[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736) › 14.14 # 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 14.14 大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 14.14 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [14.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.14.14) 疏「今但說」下，第五結功超勝。言「佛法之淺淺」者，以其十宗前前淺於後後、後後深於前前，前二望第十有八重之深，已能總破一切外道，況第三宗、況第四宗，乃至第十展轉深妙。然上所引皆是外宗甚深玄妙，今以第二並能超之，故云「佛法之淺淺已勝外道之深深」。然西方外道明說三世、多信因果，知厭生死、欣求涅槃，但真源小差，致去道懸遠。況此方儒道善止一身，縱有終身之喪，而無他世之慮。雖齊生死、強一枯榮，但以生死自天、枯榮任分。天乃自然之理，分乃稟之虛無，聚散氣為生死，歸無物為至道。方之釋氏，不合同年。略辨釋道之殊，以舉十條之異。一始無始異。謂釋立生滅因緣，無定初始。儒道有太初太始，為物之先。太初為萬物之先，物自造化。因緣為萬法之本，興滅由人。二氣非氣異。釋以心為法本，萬行憑緣。道以氣變為神，無為自化。自化則無修無習，棄智絕聖；憑緣則必假修成，萬行會本。三三世無三世異。釋以稟質色心，靈契相續，隨緣起滅，三世遷流。儒道以聚氣為生，散氣為死，死則歸夫天地，不續不存。既止一身，寧知三世？四習非習異。釋以善惡由業，愚智習生，故積劫熏修，靈識玄妙。儒道以善惡由分，愚智自天，稟純和則至聖至神，稟渾濁則為愚為暗。縱言慎習，止在一身，豈說積功能資他世？五稟緣稟氣異。釋以參羅萬象並由緣生。儒道以富貴吉凶皆由氣命。稟氣者不可改易，稟緣者則可增可修。六內非內異。釋以天地萬物，內識變生。儒道以人物蠕飛，皆由天地所變。在我則可變染令淨，所變在天任彼高底。七緣非緣異。釋以四相遷流，浮虛變滅，皆由緣力，非曰自然。儒道以日化月移趣新更故，力皆自爾，非由我心。八天非天異。儒道以禍福吉凶派流為二：一者天、二者地。地而所為可得閉絕，故謀未兆而散脆微；天之所為不可遁避，故受而喜之、忘而復之。是以安乎天者棄於人，絕於聖者從乎道，斯老氏之旨。釋以果報因緣，宗源斯二：一者苦集、二者滅道。滅道者，不住不染、離斷離常，高出空有之顛、逈超生死之外。苦集者，因心迴轉，逐業高低，往來六趣之中、留連三有之內。是以厭乎苦者斷於集，忻乎滅者修於道，此釋氏之旨也。二家之理皎若掌中。戶則千門殊歸異貫，較之於一，其可得乎？九染非染異。老以仁毀於道，絕仁而道自停，不在於為也。欲害於性，去欲而性自得，不在於修也。利累於生，屏利而生自成，不在於益也。禮出於亂，棄禮而亂自除，不在於作也。理由於道，有道而理自至，不在於聖也。得在於時，時來而位自成，不在於爭也。是以不求而自得，不為而自成；為之者必敗，求之者必失，此老君之教也。釋以善為福道之本，修善而受福人天；不善為惡道之根，積不善而沈淪三惡。慈為無害之徑，欲為生死之源，絕欲而生死必除，行慈而壽命長遠。是以為善者必得，為不善者必失；離欲者必超欲，不離欲者必陷欲，此釋迦之教也。教方既辯，異乃條然。譬彼寒溫，理難併合。十歸非歸異。釋以生死苦也，從妄想而形。貪愛垢也，因無明而起。因無明而起，則可剪可除。從妄想而生，則可搴可拔。搴拔緣乎性假，除剪由乎體妄。知體妄者，息妄而證涅槃；達性假者，棄假而歸寂滅。於是控御一乘、浮航六度，越生死苦海、出火宅煩籠，逈登般若之臺、妙入涅槃之苑，湛然常樂與虛空而並存、嶷爾圓明混境智而雙寂，此乃釋教之所歸也。老以生與死命也，悉是道之所為。聖與不肖性也，但是天之所與。天與不可逃，道為不可捍。知天道不可迷捍者，則能安處生死而守全性情。性情全而天不壞，死生處而道不虧，道不虧則悅惡之慮消，天不壞則喜怒之心滅，於是出囂塵之域、遊道德之鄉，理孤劭於寰中、神獨凝於方外，澹然玄寂而累害不能干、怕爾無為而邪氣不能襲，可以長生、可以盡年，此老教之所歸也。所歸既異、發軫復殊，相去渺然，千里非遠。此上十異，即冀審思，慎之深衷。多以小乘因緣以破外宗玄妙，況乎真空妙有事理圓融、染淨該羅一多無礙、重重交映念念圓融哉。無得求一時之小名，渾三教之一致；習邪見之毒種，為地獄之深因；開無明之源流，遏種智之玄路。誡之誡之。傳授之人善須揀擇。 > Regarding the commentary's phrase beginning with "Now only stating": fifth, concluding on the superiority of \[the Buddha's teachings\] over \[non-Buddhist views\]. As for the statement that "even the shallowest of the Buddha's teachings \[surpasses the deepest of non-Buddhist paths\]": among the ten tenets, each preceding one is shallower than the subsequent ones, and each subsequent one is deeper than the preceding ones. Looking from the first two toward the tenth, there is an eightfold depth; even \[the first two\] are already capable of thoroughly refuting all non-Buddhists—how much more so the third tenet, how much more so the fourth tenet, and on up to the tenth, progressively deeper and more wondrous! However, those previously cited were all the extremely profound and mysterious \[tenets\] of non-Buddhist schools, and now even the second \[Buddhist\] tenet can entirely surpass them; hence it says, "The shallowest of the Buddha's teachings already surpasses the deepest of non-Buddhist paths." Now, the non-Buddhists of the Western regions explicitly explain the three times and largely believe in cause and effect; they know to feel revulsion toward birth-and-death and happily seek nirvāṇa, yet because they slightly miss the true source, it results in their being far distant from the Way. How much more so is this the case with the Confucianism and Daoism of this land, which are merely good for a single physical lifetime: even though there is the demise of one's whole life, they have no concern for other lifetimes. Although they equalize birth and death and forcibly unify flourishing and withering, they merely hold that birth and death come from nature, and flourishing and withering are left to destiny. Nature is just the principle of spontaneity, and destiny is what is received from the void; the gathering and dispersing of qi are regarded as birth and death, and returning to the absence of things is regarded as the ultimate Way. Compared with the Buddhist teaching, they cannot be spoken of in the same breath. To briefly distinguish the difference between Buddhism and Daoism, ten points of divergence are adduced. > > First, the difference between having a beginning and beginninglessness. That is to say, the Buddhists establish the causes and conditions of arising and ceasing without a fixed initial origin. Confucianism and Daoism have the Great Beginning (taichu) and the Great Origin (taishi) as preceding all things. With the Great Beginning preceding myriad things, things create and transform of themselves. With causes and conditions being the root of myriad phenomena, flourishing and perished depend on humanity. > > Second, the difference between qi and non-qi. The Buddhists take the mind as the root of phenomena, with myriad practices relying upon conditions. Daoism takes the transformations of qi as spirit, with non-action spontaneously transforming. When there is spontaneous transformation, there is neither cultivation nor training, discarding