三論玄義 1.8

1.8

破斥第二，凡有十門：一乖至道、二扶眾見、三違大教、四守小筌、五迷自宗、六無本信、七有偏執、八非學本、九弊真言、十喪圓旨。蓋無比之名有餘、所明之理不足，非但遠乖方等，亦近迷三藏。略舉十門，顯其虛實。乖至道者，夫道之為狀也，體絕百非、理超四句，言之者失其真、知之者反其愚，有之者乖其性、無之者傷其體，故七辨輟音、五眼冥照，釋迦掩室、淨名杜口，豈可以有而為道哉。第二扶眾見。然道實非有，遂言見有得道，乃是見有，非見道也。故《淨名》云「法名無染。若染於法，乃是染著，非求法也。」又夫見有者名為有見，非見道矣。故《法華》云「入邪見稠林，若有若無等，依止此諸見，具足六十二。」問：若執有無，此有何失？答：《正觀論》云「淺智見諸法，若有若無等，是則不能見，滅見安隱法」，於彼有大過矣。第三違大教。《思益經》云「於未來世有惡比丘，說有相法得成聖道。」佛垂此勅，懸誡將來。既曰惡人，理是邪說，違背大教，宜須破之。第四守小筌。夫為未識源者示之以流，令尋流以得源；未見月者示之以指，令因指以得月。窮流則唯是一源，亡指則但是一月，蓋是如來說小之意也。而毘曇之徒執固小宗不趣大道，守筌喪實，故造論破之。第五迷自宗。諸聖弟子有所述作，本為通經。而《阿含》之文親說無相，故善吉觀法空而悟道、身子入空定而佛歎。阿毘曇人但明見有，故自迷本宗。第六無本信。《文殊問經》云「十八及本二，皆從大乘出。無是亦無非，我說未來起。」十八者，謂十八部異執也。及本二者，根本唯二部：一大眾部、二上座部。而阿毘曇是十八部內薩婆多部，從大乘出，即大為小本。而執小之流聞大乘不信，是以破之。問：何以知執小之人不信大法耶？答：《智度論》云「旃延弟子答龍樹云：我聞大乘，心不都信。」故外國執小乘者與學大乘人分河飲水。第七有偏執。《大集經》云「雖有五部，並不妨如來法界及大涅槃。」而阿毘曇人保執自宗、排斥他說，便違法界、拒大涅槃。累障既深，宜須傷歎。第八非學本。《大品經》云「欲知四緣，當學般若」。外人問龍樹云：「欲學四緣，應學毘曇。云何乃學般若？」論主答曰：「初學毘曇，似如可解。轉久推求，則成邪見。」問曰：學毘曇云何乃成邪見？答：若言四緣生諸法者，誰復生於四緣？若四緣更從他生，則他復從他，如是無窮。若其四緣自然而有不從他生者，萬物亦應不由四緣，當墮無因。故從則無窮、窮則無因，由此二門則不信因果，故久學毘曇成於邪見。第九弊真言。《大集經》云「甚深之義不可說，第一義諦無聲字。陳如比丘於諸法獲得真實之知見。」《本起經》云「頞鞞沙門即五人之一，為身子說偈云：一切諸法本，因緣空無主。息心達本源，故號為沙門。身子聞之即得初果。」尋大小二經皆明見空成聖，而阿毘曇謂觀有得道，故隱覆真言。第十喪圓旨。《涅槃經》云「欲令眾生深識真諦，是故如來宣說於俗。若使眾生不因俗諦而識真者，諸佛如來終不說俗。」毘曇之流雖知俗有，不悟真空，既惑真空亦迷俗有，是故真俗二俱並喪。

