三論玄義 1.3

1.3

夫適化無方、陶誘非一。考聖心，以息患為主；統教意，以通理為宗。但九十六術栖火宅為淨道，五百異部縈見網為泥洹，遂使鹿苑坵墟、鷲山荊蕀，善逝以之流慟、薩埵所以大悲，四依為此而興、三論由斯而作。但論雖有三，義唯二轍：一曰顯正、二曰破邪，破邪則下拯沈淪、顯正則上弘大法，故振領提綱，理唯斯二也。但邪謬紛綸難可備序，三論所斥略辨四宗：一摧外道、二折毘曇、三排成實、四呵大執。問：以何義故遍斥眾師？答：論主究其原、盡其理也。一源不究則戲論不滅，毫理不盡則至道不彰。以無源不究，群異乃息；無理不盡，玄道始通。是以斯文遍排眾計。問：既無法不究、無言不盡，應遍排群異，何故但斥四宗耶？答：初一為外、後三為內，內外並收。毘曇明有、成實辨空，空有俱攝，斯二為小。方等稱大，大小該羅。略洗四迷，則紛累都盡耳。問：此之四執，優降云何？答：外道不達二空，橫存人法；毘曇已得無我，而執法有性；跋摩具辨二空，而照猶未盡；大乘乃言究竟，但封執成迷。自淺至深，四宗階級。問：外道邪言可得稱破，餘為內教，何得亦破？答：總談破顯，凡有四門：一破不收、二收不破、三亦破亦收、四不破不收。言不會道，破而不收。說必契理，收而不破。學教起迷，亦破亦收，破其能迷之情、收取所惑之教。諸法實相言忘慮絕，實無可破亦無可收。泯上三門歸乎一相，照斯四句破立皎然（自此以來總明申破，從此已去別斥四宗）。

Now, transforming beings in accord with their capacities has no fixed direction, and moulding and guiding them is not of one manner alone. Examining the sage's intent, taking the cessation of afflictions as principal; synthesizing the purport of the teaching, taking penetration into the principle as the primary aim. Yet the ninety-six heterodox arts dwelt in the burning house taking it as the pure path, and the five hundred divergent sects entangled themselves in the net of views taking it as nirvāṇa. This caused the Mṛgadāva to turn to ruins and Gṛdhrakūṭa to be overgrown with brambles; the Sugata wept bitterly over this, and the Bodhisattva felt great compassion on this account. The four reliances arose for this reason, and the Three Treatises were composed because of this. Although the treatises are three, their purport takes but two tracks: first, revealing the correct; second, refuting the erroneous. Refuting the erroneous saves those who have fallen below; revealing the correct propagates the great Dharma above. Therefore, lifting the collar and grasping the net, the principle is solely these two. But erroneous fallacies are tangled and manifold, difficult to set forth completely; what is refuted by the Three Treatises briefly distinguishes four tenets: first, smashing the tīrthikas; second, breaking the Abhidharma; third, discarding the Tattvasiddhi; fourth, reproving attachment to the Mahāyāna. Question: For what reason are the various masters refuted everywhere? Answer: The treatise master investigated their source and exhausted their principle. If one source is not investigated, prapañca is not extinguished; if a hair of principle is not exhausted, the ultimate path will not be made manifest. Because there is no source left uninvestigated, the various divergent views are brought to rest; because there is no principle left unexhausted, the profound path first opens up. For this reason, this text everywhere discards the various opinions. Question: Since there is no phenomenon uninvestigated and no statement unexhausted, all divergent views ought to be discarded; why then refute only four tenets? Answer: The first one is external, and the latter three are internal; both the internal and external are subsumed. The Abhidharma clarifies existence, while the Tattvasiddhi analyzes emptiness; both emptiness and existence are comprehended, and these two are the Hīnayāna. The vaipulya is called Mahāyāna; both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna are encompassed. By briefly cleansing these four delusions, tangled entanglements are completely eliminated. Question: Regarding these four attachments, how are their superiority and inferiority graded? Answer: The tīrthikas do not comprehend the twofold emptiness and arbitrarily preserve persons and dharmas. The Abhidharma has already attained the selflessness of persons, yet clings to dharmas having intrinsic nature. Harivarman fully analyzes the twofold emptiness, yet his illumination is still not complete. The Mahāyāna indeed speaks of ultimate perfection, but clinging attachments turn into delusion. From shallow to deep, these are the gradations of the four tenets. Question: The erroneous words of tīrthikas may well be called 'refuted'; as the others are the internal teaching, how can they also be refuted? Answer: Speaking generally of refutation and revelation, there are four gates in all: first, refuting without accepting; second, accepting without refuting; third, both refuting and accepting; fourth, neither refuting nor accepting. If words do not accord with the path, they are refuted and not accepted. If an exposition necessarily accords with principle, it is accepted and not refuted. When delusion arises from studying the teachings, it is both refuted and accepted: refuting the grasping mind capable of delusion, and accepting the teaching about which it was confused. The dharmatā of all phenomena transcends words and cuts off thought; there is truly nothing that can be refuted and nothing that can be accepted. Dissolving the above three gates into the one characteristic, illuminating these catuṣkoṭi makes refutation and establishment lucid and distinct. (Up to this point has been a general explanation of presenting refutation; from here on begins the specific refutation of the four tenets.)