wisdom and abandoning sagehood; when relying upon conditions, fulfillment necessarily requires cultivation, and myriad practices converge at the root. > > Third, the difference between the three times and the absence of three times. The Buddhists hold that one receives physical form and mental consciousness, with the spiritual continuum flowing uninterrupted, arising and ceasing in accordance with conditions, transmigrating through the three times. Confucianism and Daoism take the gathering of qi as birth and the dispersing of qi as death; upon death, one returns to Heaven and Earth, neither continuing nor enduring. Since it is limited to a single body, how could they know of the three times? > > Fourth, the difference between habituation and non-habituation. The Buddhists hold that good and evil arise from karma, and foolishness and wisdom are born of habituation; hence, through kalpas of accumulated perfuming and cultivation, the spiritual consciousness becomes mysterious and wondrous. Confucianism and Daoism hold that good and evil arise from destiny, and foolishness and wisdom come from Heaven: one who receives what is pure and harmonious becomes most sagacious and most divine; one who receives what is turbid and murky becomes foolish and unenlightened. Even if they speak of being careful about habituation, it is limited to a single lifetime; how could they speak of accumulating merit to benefit other lifetimes? > > Fifth, the difference between receiving conditions and receiving qi. The Buddhists hold that the array of myriad phenomena is entirely produced from conditions. Confucianism and Daoism hold that wealth, nobility, good fortune, and misfortune all stem from qi and destiny. Those who receive qi cannot alter it; those who receive conditions can increase and cultivate. > > Sixth, the difference between internal and non-internal. The Buddhists hold that Heaven, Earth, and the myriad things are transformed and produced by internal consciousness. Confucianism and Daoism hold that humans, creatures, and crawling and flying insects are all transformed by Heaven and Earth. When it lies within oneself, one can transform defilement into purity; when the transformation lies with Heaven, it is left to high or low. > > Seventh, the difference between conditions and non-conditions. The Buddhists hold that the transmigration of the four characteristics, fleeting, empty, transforming, and ceasing, all result from the power of conditions, not what is called nature. Confucianism and Daoism hold that the daily transformations and monthly shifts, proceeding toward the new and renewing the old, all have their power spontaneously of themselves, not proceeding from our mind. > > Eighth, the difference between Heaven and non-Heaven. Confucianism and Daoism divide the currents of misfortune, fortune, auspiciousness, and inauspiciousness into two: the first is Heaven, and the second is Earth. That which Earth does can be checked and stopped, hence "planning before the omen appears and breaking the fragile while it is weak"; that which Heaven does cannot be escaped or avoided, hence accepting it and rejoicing in it, forgetting it and repeating it. Therefore, those who are at peace with Heaven abandon what is human; those who cut off sagehood follow the Way—this is the purport of Laozi. The Buddhists take the retribution of causes and conditions to have two ancestral sources: the first is suffering and accumulation, and the second is cessation and the path. As for cessation and the path: neither abiding nor defiled, free from annihilation and free from permanence, soaring high above the peak of emptiness and existence, transcending far beyond birth-and-death. As for suffering and accumulation: turning in accordance with the mind, following karma high and low, coming and going among the six destinies, lingering within the three realms of existence. Therefore, those who feel revulsion toward suffering cut off its accumulation; those who rejoice in cessation cultivate the path—this is the purport of the Śākya clan. The principles of the two traditions are as clear as the palm of one's hand. When doorways number by the thousands, with disparate destinations and differing alignments, how could it be possible to force them into a single whole? > > Ninth, the difference between defilement and non-defilement. Laozi holds that benevolence destroys the Way; when benevolence is abandoned, the Way naturally abides, and it does not lie in action. Desires harm one's nature; when desires are removed, one's nature is naturally attained, and it does not lie in cultivation. Gain burdens life; when gain is rejected, life naturally flourishes, and it does not lie in increase. Ritual arises from disorder; when ritual is abandoned, disorder naturally disappears, and it does not lie in instituting it. Governance proceeds from the Way; when the Way is