法華文句記 8.182

8.182

先釋名者，「阿」無也。「蘭若」名諍，文中云事，有事故諍。今依經，先出正行、次方辨邪。初文云住阿蘭若者不與世諍，不近不遠便於乞食，有樹陰、多華果、足淨水，無難事、不險阻、易登陟，獨無侶、誦所聞（云云）。有王大臣長者等來尋詣之，作是言：善來善來！若至住處應喚令坐，若不坐勿獨自坐，若不就鄙座，應種種安慰為其說法，若不樂廣說，應為略說等（云云）。若不爾者，非蘭若行。凡居蘭若，為調煩惱，自舉篾他非無諍行，未知端拱意在何之？輕倨師友傲慢王臣，況令無識者謂聖，使有眼者寒心，羅云之行永乖，空生之德安在？但由心無內實，專以身營外虛，篤論其道諸無所云，審如賓頭盧知七年失國，及稠禪師進否為王，故起居適時安得一向。《十住婆沙》明蘭若比丘乃至具五十法，方堪止住，乃至十二頭陀各具十法，不然則且尋師進道，何遽守愚。

First, to explain the name: 'a' means non-existence; 'raṇya' is called strife. In the text, it says 'affairs'—where there are affairs, there is strife. Now, relying on the sūtra, the correct practice is first presented, and next the heterodox is distinguished. The opening text says that one who abides in an āraṇya does not contend with the world, is neither too near nor too far, facilitating begging for food, has tree shade, many flowers and fruits, sufficient pure water, no hazardous affairs, is not perilous or precipitous, is easy to ascend, is alone without companion, and recites what has been heard (and so forth). If kings, great ministers, elders, and others come seeking and visiting him, he says: 'Welcome, welcome!' If they arrive at his dwelling place, he should call upon them to sit down; if they do not sit, he should not sit alone; if they do not take a humble seat, he should comfort them in diverse ways and explain the Dharma for them; if they do not delight in an extensive exposition, he should preach in brief for them, and so forth. If he is not like this, it is not the practice of an āraṇyaka. In general, dwelling in an āraṇya is for the purpose of subduing afflictions; exalting oneself and disparaging others is not the practice of non-strife. What is the intention behind sitting with folded hands? To treat masters and friends with insolence and slight kings and ministers, moreover causing the ignorant to call him a sage and making those with eyes feel chilled to the heart—how completely contrary to Rāhula's practice, and where is the virtue of Subhūti? It is merely because there is no inner reality in the mind, while solely using the body to cultivate outer emptiness; evaluating their path strictly, there is nothing to be said for it. If one considers how Piṇḍola knew seven years in advance of the loss of the kingdom, and how Dhyāna Master Chou knew whether to advance or withdraw on behalf of the king, deportment must suit the times—how could it be one-sidedly fixed? The Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā explains that an āraṇyaka monk must possess as many as fifty dharmas before he is fit to dwell there, and each of the twelve dhūtas possesses ten dharmas; if not, one should for the time being seek a master to advance in the path, why precipitously cling to folly?