法華遊意 1.114

1.114

今以三意往推，即知其前義為失：一者總攝三師不出因果，而正觀論盛破十家因果，則一切因果不成。今略題數門示不成相：三師既以萬善為因、壽量為果，為萬行因內有壽量之果、為無果耶？如若其有果，即因無生果之能，果無酬因之用。若萬行之因無壽量之果，雖修萬行終不生果；若萬行因無果而生果者，萬惡亦無佛果應生佛果。又《大品經》云「若言因中有果、因中無果、亦有亦無、非有非無，如是之人即謗佛法僧繫屬於魔，是魔眷屬」，豈是一乘因果義耶？又因中有果、因中無果、亦有亦無、非有非無，是僧佉、衛世師、勤沙婆、若提子外道之義，非佛法矣。縱又修萬行為因、壽量為果者，萬行之因為待果起而滅、為不待果而滅？若待果起而滅則名為常；若不待果起而滅則名為斷。既是斷常則不成因果，以何為此經宗？又既是斷常則障一乘妙法，云何用障法為宗？又若言一念之善相續至佛果者，為滅已而續、為不滅而續？若滅已而續則有能續、無所續；若不滅而續者則有所續、無能續，云何續至佛果耶？以經論推之，並無此因果與誰同異耶。二者、縱有此因果者，彼便謂道理有此因果則成有所得，經云「有所得者無道無果」，以何為宗？又有所得者，經云「不動不出」，都非乘義，云何用為經宗？《涅槃經》云「有所得者名為無明」，寧用無明為平等大慧經宗？「有所得者名二十五有」，云何用二十五有為眾德經宗？

Now, examining with three considerations, one immediately knows that the former meanings are flawed: First, broadly subsuming the three masters, they do not go beyond cause and effect, yet the treatise on right contemplation extensively refutes the cause and effect of the ten schools, and thus all cause and effect is untenable. Now we briefly set forth several headings to demonstrate the manner of their untenability: Since the three masters take the myriad goods as cause and the life-span as effect, is the effect of the life-span present within the cause of the myriad practices, or is there no effect? If there is an effect, then the cause lacks the capacity to produce an effect, and the effect lacks the function of requiting the cause. If within the cause of the myriad practices there is no effect of the life-span, then though one cultivates the myriad practices, an effect will never be produced. If without an effect in the cause of the myriad practices an effect is produced, then the myriad evils also lacking a buddha-effect should likewise produce a buddha-effect. Furthermore, the Pañcaviṃśati states, 'If one says that within the cause there is an effect, that within the cause there is no effect, that it both exists and does not exist, or that it neither exists nor does not exist, such a person slanders the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha, is bound to Māra, and is Māra's retinue.' How could this be the meaning of cause and effect in the ekayāna? Moreover, that within the cause there is an effect, that within the cause there is no effect, that it both exists and does not exist, or that it neither exists nor does not exist are the doctrines of the Sāṃkhya, Vaiśeṣika, Kaṇāda, and Nirgrantha non-Buddhists; they are not the Buddhadharma. Even granting that cultivating the myriad practices is the cause and the life-span is the effect, does the cause of the myriad practices perish depending on the arising of the effect, or does it perish without depending on the effect? If it perishes depending on the arising of the effect, it is called permanence; if it perishes without depending on the effect, it is called annihilation. Since it is annihilation or permanence, cause and effect are untenable; what could be taken as the central theme of this sūtra? Moreover, since it is annihilation or permanence, it obstructs the wondrous Dharma of the ekayāna; how could an obstructing dharma be used as the central theme? Furthermore, if one says that a single thought of good continues in succession to the buddha-effect, does it continue after having perished, or does it continue without perishing? If it continues after having perished, there is that which can continue, but no object of continuation; if it continues without perishing, there is an object of continuation, but nothing that can continue. How could it continue to the buddha-effect? Examining it by sūtras and treatises, none of this cause and effect exists; with whom could there be identity or difference? Second: even granting that this cause and effect exists, they then claim that in principle there is this cause and effect, which constitutes having attainment. The sūtra says, 'For one who has attainment, there is neither path nor effect.' What could be taken as the central theme? Moreover, for one who has attainment, the sūtra says 'neither moving nor exiting'; it is not at all the meaning of the vehicle. How could it be used as the central theme of the sūtra? The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says, 'That which has attainment is called ignorance.' How could one use ignorance as the central theme of a sūtra of impartial great wisdom? 'That which has attainment is called the twenty-five states of existence.' How could one use the twenty-five states of existence as the central theme of a sūtra of myriad virtues?