大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 7.31

7.31

疏「然今」下辯順違中，先別破、後結非。前中又二：先破初一、後破後三。今初，有邪正混雜過。「若對教主」下遮救。恐有救言：若不識邪，安能知正？邪正對辯則是皁白分明。故今遮云：若欲爾者，應總分邪正，然後於邪正中方可分其大小等耳。故為立式，如此方先分三教，於儒教中方辯九流七經，於道教中方論道德之別，於佛教中方論大小權實，則無混濫。不然，即如西域，先分內外，外中方分六師或十宗等。等者，等取內教之中分大小等。言「六師」者，《淨名》云「一富單那（名也）迦葉（姓也）、二末伽梨（名也）俱奢梨（母名也）子、三刪闍夜（名也）毘羅胝（母名）子、四阿蓍多（名也）翅舍欽婆羅（弊衣也）、五迦羅鳩馱（名也）迦旃延（姓也）、六尼揵陀（名也）若提（母也）子。」此六各起一見。一起斷見言：一切法空，無君臣父子忠孝之道。二末迦梨俱舍梨子，起常見言：一切苦樂不由行業，性自有之。三起自然見，執道不須修，八萬劫苦盡即自然解脫，如轉縷丸於高山頂，旋盡自止。立解脫因，謂解脫為因。非因計因，是邪因也。撥道不須修，是邪見也。四即苦行外道，自拔頭髮、五熱炙身即得解脫。非道計道，亦戒取也。五起邊見，執一切法亦有亦無，不同佛法因緣故有、無性故無。由執有即定性之有，即是常見；執無即定性之無，即是斷見。斷常乖中，合成邊見也。六謂一切苦樂果報皆由過業、不藉現緣，前世業盡即苦盡，縱現修道亦不能斷。此人信有前世業為因，非邪見，撥無現緣即是少分邪見。道能盡苦，撥無不能。道計非道，亦是邪見。六師之計，具如《涅槃》。此六各起一見，如第六地引。

In the section from the commentary's phrase, 'However, now,' down, discussing conformity and divergence, it first refutes them individually and later concludes their error. The former part also has two [sections]: first it refutes the first one, and later it refutes the latter three. In the first [refutation], there is the fault of conflating the heterodox and orthodox. From 'If contrasted with the teacher of the teaching' down, it wards off a defense. Fearing that someone might defend: 'If one does not recognize the heterodox, how can one know the orthodox? By contrasting and examining the heterodox and orthodox, black and white become distinctly clear.' Therefore, he now wards it off, saying: If you wish to do so, you should first divide heterodox and orthodox overall, and only then, within the heterodox and orthodox, can you divide greater and lesser, and so on. Therefore, a formula is established for this: just as in this land one first divides the three teachings, and within Confucianism distinguishes the nine schools and seven classics, within Daoism discusses the distinction of the Dao and De, and within Buddhism discusses the greater and lesser, provisional and real, so that there is no conflation. Otherwise, it would be as in the Western Regions, where one first divides inner and outer, and within the outer, divides the six masters or ten schools, and so on. 'And so on' includes dividing into greater and lesser within the inner teaching. Regarding the 'six masters,' the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa states: 'First, Pūraṇa (personal name) Kāśyapa (clan name); second, Maskarin (personal name) Gośālī (mother's name) putra; third, Saṃjayin (personal name) Vairaṭī (mother's name) putra; fourth, Ajita (personal name) Keśakambalin (wearing coarse hair-garments); fifth, Kakuda (personal name) Kātyāyana (clan name); sixth, Nirgrantha (personal name) Jñātī (mother's name) putra.' Each of these six conceived a view. The first conceived a view of annihilation, saying: 'All phenomena are empty; there is no way of loyalty and filial piety between ruler and minister, father and son.' The second, Maskarin Gośālīputra, conceived a view of permanence, saying: 'All suffering and pleasure do not stem from karmic action, but exist naturally by nature.' The third conceived a view of spontaneity, adhering to the view that the path need not be cultivated, and that when the suffering of eighty thousand kalpas is exhausted, one naturally attains liberation, like rolling a ball of thread from a high mountaintop, which naturally stops when it unwinds to the end. He established a cause of liberation, taking liberation itself as the cause. Imagining a cause where there is no cause is a heterodox cause. Denying that the path needs to be cultivated is a heterodox view. The fourth is the ascetic non-Buddhist who plucks out his own hair and exposes himself to five fires, thereby attaining liberation. Imagining a path where there is no path is attachment to mere rules and rituals. The fifth conceived an extreme view, holding that all phenomena both exist and do not exist, which is not like the Buddhadharma's existence due to causes and conditions and non-existence due to lack of intrinsic nature. Because adhering to existence as an inherently fixed existence is the view of permanence, and adhering to non-existence as an inherently fixed non-existence is the view of annihilation. Annihilation and permanence deviate from the Middle Way, together forming an extreme view. The sixth held that all retribution of suffering and pleasure arises entirely from past karma and does not depend on present conditions; when past karma is exhausted, suffering is exhausted, and even if one presently cultivates the path, one cannot sever it. This person believes in past karma as the cause, which is not a heterodox view, but denying present conditions is a partial heterodox view. The path can exhaust suffering, but he denies this ability. Imagining what is the path to be not the path is also a heterodox view. The doctrines of the six masters are detailed in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. Each of these six conceived a view, as cited in the Sixth Ground.