三論玄義 1.5

1.5

次排震旦眾師：一研法、二覈人。問曰：天竺四術既是外言，震旦三玄應為內教。答：釋僧肇云：「每讀老子莊周之書，因而歎曰：美即美矣，然棲神冥累之方猶未盡也。後見《淨名經》，欣然頂戴，謂親友曰：吾知所歸極矣。遂棄俗出家。」羅什昔聞三玄與九部同極、伯陽與牟尼抗行，乃喟然歎曰：「老莊入玄故，應易惑耳目。凡夫之智、孟浪之言，言之似極，而未始詣也；推之似盡，而未誰至也。略陳六義明其優劣，外但辨乎一形、內則朗鑒三世，外則五情未達、內則說六通窮微，外未即萬有而為太虛、內說不壞假名而演實相，外未能即無為而遊萬有、內說不動真際建立諸法，外存得失之門、內冥二際於絕句之理，外未境智兩泯、內則緣觀俱寂。以此詳之，短羽之於鵬翼、坎井之於天池，未足喻其懸矣。秦人疑其極，吾復何言哉！」問：伯陽之道，道曰太虛。牟尼之道，道稱無相。理源既一則萬流並同。什肇抑揚乃諂於佛（此王弼舊疏，以無為為道體）。答：伯陽之道，道指虛無，牟尼之道，道超四句。淺深既懸，體何由一？蓋是子佞於道，非余諂佛。問：牟尼之道，道為真諦，而體絕百非。伯陽之道，道曰杳冥，理超四句。彌驗體一，奚有淺深（此梁武帝新義，用佛經以真空為道體）。答：九流統攝、七略該含，唯辨有無，未明絕四。若言老教亦辨雙非，蓋以砂糅金，同盜牛之論（周弘政、張機並斥老有雙非之義也）。

Next, discarding the various masters of China: first, examining the doctrine; second, assessing the persons. Question: The four Indian arts are indeed external words, but the Three Mysteries of China ought to be an internal teaching. Answer: The Śramaṇa Sengzhao said: 'Whenever I read the books of Laozi and Zhuang Zhou, I sighed and said: "They are indeed beautiful, yet their method for lodging the spirit and vanishing worldly entanglements is still not exhaustive." Later, seeing the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, I rejoiced and reverently held it, saying to my relatives and friends: "I know that to which I shall return in the ultimate." Thereupon I abandoned the world and went forth.' When Kumārajīva previously heard that the Three Mysteries and the nine divisions reached the same ultimate, and that Boyang and the Muni were on equal footing, he sighed with deep feeling and said: 'Because Laozi and Zhuangzi entered into the mysterious, they are likely to deceive the eyes and ears. They are the wisdom of ordinary people, reckless words; they seem ultimate when spoken, yet have never arrived; when pursued they seem exhaustive, yet have reached nowhere. I will briefly state six points to clarify their superiority and inferiority: The external only distinguishes a single physical form, while the internal brightly illuminates the three times; the external has not reached beyond the five sensory feelings, while the internal explains the six superknowledges exhaustively penetrating the subtle; the external cannot identify the myriad existents as the Great Void, while the internal explains that without destroying prajñapti, dharmatā is expounded; the external cannot abide in unconditioned non-action while roaming through the myriad existents, while the internal explains that without moving from the bhūtakoṭi, all phenomena are established; the external retains the gates of gain and loss, while the internal merges the two limits within the principle that transcends catuṣkoṭi; the external has not extinguished both object and cognition, while the internal has both condition and vipaśyanā utterly tranquil. Examining them with these, comparing short feathers to the wings of the Peng bird, or an abandoned well to the Heavenly Pond, is still insufficient to illustrate their vast disparity. The people of Qin suspect them to be ultimate; what more can I say!' Question: The path of Boyang is called the Great Void. The path of the Muni is called signlessness. Since the source of principle is one, the myriad streams are identical. Kumārajīva and Sengzhao's disparagement and praise is merely flattery toward the Buddha. (This is Wang Bi's old commentary, taking unconditioned non-action as the substance of the Dao.) Answer: The path of Boyang refers to voidness and non-being; the path of the Muni transcends the catuṣkoṭi. Since shallow and deep are so far apart, how could their substance be one? It is you who flatter the Dao, not I who flatter the Buddha. Question: The path of the Muni is the paramārthasatya, and its substance cuts off the hundred negations. The path of Boyang is said to be dim and indistinct, its principle transcending the catuṣkoṭi. This all the more proves that their substance is one; how could there be shallow and deep? (This is Emperor Wu of Liang's new interpretation, using Buddhist sutras to take true emptiness as the substance of the Dao.) Answer: The nine schools synthesize and the Seven Summaries encompass; they only distinguish being and non-being, and have not clarified cutting off the four [koṭis]. If one says that Laozi's teaching also distinguishes the double negation, it is mixing sand with gold, identical to the argument of the stolen cow. (Zhou Hongzheng and Zhang Ji both refuted Laozi having the meaning of double negation.)