維摩經義疏 1.9

1.9

分小大門第五。問：淨名不二法門，與龍樹正觀有何等異？答：不二待二以得名、正觀對邪以受稱，約義不同，義體無異也。問：若不二即是正觀，此經呵凡斥聖、排大破小，盛談不二於義既周，龍樹三論更何所辨？答：佛世根利，尋經自通；末俗庸淺，待論方悟。則知淨名破之於前、龍樹申之於後，不應聞經起信、聽論生疑。問：《成實》、《毘曇》有不二義不？答曰：無也。何以知然？《智度論》云「聲聞法內，不說生死即是涅槃。」此經辨生死即涅槃，名為不二。而《成論》十六卷文不說生死即涅槃。以此推之，知無不二。問：考尋《成實》盛辨法空，空理忘言則是不二。何得云無？答：龍樹論云「空有二種：一者小乘折法空、二者大乘明本法空。」而此經云「非色滅空，色性自空，名為不二。」尋《成實論》二百二品，但明以實折假、用空過實，不言非色滅空、色性自空。以此推之，知無不二。問：何故小乘不明相即？答：若有相即，便有竝觀，則非聲聞。是故小乘不明相即。問：聲聞何故無竝觀耶？答曰？大士利根，照空即遊有、鑒有即知空，故道貫雙流，二慧能竝。小乘智劣，入空即失有、出有即捨空，既取捨行心，故無真俗竝觀。問：毘曇保小，遂折於大；三論守大，破斥於小。斯即大小杜絕、諍論交興。《成實》探大釋小、融會二教，令小有入大之功、大有接小之義，則小大兼明，諍論便息。不應偏謂但弘小乘，無有不二。答曰：夫立論序者，蓋標一部之大宗也。《十二門．序》云「今當略解摩訶衍義」，此摽大乘之旨歸也。《成實論．序》云「故我正論三藏實義」，此標小乘之宗致也。跋摩自云正弘小教，未曾宣唱兼辨大乘，故論旨須依、人通宜棄。問：安知三藏唯是小乘？答曰：《法華經》云「亦不親近小乘三藏學者」，《智度論》云「佛法有二：一小乘三藏，如牛跡水；二摩訶衍藏，譬彼大池。」故知三藏定為小矣。問曰：尋訶梨之序，乃正標三藏，而探取般若無相以釋小乘，故小大兼明煥然可領。答曰：雖有此道，已漏前責。尋三藏之內自辨法空、小乘之宗即有無相，豈假探大而釋小乎？必苟存之，請重研究，為是大論兼釋於小、為是小論兼釋大耶？若是大論兼釋小者，建首應標「故我正論大乘實義」，不得初釋三藏也。若是小論兼釋大者，無有是處。所以然者，《智度論》云「大能包小，故大兼釋小；小不含大，故小不釋大。」進退徵之，即知專是小乘，不兼大矣。又羅什親翻《成實》，非明大乘。以此詳之，即可知矣。問：若《成實》為小，何故世所盛傳？答曰：淺法符情，物皆易受；正言似反，誰肯信之？問：《成實》若小，梁武崇大，何猶稟學？答：梁武初雖學之，後遂彈斥，著《大品經序》，呵成實師云「若執五時之說，謂般若淨名未圓極者，無異窮子反走於宅中、獨姥掩自於道上，法水所以大悲、形山所以流慟。」梁武初學《成實》、《毘曇》，聞攝山栖霞寺高麗朗法師從北山來，善解三論、妙達大乘，遣智寂等十人就山學之，而傳授梁武，因此遂改小從大。又齊司徒竟陵文宣王，博涉內外、經律兼通，常慮慧日沈輝、每欲綱維正法。為時學人專弘《成實》，遂翳障大乘，仍刪改《成實》。凡有九卷，以助通經文。眾事推之，必非兼弘之說也。問：若《成實》為小、三論是大，則二教分流，何俟相斥？答：原佛興世本為大乘，但根性未堪，故推示小教。雖復說小，意在詮大。而保實之徒，遂守指忘月，保小拒大。如五百部，聞畢竟空，如刀傷心。是以龍樹破彼小迷，令趣大道。若不呵責，便違本誓。譬如稚子未有所知，取枯骨木枝以內於口。父母見之已，恐為其患，故左手捉頭、右手挑出，假使血流，終不捨置。四依破病，其義類然。又諸方等教盛毀聲聞，以執小乘多好謗大，如其謗大則永沒無間。故《涅槃經》云「菩薩從初發心，起大誓願：令我怖畏二乘道果，如借命者怖畏捨身。」《法華經》明，豪貴長者譬大乘人、除糞窮子譬學小教者。《大品經》云「譬如癡大，不從大家求食，而反就作務者索。」龍樹釋云「大家者，大乘教也。癡大者，學小乘人也。作務者，所謂奴客，喻小乘教也。不從大家求者，不學大乘求佛道；反就奴客求食者，喻學小乘佛法欲證法身也。」如斯等教親自盛呵。四依出世，造大乘論，申明佛旨，還復排斥。何所疑哉？

Fifth is the gate of distinguishing the small and the great. Question: What difference is there between Jingming's Dharma gate of non-duality and Nāgārjuna's correct contemplation? Answer: Non-duality gets its name in relation to duality; correct contemplation receives its designation in contrast to the wrong. Drawing distinctions according to meaning, they differ, but the substance of their meaning is not different. Question: If non-duality is precisely correct contemplation, and this sūtra scolds the ordinary, rebukes the holy, thrusts aside the great, and refutes the small, abundantly discussing non-duality so that its meaning is already complete, what more was there for Nāgārjuna's Three Treatises to elucidate? Answer: In the Buddha's time, faculties were sharp; inquiring into the sūtras, people naturally penetrated them. In later times, the vulgar are shallow and mediocre; they wait for treatises and only then awaken. Thus one knows that Jingming refuted them before and Nāgārjuna elucidated it afterward; one should not hear the sūtra and give rise to faith, yet listen to the treatises and produce doubt. Question: Do the Tattvasiddhi and Abhidharma have the meaning of non-duality or not? Answer: They do not. How is this known to be so? The *Da zhidu lun* says: "Within the teachings of the śrāvakas, it is not said that saṃsāra is itself nirvāṇa." This sūtra expounds saṃsāra as being itself nirvāṇa, calling it non-duality. Yet the text of the sixteen fascicles of the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra* does not say that saṃsāra is itself nirvāṇa. Inferring from this, one knows it lacks non-duality. Question: Examining the *Tattvasiddhi*, it abundantly expounds the emptiness of dharmas; the principle of emptiness forgetting words is precisely non-duality. How can you say it lacks it? Answer: Nāgārjuna's treatise says: "Emptiness is of two kinds: first, the Hinayāna emptiness through analytical deconstruction of dharmas; second, the Mahāyāna explanation of the intrinsic emptiness of dharmas." And this sūtra says: "It is not that form is destroyed to make emptiness; the nature of form is of itself empty—this is called non-duality." Examining the two hundred and two chapters of the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra*, it only explains using the real to deconstruct the provisional, and using emptiness to pass beyond the real; it does not say that it is not that form is destroyed to make emptiness, or that the nature of form is of itself empty. Inferring from this, one knows it lacks non-duality. Question: Why does the Hinayāna not explain mutual identity? Answer: