十二門論宗致義記 1.11

1.11

第六、所詮宗趣者，謂語之所表曰宗，宗之所歸曰趣，則以十二種門破執為宗，顯理成行入法為趣，謂迴二乘等令入大乘，是其意也。總說雖然，於中分別略作四門：一、汎明立破儀軌；二、別揀此中所破；三、總申三論義意；四、會諸異說。初汎明經論立破儀軌者，佛法大綱有其二種：一為上品純機，直示教義不立不破；二為中下雜機，方便顯示有立有破。佛在世時，多明初義兼明後義，如諸經中所辨。佛滅度後，多明後義兼明初義，如諸論中所辨。就此有立破中，略以三句顯其分齊：一、明破；二、明立；三、雙辨無礙。初者，聖以大悲，假諸言論破除見執，務祛其病，言無定準。今約相有五：一、譏徵破，謂如佛破長爪梵志云：「汝若一切不受，亦受此不受不？」如此等是已熟之根，故生愧得果也。二、隨宜破，謂如佛見彼眾生根宜，若以此勢而得入法，則當以彼而破其計，令其悟道，未必要具諸量理例。此為上根少生於前，待佛多言方為信伏，如破先尼外道等。此上二種約破外道。若約破二乘，如《法華》等中「汝等所得涅槃非真滅度」等，則為破也。如破三歸一等，亦是準之。三、隨執破，謂如龍樹、聖天等所造三論，對彼外道及小乘等，隨其所執，以種種理例徵破其計，務令執心無寄順入真空則為成益，何必要具三支五分比量道理？以根猶勝，易受入故，不假勢也。四、標量破，謂如龍樹所造《方便心論》及《迴諍論》、世親所造《如實論》等，並各略標世間因明三支五分比量道理，校量破計要顯正法，而亦不存此比量法，是故論中後自破之。此所為根稍劣於前，故用功多也。五、定量破，謂如陳那所造《因明》等論，清辯所造《般若燈論》及《掌珍論》等，並依決擇宗因喻等定量道理，出他宗過無違失者，方可得為是真能破。若於宗等不善出過，名似能破，不成破也。此所對根最下劣故，執見深重難受入故，廣以世間五明之中因明理例校量是非，方始信伏。若至此位猶不信伏，彼愚之甚不可言故，更不至第六門也。

Sixth, regarding the thesis and purport expressed: that which words indicate is called the 'thesis' (zong), and that to which the thesis returns is called the 'purport' (qu). Thus, taking the twelve kinds of gates to refute attachments is the thesis, and revealing principle, perfecting practice, and entering into the Dharma is the purport; that is, turning [those of] the two vehicles and so forth around to cause them to enter the Mahāyāna is its intention. Although this is stated generally, within it we can make a brief division into four sections: 1. broadly explaining the norms of establishing and refuting; 2. specifically identifying what is refuted herein; 3. comprehensively presenting the meaning and intent of the Three Treatises; 4. harmonising the diverse explanations. First, broadly explaining the norms of establishing and refuting in the sūtras and treatises: the great framework of the Buddha's Dharma has two kinds: first, for the pure faculties of the superior grade, directly showing the teaching and meaning, neither establishing nor refuting; second, for the mixed faculties of the intermediate and inferior grades, expediently displaying, with both establishing and refuting. While the Buddha was in the world, he mostly made clear the former meaning and concurrently made clear the latter meaning, as distinguished in the various sūtras. After the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, [the masters] mostly made clear the latter meaning and concurrently made clear the former meaning, as distinguished in the various treatises. Concerning this presence of establishing and refuting, we briefly use three clauses to reveal its demarcations: 1. explaining refutation; 2. explaining establishing; 3. elucidating the unobstructedness of both. As for the first: out of great compassion, the Sage employs various discourses to refute views and attachments, striving solely to cure their sickness, with no fixed rule to his words. Here, in terms of their characteristics, there are five: 1. Refutation by mocking interrogation: as when the Buddha refuted the Long-nailed Renunciant, saying: 'If you accept nothing, do you accept this non-acceptance or not?' Those like this have faculties that are already mature; hence, feeling shame, they attain the fruit. 2. Refutation according to suitability: as when the Buddha sees what is suitable to the faculties of those sentient beings, and if by such an approach they can enter the Dharma, he then uses that to refute their theories and lead them to awaken to the path, without necessarily having to be fully equipped with all the principles and rules of inferential reasoning. This is for superior faculties slightly lower than the former, who require multiple words from the Buddha before they submit with faith, such as the refutation of the non-Buddhist Śreṇika and others. The above two kinds concern the refutation of non-Buddhists. If in terms of refuting the two vehicles, as in the Lotus Sūtra and elsewhere: 'The nirvāṇa you have attained is not true extinction,' and so forth, this constitutes a refutation. The refutation of the three and return to the one, and so on, are also to be understood accordingly. 3. Refutation according to attachment: as in the Three Treatises composed by Nāgārjuna, Āryadeva, and others, confronting those non-Buddhists, Hīnayāna followers, and so on, following their particular attachments, they use various principles and rules to interrogate and refute their theories, striving to leave their clinging minds with no support so that they conformably enter into true emptiness, which constitutes the benefit; why must it be equipped with the principles of the three-membered or five-membered syllogism? Because their faculties are still superior and easily receive and enter, they do not rely on such a posture. 4. Refutation by indicating the pramāṇa: as in the Upāyahṛdaya Śāstra and the Vigrahavyāvartanī composed by Nāgārjuna, the *Tarkatattva composed by Vasubandhu, and so on; they each briefly indicate the worldly principles of the three-membered and five-membered syllogisms of Hetuvidyā, evaluating and refuting theories in order to reveal the correct Dharma, yet they also do not preserve these syllogistic methods, and therefore later in the treatises they refute them themselves. The faculties addressed by this are somewhat inferior to the former, and hence more effort is employed. 5. Refutation by normative pramāṇa: as in the treatises on Hetuvidyā composed by Dignāga, and the Prajñāpradīpa and Karatalaratna composed by Bhāviveka, and so on; all rely on the normative principles of determining the thesis, reason, and example, and so forth, pointing out the fallacies of the other traditions without contradiction or error, before they can be considered true refutations. If one is not skilled at pointing out fallacies in the thesis and so forth, it is called a pseudo-refutation and does not constitute a refutation. Because the faculties confronted here are the lowest and most inferior, and their clinging views are deep and heavy, making it difficult for them to receive and enter, one extensively uses the principles and rules of Hetuvidyā from among the five worldly sciences to weigh right and wrong before they finally submit with faith. If, having arrived at this stage, they still do not submit with faith, their folly is so extreme that it cannot be described, and therefore it does not proceed to a sixth gate.