注大乘入楞伽經 7.55

7.55

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.