三論玄義 1.5

1.5

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.)