present, governance naturally arrives, and it does not lie in sagehood. Attainment lies in the right timing; when the time comes, position naturally forms, and it does not lie in striving. Therefore, without seeking, it is naturally attained; without acting, it naturally accomplishes; whoever acts on it will surely fail, and whoever seeks it will surely lose—such is the teaching of Lord Lao. The Buddhists hold that goodness is the root of the path of blessings; cultivating goodness, one receives blessings among humans and devas. Non-goodness is the root of the evil paths; accumulating non-goodness, one sinks into the three bad destinations. Compassion is the path of non-harm; desire is the source of birth-and-death. If desire is severed, birth-and-death are necessarily eliminated; if compassion is practiced, life is long-lasting. Therefore, whoever does good surely attains, and whoever does non-good surely loses; those who abandon desire surely transcend desire, and those who do not abandon desire surely sink into desire—such is the teaching of Śākyamuni. The methods of the teachings having been distinguished, their differences are thus clearly arranged. Like cold and warmth, in principle they are difficult to combine. > > Tenth, the difference between refuges. The Buddhists hold that birth-and-death is suffering, taking shape from false conceptualization. Craving is defilement, arising on account of avidyā. Arising on account of avidyā, it can be pruned and eliminated; born from false conceptualization, it can be pulled up and uprooted. Pulling up and uprooting are based on the nominality of nature; pruning and eliminating proceed from the falsity of substance. Those who understand that substance is false calm falsehood and realize nirvāṇa; those who comprehend that nature is nominal abandon the nominal and return to quiescence. Thereupon, driving the One Vehicle and sailing the raft of the six pāramitās, they cross the sea of the suffering of birth-and-death, emerge from the troublesome cage of the burning house, ascend far upon the terrace of prajñā, and wondrously enter the park of nirvāṇa. Serene, eternally joyful, enduring alongside empty space; majestically and completely luminous, melding object and cognition into dual quiescence—this is that toward which the Buddhist teaching returns. Laozi holds that birth and death are destiny, entirely wrought by the Way. Sagacity and unworthiness are nature, solely bestowed by Heaven. What Heaven bestows cannot be escaped; what the Way does cannot be resisted. Those who know that the Heavenly Way cannot be confounded or resisted are able to abide peacefully in birth and death and preserve their nature and emotion intact. When nature and emotion are intact, Heaven is not damaged; when residing in death and life, the Way is not compromised. When the Way is not compromised, anxieties of joy and aversion vanish; when Heaven is not damaged, the minds of pleasure and anger are extinguished. Thereupon, emerging from the realm of noisy dust, they roam in the land of the Way and Virtue; their principle stands solitary and eminent within the universe, and their spirit alone coalesces beyond the worldly domain. Placid and mysteriously quiescent, burdens and harms cannot intrude; tranquil in non-action, perverse qi cannot invade. One can achieve longevity and exhaust one's natural years—this is that toward which the teaching of Laozi returns. Since that toward which they return is different, their points of departure are likewise distinct; the distance between them is vast—a thousand li is not far enough \[to describe it\]. The ten differences above: it is hoped that you ponder them carefully and hold them deep within your heart. Mostly using the causes and conditions of the Hīnayāna to refute the mysterious subtleties of non-Buddhist traditions—how much more so the round interfusion of true emptiness and wondrous existence, principle and phenomenon; the unimpededness of the one and the many encompassing defilement and purity; and the multi-layered reciprocal illumination, thoroughly interfused moment to moment! Do not seek fleeting, petty fame by conflating the three teachings into a single alignment, cultivating the poisonous seeds of wrong views to become the profound cause of hell, opening the source and flow of avidyā, and obstructing the mysterious path of omniscient knowledge. Beware! Beware! Those who transmit and receive this must carefully discern. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 14.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.14.13) - [Next: 14.15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.14.15) - [Up: 14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.14) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736~en-mt.14.14) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.14.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.14.14) · Pramāṇa