If there were mutual identity, then there would be simultaneous contemplation, and then one would not be a śrāvaka. Therefore the Hinayāna does not explain mutual identity. Question: Why do the śrāvakas lack simultaneous contemplation? Answer: The mahāsattvas are of sharp faculties: illuminating emptiness, they instantly wander in existence; observing existence, they instantly know emptiness. Therefore their Way penetrates both currents, and the two wisdoms can function simultaneously. The intelligence of the Hinayāna is inferior: entering emptiness, they immediately lose existence; emerging into existence, they immediately abandon emptiness. Since their practicing minds grasp and reject, they lack the simultaneous contemplation of the ultimate and conventional. Question: The Abhidharma preserves the small and consequently deconstructs the great; the Three Treatises maintain the great and refute the small. This means the great and small are cut off from each other, and disputations arise mutually. The *Tattvasiddhi* probes the great to explain the small and fuses the two teachings, enabling the small to have the merit of entering the great, and the great to have the significance of receiving the small; then small and great are both illuminated, and disputations cease. One should not one-sidedly say that it only propagates the Hinayāna and lacks non-duality. Answer: Now, a preface written for a treatise is that which marks the overarching purpose of the entire work. The preface to the *Twelve Gate Treatise* says, "Now I shall briefly explain the meaning of the Mahāyāna"; this marks the ultimate aim of the Mahāyāna. The preface to the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra* says, "Therefore I correctly discourse on the real meaning of the Tripiṭaka"; this marks the central aim of the Hinayāna. Harivarman himself said that he was correctly propagating the small teaching and never proclaimed that he was simultaneously expounding the Mahāyāna. Therefore, one must rely on the treatise's aim, and personal interpretations ought to be discarded. Question: How is it known that the Tripiṭaka is solely the Hinayāna? Answer: The *Lotus Sūtra* says, "Neither do they draw close to scholars of the Hinayāna Tripiṭaka." The *Da zhidu lun* says, "The Buddha-Dharma is twofold: first, the Hinayāna Tripiṭaka, like the water in a cow's footprint; second, the Mahāyāna Piṭaka, likened to that great lake." Therefore one knows that the Tripiṭaka is definitively the small. Question: Examining Harivarman's preface, it directly marks the Tripiṭaka, but probes and takes the signlessness of prajñā to explain the Hinayāna; thus small and great are both illuminated, which can be clearly comprehended. Answer: Although there is this interpretation, it has already fallen under the previous critique. Examining within the Tripiṭaka, it of itself expounds the emptiness of dharmas, and the tradition of the Hinayāna itself contains signlessness; why would it need to probe the great to explain the small? If you insist on maintaining this, please investigate it again: is it a great treatise that simultaneously explains the small, or is it a small treatise that simultaneously explains the great? If it were a great treatise that simultaneously explains the small, it should have marked at the beginning, "Therefore I correctly discourse on the real meaning of the Mahāyāna," and could not have explained the Tripiṭaka at the outset. If it were a small treatise that simultaneously explains the great, this is impossible. Why is this so? The *Da zhidu lun* says: "The great can encompass the small, so the great simultaneously explains the small; the small does not contain the great, so the small does not explain the great." Examining it from both sides, one knows that it is exclusively Hinayāna and does not include the great. Furthermore, Kumārajīva personally translated the *Tattvasiddhi* not to illuminate the Mahāyāna. Examining it through this, it can be known. Question: If the *Tattvasiddhi* is small, why was it so widely propagated in the world? Answer: Shallow teachings accord with human sentiments, so people easily accept them; correct words seem paradoxical, so who is willing to believe them? Question: If the *Tattvasiddhi* is small, why did Emperor Wu of Liang, who