法華玄論 1.51

1.51

答：《釋論》解四緣義，有人問：欲學四緣應學毘曇，云何乃學波若？龍樹答言：毘曇初學似如可解，轉久推求則成邪見。以此詳之，過逾於前。此評得失之一也。妙法蓮華經者，蓋是群聖喉衿、方等之祕奧，其文巧妙、其義深遠，考經推論可謂教圓理滿，究竟無餘之說。自古爰今受持讀誦者，則尤累滅於內、嘉瑞陳於外者，不可稱言也。而人秉五時之規矩、格無方之聖化，妄謂此經猶為半字，明因未圓、辨果不足。五時既爾，四宗亦然。廢五四之妄談，明究竟之圓旨，進有稱歎之福、退無誹謗之罪。評得失之二也。外云自見不明自強不勝，內辨長守一見喪其無方，偏用隻文失其圓旨，故廣集異論、捃採眾師，擇善而從、有能必錄，至如慧基以空為乘，本會《無量義經》，道生解壽量明常，符《法華》之論，如斯之例皆可用也。如言昔有遍行六度之人，今教辨四車之說；又云未免二種生死，已度五百由旬。斯皆經論無文、即事鉾楯，皆所棄之。此評得失之三也。《大智度論》釋〈無作品〉，明巧說波若凡有十門，最後名為分別深淺難易。深淺難易者，如深水難度，若巧分散，則深者為淺而度則易也。而好事君子廣生細章略示大意，則昏彼清實、翳其弘旨，或至前而進誦後、至後而退誦前，進無益於文理、退有勞於說聽，今刪其繁重、正於乖闕，使昏明殊鏡，冀有過半之功。評得失之四也。書云「華言不信，信言不華」，經云「深悟者愛義，淺識者好文」，如見後章辨果，謂初段明因，欲因果相對。又文始現六瑞於此土，亦現六瑞於他方，欲以二六文成雙，斯皆巧言在餘而義勢不足，文具詳之。今觀龍樹之釋《大品》、天親之解《華嚴》，唯使文顯理彰，竟無斯意。故聖軌須依，凡模宜棄。評得失之五也。

Answer: The Da zhidu lun, in explaining the meaning of the four conditions, notes that someone asked: If one wishes to study the four conditions, one should study the Abhidharma; why instead study the Prajñāpāramitā? Nāgārjuna answered, saying: When beginners study the Abhidharma, it seems comprehensible, but as one inquires further over time, it turns into wrong views. Examining it by this, the fault exceeds that of the former. This is the first evaluation of merits and faults. As for the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra, it is the collar and throat of all the sages, the secret and profound of the vaipulya; its phrasing is ingenious and its meaning profound and far-reaching. Examining the scriptures and investigating the treatises, it can be said to be complete in teaching and consummate in principle, an ultimate discourse without remainder. From ancient times to the present, among those who have received, kept, read, and recited it, the destruction of grave burdens within and the display of auspicious portents without are beyond recount. Yet people hold to the rules of the five periods to delimit the unconfined holy transformation, falsely claiming that this scripture is still half-word teaching, that its illumination of causes is not complete, and its determination of fruits is insufficient. As it is with the five periods, so it is with the four tenets. Abolishing the false discussions of the five and four, and illuminating the consummate, ultimate purport, brings forward the merit of praise and removes backward the sin of slander. This is the second evaluation of merits and faults. Externally, it is said that those who look only to themselves lack clarity, and those who rely only on their own strength will not prevail; internally, it is distinguished that clinging persistently to a single view forfeits the unconfined, and using isolated lines in a one-sided way loses the consummate purport. Therefore, I have widely collected divergent treatises and gathered from all masters, choosing the good to follow and recording without fail whatever possesses ability. For instance, Huiji's taking emptiness as the vehicle originally accords with the Anantanirdeśa-sūtra; Daosheng's explanation of the lifespan illuminating permanence tallies with the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa; examples such as these can all be employed. But statements such as 'formerly there were those who universally practiced the six perfections, but the present teaching explains the four carriages,' or that 'without yet escaping the two kinds of saṃsāra, they have already crossed five hundred yojanas'—these all lack scriptural or treatise authority and are contradictory on their face; all are to be discarded. This is the third evaluation of merits and faults. The Da zhidu lun, in explaining the 'Chapter on Non-arising', illuminates that skillful explanations of prajñā have ten gateways in all, the last being termed 'differentiating depth and shallowness, difficulty and ease.' As for depth and shallowness, difficulty and ease: just as deep water is hard to cross, but if one skillfully diverts it, the deep becomes shallow and the crossing becomes easy. Yet meddling gentlemen produce fine sub-sections extensively while only roughly showing the overarching idea, thus obscuring its clear reality and eclipsing its grand purport, or reaching the front while advancing to recite what follows, or reaching what follows while retreating to recite what came before; advancing, this brings no benefit to the phrasing and principle, and retreating, it tires both the speaker and the listener. Now, by excising what is superfluous and cumbersome and rectifying what is erroneous and deficient, so that obscurity and clarity are distinctly mirrored, I hope to achieve more than half the work. This is the fourth evaluation of merits and faults. The Book says: 'Flowery words are not faithful; faithful words are not flowery.' The scripture says: 'Those of deep awakening cherish the meaning; those of shallow understanding are fond of literary phrasing.' For example, seeing that a later section determines the fruit, they say the initial passage illuminates the cause, wishing to pair cause and fruit as opposites. Again, seeing that the text initially displays six auspicious signs in this land, and also displays six auspicious signs in other directions, they wish to make pairs with the two sixes. These all have an excess of clever wording but lack momentum of meaning; the text will explain this in full detail. Now, observing Nāgārjuna's explanation of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā and Vasubandhu's commentary on the Avataṃsaka, they only sought to make the text apparent and the principle manifest, having no such intent whatsoever. Therefore, the holy guidelines must be relied upon, and worldly models should be discarded. This is the fifth evaluation of merits and faults.