[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) › [注大乘入楞伽經](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1791) › 7.55 # 注大乘入楞伽經 7.55 注大乘入楞伽經 7.55 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [7.55](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1791.7.55) 然外道邪見雖有九十六種，並不離五見二因。五見者，謂十使煩惱中五利使也。如第三卷已略釋。言二因者，謂無因、邪因也。或計二十五諦從冥等生，或計六句和合等生，或謂自在、梵天等生，或謂微塵、虛空、宿作等而為世間。及《涅槃》本，統收所計不出四見：謂數論計一、勝論計異、勒沙婆計亦一亦異、若提子計非一非異。若計一者，則謂因中有果；若計異者，則謂因中無果；三則亦有亦無；四則非有非無。餘諸異計皆不出此。雖多不同，就其結過不離二因：謂從虛空自然生，即是無因；餘皆邪因。此方儒、道二教，若約君臣、父子、三才、五常等，乃域中至化也，固不在言。且天竺外道，明說三世亦信因果，知厭生死、樂求涅槃。但真源小差，致去道懸遠，而況專門之學。善上一身，縱有終身之憂，而無他世之慮，雖齊生死、強一榮枯，唯計自然或推天命，如所謂人法地、地法天、天法道、道法自然。若以自然為因，能生萬物，即是邪因。若謂萬物自然而生，如鶴之白、烏之黑，即是無因。又謂易有太極是生兩儀、兩儀生四象、四象生八卦、八卦定吉凶，吉凶生大業者。若計太極為因，即是邪因。若謂一陰一陽之謂道，即計陰陽變易能生萬物，亦是邪因。若計一為虛無自然者，則亦無因。然無因、邪因乃成大過，謂虛空自然等生，應常生故。昔說小乘之因緣，已破外宗之玄妙，是知佛法之淺淺，尤勝外道之深深。故知殊方異域總由迷正因緣，紛然異計，尚不知三界由乎我心，從癡有愛流轉無極，安知性空之理、妙有之門，真如隨緣、性相無礙、圓融交映、涉入重重者哉！言有濫同釋教者皆是佛法之餘，同《涅槃經》盜牛之喻，不能善取，加以水漿，乳猶難得，況抨驢乳而得醍醐？或識解膚淺、世智妄推，或苟求虛名、習邪見種，樹地獄之苦本，遏種智之深因，豈不哀哉！廣明異計，如《瑜伽》第六、《顯揚》第九第十、《婆沙》十一十二，及《金七十論》說，《中》、《百》等論亦廣破之。 > Now, although there are ninety-six kinds of heterodox wrong views, they do not go beyond the five views and two causes. The "five views" are the five sharp afflictions among the ten afflictive envoys, as briefly explained in Fascicle Three. The "two causes" are causelessness and wrong causes. Some posit that the twenty-five principles arise from the primordial nature and so on; some posit that they arise from the combination of the six padārthas; some say they arise from Īśvara, Brahmā, and so on; or say that fine particles, space, past actions, and so on constitute the world. And the Nirvāṇa \[Sūtra\] summarizes all their tenets into no more than four views: namely, the Sāṃkhya positing oneness, the Vaiśeṣika positing difference, the Nirgrantha positing both oneness and difference, and the Jñātīputra positing neither oneness nor difference. If one posits oneness, then one asserts that the effect exists in the cause; if one posits difference, then one asserts that the effect does not exist in the cause; the third is both existence and non-existence; the fourth is neither existence nor non-existence. All other heterodox tenets do not go beyond these. Although their variations are many, with regard to concluding their faults, they do not go beyond the two causes: positing that things arise from space and spontaneity is causelessness; all the rest are wrong causes. As for the two teachings of Confucianism and Daoism in this land, if taken in terms of ruler and minister, father and son, the three powers, and the five constants, they are the utmost transformation within this realm, which goes without saying. Furthermore, the Indian heterodox explicitly speak of the three times and also believe in cause and effect; they know to weary of birth and death and joyfully seek nirvāṇa. Yet a slight divergence from the true source leads them immensely far from the Way; how much more so for specialized schools! Good for cultivating oneself in this life alone, even if they have lifelong worries they have no concerns for other lifetimes; though they equalize birth and death and forcibly unify flourishing and withering, they merely posit spontaneity or attribute it to the Mandate of Heaven, as in the so-called: "Man models himself on Earth, Earth models itself on Heaven, Heaven models itself on the Dao, and the Dao models itself on spontaneity." If spontaneity is taken as a cause capable of producing the ten thousand things, that is a wrong cause. If one says that the ten thousand things arise spontaneously, like the whiteness of a crane or the blackness of a crow, that is causelessness. It is also said that in the Changes there is the Great Ultimate, which generates the Two Modes; the Two Modes generate the Four Images; the Four Images generate the Eight Trigrams; the Eight Trigrams determine auspiciousness and inauspiciousness; and auspiciousness and inauspiciousness generate the great enterprise. If the Great Ultimate is posited as the cause, that is a wrong cause. If it is said that "one Yin and one Yang is called the Dao," positing that the transformation of Yin and Yang can generate the ten thousand things, that is also a wrong cause. If one posits the One as vacuous non-being and spontaneity, that is also causelessness. Now, causelessness and wrong causes constitute great faults, for if things arose from space, spontaneity, and so on, they should arise eternally. Long ago, the exposition of Hīnayāna dependent origination already refuted the profound subtleties of external traditions; thus one knows that the shallowest of the Buddha's Dharma still surpasses the deepest of the heterodox. Hence we know that all disparate regions and foreign lands, entirely through delusion regarding correct causes and conditions, fall into a riot of divergent views, not yet knowing that the three realms stem from our own mind and that from ignorance arises craving, cycling endlessly. How could they know the principle of nature-emptiness, the gateway of wondrous existence, suchness following conditions, the non-obstruction of nature and characteristics, perfect harmony and mutual reflection, and multiple interpenetrations! As for assertions that vaguely resemble the Śākya teaching, they are all leftovers of the Buddha's Dharma, like the metaphor of stealing a cow in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra: unable to take properly and adding water, milk is still hard to obtain, let alone churning donkey's milk to obtain clarified butter! Either their understanding is shallow and they make false conjectures with worldly intellect, or they illicitly seek empty fame and cultivate seeds of wrong views, planting the bitter roots of hell and obstructing the deep cause of the knowledge of all modes—how lamentable! For an extensive explanation of divergent views, see the Yogācāra\[-bhūmi\] fascicle 6, the Prakaraṇāryavācā fascicles 9 and 10, the Vibhāṣā fascicles 11 and 12, and the Sāṃkhyakārikā-bhāṣya (Golden Seventy); the Madhyamaka-śāstra, Śata-śāstra, and others also extensively refute them. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 7.54](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1791.7.54) - [Next: 7.56](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1791.7.56) - [Up: 7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1791.7) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1791~en-mt.7.55) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1791.7.55](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1791.7.55) · Pramāṇa