are two persons here, within the assembly of the Fully Awakened One, who lack wit and learning, whose speech is coarse and clumsy, and who cannot distinguish coming from going. If you can debate with them, we will offer you a thousand liang of pure gold.” The mundane scholar thought to himself: “The people in this country are mostly full of deceit. Even if I win, why should it be considered extraordinary? Or they might find my weakness, and I would be subdued by a fool.” Having considered this, he said: “I will not debate.” Having spoken, he left, and met Panthaka on the road. The mundane scholar thought: “I should now go and question that man on doctrine.” He then went and asked: “What is your name?” (As in the Commentary). Kātyāyana, hearing from afar with the divine ear, assumed the form of Panthaka and said to him: “If you say that I only have supernatural powers and am incapable of debate, I will respond to your question just now, and further provide a metaphor for you: What is your name?” The mundane scholar said: “Brahmā.” He asked again: “Are you a hero?” He replied: “A hero.” He asked again: “Are you a man?” He replied: “I am a man.” [Kātyāyana] asked again: “Are not 'man' and 'hero' redundant? 'Blind' and 'having no eyes'—these meanings are not the same.” The mundane scholar said: “What is called blind?” He replied: “It is like not seeing. Not knowing in accordance with reality the present world, the future world, those who arise, those who perish, good karma, and bad karma, never seeing anything—this is called blind.” “What is having no eyes?” He replied: “It is simply lacking the above eye of wisdom.” The mundane scholar said (as in the Commentary). He asked again: “Do the five aggregates arise with conditions or arise without conditions?” He replied: “They arise with conditions, not without conditions.” He asked again: “What is the condition for the five aggregates?” He replied: “Craving is the condition.” He asked again: “What is craving?” He replied: “Birth is it.” He asked again: “What is birth?” He replied: “Craving is birth” (as in the Commentary). Having heard this, the mundane scholar attained the fruit [of the Path], and his life ended. Panthaka informed the Śākyas, instructing them to prepare firewood to cremate him and erect a stūpa for him.' Furthermore, the heterodox views in the Dīrgha-āgama are extremely broad, as it says: not shielding the body with hands; not eating between two arms, between two people, between two knives, between two pestles, or between two households. It also says: those who speak of doctrine first must not eat; not eating from two vessels; taking from one mouthful and one swallow up to seven mouthfuls and stopping, and taking no more than three helpings; or eating once a day, once every two days, or up to once every seven days; eating rice, eating greens, cow dung, deer dung, tree roots, flowers, and fruits, eating what falls naturally; or wearing clothes of grass, clothes of bark, clothes of hair, clothes of hide, clothes of sedge; keeping sideburns, keeping beards, and so forth; standing on one foot, constantly sitting on a seat (already present in the current age), constantly squatting, sleeping on thorns, sleeping on dung, sleeping on melons; bathing once every three days, bathing three times in one night. Such practices as these are called impure dharmas in our Dharma. One should briefly recognise such things. Recently there are those who cling exclusively to sitting, who have not yet accorded with the Great Way. To speak of 'exclusive sitting' is to take not lying down as merit, and not to take non-walking as virtue. How could it be that when dwelling in a dark room one's four postures are like an ordinary person's, but upon seeing an approaching assembly one sits upright and formal as if a sage? Even the conduct of a gentleman is lacking, and the way of a bodhisattva is forever impaired! Relying on one's own opinions with no teaching as a standard, they cause later generations who lack discernment to approve and esteem them, while looking down on those who walk about as if they were chaff. Even the Buddha was active in the four deportments—how could an unlearned person surpass him? The Way lies in the mind, not in external affairs and methods; it comes from oneself, not from others. Since one cannot restrain virtue and expose flaws, at least keep the overt and hidden uniform.