Second, the refutation, which has ten sections altogether: 1. It goes against the ultimate Path; 2. It supports diverse views; 3. It contradicts the great teaching; 4. It holds to a small fish-trap; 5. It is confused about its own school; 6. It lacks fundamental faith; 7. It has partial attachments; 8. It is not the basis of learning; 9. It ruins the true words; 10. It loses the complete intent. Indeed, its title of "incomparable" is superfluous, and the principle it explains is deficient; not only does it stray far from the vaipulya, but it also falls short even of understanding the Tripiṭaka. We briefly present ten sections to demonstrate its truth and falsity. As for going against the ultimate Path: the nature of the Path is that its substance cuts off the hundred negations, and its principle transcends the catuṣkoṭi. He who speaks of it loses its reality; he who knows it returns to folly. To say it exists goes against its nature; to say it does not exist injures its substance. Thus the seven elocutions cease their sound, and the five eyes perceive in darkness; Śākyamuni shut his chamber, and Vimalakīrti closed his mouth. How could the Path ever be made of existence? Second, supporting diverse views. The Path is in truth not existent, yet they proceed to say that one attains the Path by seeing existence; this is merely seeing existence, not seeing the Path. Therefore the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: "The Dharma is named free from attachment. If one is attached to the Dharma, that is attachment, not seeking the Dharma." Furthermore, whoever sees existence is said to have an "existent-view," not to see the Path. Thus the Lotus Sūtra says: "Entering the thicket of false views, such as existence, non-existence, and the like; relying upon these views, they fully embody the sixty-two." Question: If one clings to existence or non-existence, what fault is there in this? Answer: The Madhyamakaśāstra says: "Those of shallow wisdom who see dharmas / As existent, non-existent, and so forth, / Are thereby unable to see / The tranquil dharma wherein views are extinguished." Therein lies their great error. Third, contradicting the great teaching. The Viśeṣacintibrahmaparipṛcchā-sūtra says: "In future eras there will be evil monks who say that one can accomplish the noble path through dharmas that possess characteristics." The Buddha left this instruction as a remote warning for the future. Since they are called "evil persons," it is logically an erroneous teaching that contradicts the great teaching and must be refuted. Fourth, holding to a small fish-trap. For those who do not yet recognise the source, one points to the stream so that they may trace the stream to find the source; for those who do not yet see the moon, one points with a finger so that they may use the finger to see the moon. Exhausting the stream, there is only one source; forgetting the finger, there is only one moon. Such was the Tathāgata's intent in preaching the small [vehicle]. Yet the followers of the Abhidharma stubbornly cling to the small school and do not proceed toward the Great Path; holding to the fish-trap and losing the reality, treatises were therefore composed to refute them. Fifth, being confused about their own school. The compositions of the noble disciples were originally meant to penetrate the sūtras. But the texts of the Āgamas directly speak of signlessness; therefore Subhūti attained the Path by contemplating the emptiness of dharmas, and Śāriputra entered the concentration on emptiness and was praised by the Buddha. The Abhidharma people explain only the seeing of existence, and thus are confused about their own fundamental school. Sixth, lacking fundamental faith. The Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā-sūtra says: "The eighteen and the two root [schools] / All emerge from the Mahāyāna. / There is neither right nor wrong; / I speak of what will arise in the future." "The eighteen" refers to the diverse sectarian tenets of the eighteen schools. "And the two root [schools]" refers to the root divisions being only two: first, the Mahāsāṃghika, and second, the Sthaviravāda. Now the Abhidharma belongs to the Sarvāstivāda among the eighteen schools, which emerged from the Mahāyāna; thus the Great is the root of the Small. Yet the followers who cling to the Small hear of the Mahāyāna and do not believe; therefore they are refuted. Question: How do we know that those who cling to the Small do not believe in the Great Dharma? Answer: The Mahāprajñāpāramitāśāstra says: "A disciple of Kātyāyana replied to Nāgārjuna: 'When I hear the Mahāyāna, my mind does not believe it at all.'" Therefore, in foreign lands, those who cling to the Hīnayāna and those who study the Mahāyāna drink water from divided rivers. Seventh, having partial attachments. The Mahāsaṃnipāta-sūtra says: "Although there are five schools, none obstructs the Tathāgata's dharmadhātu and great nirvāṇa." Yet the Abhidharma people preserve and cling to their own school, rejecting what others say, thereby violating the dharmadhātu and rejecting great nirvāṇa. Since their entanglements and hindrances are deep, one must lament them. Eighth, it is not the basis of learning. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: "He who wishes to know the four conditions should study prajñā." An outsider asked Nāgārjuna: "If one wishes to learn the four conditions, one should study the Abhidharma. Why should one study prajñā?" The treatise master replied: "When first studying the Abhidharma, it seems understandable; but the longer one investigates, the more it turns into false views." Question: How does studying the Abhidharma turn into false views? Answer: If one says that the four conditions generate all dharmas, what then generates the four conditions? If the four conditions are further produced from another, then that other in turn is produced from another, and so on without end. If the four conditions exist of themselves (svabhāva) and are not produced from another, then the myriad things also should not depend on the four conditions, and one falls into the absence of cause. Thus, depending [on another leads to] infinity, and terminating [production leads to] no-cause; through these two approaches one loses faith in cause and effect, and so studying the Abhidharma for long turns into false views. Ninth, ruining the true words. The Mahāsaṃnipāta-sūtra says: "The profound meaning cannot be spoken; the ultimate truth has no sounds or words. The monk Kauṇḍinya attained true knowledge and vision regarding all dharmas." The *Caryānidāna-sūtra says: "The śramaṇa Aśvajit, being one of the five men, recited a verse for Śāriputra: 'All dharmas originate / From causes and conditions, empty and without master. / Halting the mind and reaching the root source, / One is therefore called a śramaṇa.' Upon hearing this, Śāriputra immediately attained the first fruit." Investigating both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna sūtras, both explain that seeing emptiness accomplishes sagehood; yet the Abhidharma claims that contemplating existence attains the Path, and thereby obscures the true words. Tenth, losing the complete intent. The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says: "Desiring to cause sentient beings to recognise the ultimate truth deeply, the Tathāgata expounds the conventional. If sentient beings were able to recognise the truth without relying on the conventional truth, the Buddhas and Tathāgatas would never speak of the conventional." Although the followers of the Abhidharma know conventional existence, they do not awaken to true emptiness; being deluded about true emptiness, they are also confused about conventional existence, and therefore both the ultimate and the conventional are lost.