[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) › [維摩經略疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778) › 5.144 # 維摩經略疏 5.144 維摩經略疏 5.144 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [5.144](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.5.144) 「為用」下，二、彈呵難破。文為二：一就生門、二就無生門。今作通別兩解。一別解者，初約生門正呵三藏菩薩。何者：三藏生滅半字，故《中論》云「為鈍根聲聞弟子說因緣生滅相」。二約無生門者，即是呵衍教菩薩。衍以無生滅為滿字教門，故《中論》云「佛為利根菩薩說因緣不生滅相」。所以約無生呵者，呵大乘中通別菩薩，及呵圓教生語見順道愛等過。二通解者，通呵四教菩薩皆有生無生也。三藏生者，即是生也。通教生者，會入偏真，即是諸法不生，般若生亦是不生生。別教緣修中道智慧，亦是不生生也。圓教真修生，亦是不生生，或有失意，亦須破也。四教皆無生者，三藏雖未斷惑，豈不知有真諦之理。望果行因，因是生、果是無生。通教因是界內理無生，果是界內事理無生。別教因是界內外理無生，果是界外事理無生。圓教無生一往同別，但真緣智斷，制立有異。四教菩薩各望果行因，欲悕記別者，當分生與無生，皆被呵也。雖作兩釋，望此品意，別釋為正。今就別中，先約三藏生門偏呵難破，即為三：先約三世定、二難破、三引證。初文者，若毘曇人，三世是有，過去雖去善法不滅，得繩所繫；未來雖未有，時至則起；現在善法，成就在心，故皆是有。曇無德人則約二世無，過去實法善滅故無，但有假名得報不失；未來未有故無；現在善法成就在心，故是有也。二家雖明二世三世有無，而皆有三相。數人明一時三相，成論明異時三相。一時者，生即住滅。異時者，生時非住時、住時非滅時。為此義故，前定三世。 > From "Is it by means of..." onward, second, the rebuke, challenge, and refutation. The text has two parts: first, in terms of the approach of arising; second, in terms of the approach of non-arising. We will now present both distinct and common interpretations. First, the distinct interpretation: initially, in terms of the approach of arising, it directly rebukes the Tripiṭaka bodhisattva. Why? The Tripiṭaka is the half-word teaching of arising and ceasing; hence the Madhyamaka-śāstra states: "For disciples who are śrāvakas of dull faculties, \[the Buddha\] expounded the characteristics of the arising and ceasing of causes and conditions." Second, in terms of the approach of non-arising: this rebukes the bodhisattvas of the Mahāyāna teaching. The Mahāyāna takes non-arising and non-ceasing as the full-word approach of teaching; hence the Madhyamaka-śāstra states: "For bodhisattvas of sharp faculties, the Buddha expounded the characteristics of the non-arising and non-ceasing of causes and conditions." The reason for rebuking in terms of non-arising is that it rebukes the common and distinct bodhisattvas within the Mahāyāna, as well as rebuking errors in the perfect teaching such as grasping verbal views or clinging to attachment to the path. Second, the common interpretation: it collectively rebukes the bodhisattvas of all four teachings, all of whom possess arising and non-arising. The arising of the Tripiṭaka is just arising. The arising of the common teaching converges into partial truth, which is the non-arising of all phenomena; the arising of prajñā is also the arising of non-arising. The conditioned cultivation of the wisdom of the Middle Way in the distinct teaching is also the arising of non-arising. The true cultivation of arising in the perfect teaching is also the arising of non-arising; if there is any misunderstanding, it must also be refuted. As for all four teachings possessing non-arising: although the Tripiṭaka \[bodhisattva\] has not yet severed afflictions, how could he not know the principle of the ultimate truth? Looking toward the fruit while practicing the cause: the cause is arising, and the fruit is non-arising. In the common teaching, the cause is the non-arising of principle within the realm, and the fruit is the non-arising of both phenomenon and principle within the realm. In the distinct teaching, the cause is the non-arising of principle within and beyond the realm, and the fruit is the non-arising of both phenomenon and principle beyond the realm. In the perfect teaching, non-arising is provisionally identical to the distinct, yet there are differences in the establishment of true versus conditioned wisdom and severance. Bodhisattvas of the four teachings, each looking toward the fruit while practicing the cause and desiring a prophecy, are all rebuked whether within their respective domains of arising or non-arising. Although two interpretations are given, looking at the intent of this chapter, the distinct interpretation is primary. Now, taking up the distinct interpretation, first, in terms of the Tripiṭaka approach of arising, he specifically rebukes, challenges, and refutes it, which has three parts: first, establishing in terms of the three periods of time; second, challenging and refuting; third, citing proof. As for the first passage: according to the Sarvāstivādins, the three periods of time exist; although the past has gone, good dharmas do not perish, being bound by the cord of possession; although the future does not yet exist, when the time arrives it arises; present good dharmas are accomplished in the mind; hence they all exist. The Dharmaguptakas maintain that two periods do not exist: past substantial dharmas of good have ceased and therefore do not exist, there being only designated names such that receiving retribution is not lost; the future does not yet exist and therefore does not exist; present good dharmas are accomplished in the mind, and therefore exist. Although the two schools clarify the existence and nonexistence of the two or three periods, both accept the three characteristics \[of conditioned dharmas\]. The Sarvāstivādins explain three simultaneous characteristics, while the Tattvasiddhi explains three sequential characteristics. "Simultaneous" means that arising is immediately abiding and ceasing. "Sequential" means that the time of arising is not the time of abiding, and the time of abiding is not the time of ceasing. For this reason, the three periods of time are first established. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 5.143](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.5.143) - [Next: 5.145](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.5.145) - [Up: 5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.5) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778~en-mt.5.144) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.5.144](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1778.5.144) · Pramāṇa