venerated the great, still study it? Answer: Although Emperor Wu of Liang studied it initially, he subsequently criticized it, writing in his "Preface to the Pañcaviṃśati Sūtra" to rebuke the Tattvasiddhi masters: "If one clings to the doctrine of the five periods and claims that the Prajñāpāramitā and Jingming are not complete and ultimate, it is no different from the impoverished son running back inside his house, or the lonely crone covering her own face on the road. This is why the water of the Dharma brings forth great compassion, and the mountain of the body weeps with grief." Emperor Wu of Liang initially studied the *Tattvasiddhi* and *Abhidharma*; when he heard that Master Lang of Goryeo from Qixia Monastery on Mount She had come from the northern mountains, expertly understood the Three Treatises, and wondrously penetrated the Mahāyāna, he dispatched Zhiji and ten others to study under him on the mountain, and they transmitted it to Emperor Wu of Liang, who consequently abandoned the small to follow the great. Moreover, Prince Wenxuan of Jingling, Minister of Education of the Qi, extensively traversed internal and external learning and penetrated both sūtras and vinaya; constantly worrying that the sun of wisdom would sink in radiance, he always wished to maintain the orthodox Dharma. Because the scholars of the time exclusively propagated the *Tattvasiddhi* and thereby obscured the Mahāyāna, he edited and revised the *Tattvasiddhi*, making nine fascicles in all, in order to assist in understanding the text of the sūtras. Deducing from various matters, it is definitively not a teaching of simultaneous propagation. Question: If the *Tattvasiddhi* is small and the Three Treatises are great, then the two teachings flow in different streams; why wait to refute each other? Answer: Originally, the Buddha's appearance in the world was fundamentally for the Mahāyāna; but because their faculties were not yet capable, he temporarily indicated the lesser teaching. Although he spoke of the small, his intention lay in explicating the great. Yet those who cling to the real consequently grasp the finger and forget the moon, preserving the small and rejecting the great. Like the five hundred sects who, hearing of ultimate emptiness, felt as if a knife had wounded their hearts. Therefore Nāgārjuna refuted their minor delusions to make them proceed toward the great Way. If he had not rebuked them, he would have violated his original vow. For example, a young child who knows nothing takes a dry bone or a wooden stick and puts it in his mouth; when the parents see this, fearing it will cause harm, they hold his head with the left hand and pick it out with the right, and even if blood flows, they will not let it be. The four reliances refuting sickness are of a similar meaning. Moreover, the various vaipulya teachings abundantly disparage the śrāvakas, because those who cling to the Hinayāna mostly like to slander the great; if they slander the great, they will sink forever into Avīci. Therefore the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* says: "From the first arousal of the mind, a bodhisattva gives rise to a great vow: 'May I dread the paths and fruits of the two vehicles just as a person borrowing life dreads giving up the body.'" The *Lotus Sūtra* explains that the noble and wealthy elder is likened to a follower of the Mahāyāna, and the impoverished son who clears dung is likened to one who studies the lesser teaching. The *Pañcaviṃśati Sūtra* says: "It is like a foolish adult who does not seek food from the master of the house, but instead asks the laborers for it." Nāgārjuna explained: "The master of the house is the Mahāyāna teaching. The foolish adult is the person who studies the Hinayāna. The laborers, namely the hired servants, are an analogy for the Hinayāna teaching. Not seeking from the master of the house means not studying the Mahāyāna to seek the Buddha Way; instead seeking food from the hired servants is an analogy for studying Hinayāna Buddha-Dharma wanting to realize the dharmakāya." Teachings such as these personally and vigorously rebuke them. When the four reliances appear in the world and compose Mahāyāna treatises to elucidate the Buddha's intention, they likewise thrust them aside. What doubt could there be?