三論玄義 1.3

1.3

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.)