[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [肇論疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1859) › 1.51 # 肇論疏 1.51 肇論疏 1.51 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.51](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1859.1.51) 第四、會教明不遷也。文有兩段，通是會教，前廣後略。今初也。噫者，《論語》云：噫，斗筲之人何足算也。註云：噫，不平之聲也。《切韻》云：噫者，恨聲也。聖人者，大載禮云：哀公問孔子：何謂聖人？孔子曰：聖人者，智通乎大道，應變而不窮也。《莊子》云：以德分人謂之聖，以財分人謂之賢也。速於川流者，《涅槃經》云：人命不停，過於山水。非《論語》中歎逝，下文方引《論語》耳。此意云，聖教自云人命逝速，即是遷義；何謂不遷耶？人有此疑，故今遣釋也。是以聲聞悟非常以成道、緣覺覺緣離以即真者，以法是遷流故，聲聞聞無常教、悟無常理而成道也。亦以法是遷流故，緣覺覺無常理而得證真也。苟即萬動而非化豈尋化以階道者，且使萬物非是遷流變化，何由尋此無常遷化之理而得道耶？固應是遷也。覆尋聖言微隱難測者，前如問，此如答也。微者，小也。《老子》云：視之不見名曰夷，聽之不聞名曰希，搏之不得名曰微也。測者，測量也。有本云「喻」，謂曉喻也。若動而靜似去而留者，據言教則如動如去也，據理實則如靜如留也。可以神會難以事求者，可以般若神心契會，不可以言迹事相而求也。是以言去不必去閑人之常想者，服虔注《漢書》云：閑，闌也。王弼注《易》云：閑，閡也。若蘭若閡，皆是防義。釋者，《小雅》云：釋，解也。若釋，皆是遣義也。經中言諸法生滅無常，是謂去也。謂無常者，未必即無常，為防人之常執，故說無常耳。經中又言業果不失，是謂住也。言有住者，不必即住，為防人執斷之心，故言住耳。豈曰去而可遣住而可留者，有本云「去而可追」，非也。法性不去，經中言去，不能遣得法性令其去也；法性不住，經中言住，不能留得法性令其住也。當知為緣故說去，其實則非去；為緣故說住，實亦非住也。故成具云菩薩處計常之中而演非常之教者，《光明定意經》也。彼文云：如來者不用衣食，處計常之中而知無常之諦。今取彼經意，故云菩薩耳。摩訶衍論云者，《大智度論》釋《摩訶衍經》，故名彼論無摩訶衍論。摩訶衍，梵音，此云大乘也，即《大品經》也。斯皆導達群方兩言一會者，導謂引，達謂通達，群方謂眾生，言聖人引導眾生多方便也，雖有多方會歸一致耳。亦可群自是群、方自是方。《易》云：方以類聚，物以群分。聖人道此，故有兩說耳。豈曰文殊而乖其致哉者，不可以言去、言住兩文有殊，則令法性幽致乖阻也。是以言常而不住稱去而不遷者，言常未常故不住也，稱去未必去故不遷也。已後覆疏此語可見。然則莊生之所以藏山、仲尼之所以臨川者，《莊子內篇．大宗師章》云：夫藏舟於壑、藏山於澤，謂之固矣。然而夜半有力者負之而走，昧者不知也。《論語》云：子在川上曰：逝者如斯夫，不捨晝夜。莊子意明前山非後山，孔子意前水非後水也。斯皆感往者之難留豈曰排今而可往者，此二人皆感歎往者不停，前後各別，非謂定有一物從此推排至彼也。所以引此二書證成不遷者，夫教之為體，意在悟物。若於物有悟，教則為益；若於物無益，教反成損。依向經論廣說不遷，恐儒道二家疑而不信，故引二文令其悟解耳。事如佛教說戒，以不殺為先。俗人好殺，豈能領會？若即俗書以明不殺，則無不從順也。《孟子》云：五畝之宅樹之以桑，則七十者可以衣帛矣。鷄㹠犬彘養不失時，則八十者可以食肉矣。若據此文，則七十已下不合衣帛，八十已下不合食肉。慈悲不殺，豈獨佛經？以此相證，誰能不信？今引二書，意同此也。是以覩聖心者不同人之所見得者，有本云「用」，有本云「同」，俱得也。經中言常、言無常，聖人之心難見得，人之常心則不見聖心也。何者？人則謂少壯同體百齡一質者，常人謂昔日少年，後遷至壯，故云同體。百年同是一身，更非別人也。徒知年往不覺形隨者，徒，虛也。年往形亦往，此是遷義。即此遷中有不遷也。往年在往時、往形在往日，是謂不遷。而人乃謂往日之人遷至今日，是謂惑矣。是以梵志出家下，此事未詳所出經也。昔人尚存乎者，謂昔人猶存至今日也。吾猶昔人者，猶，如也，如似昔人，實非昔人也。亦可云吾身雖復猶是昔人，其實非昔人也。亦可云汝謂吾猶是昔人，其實非昔人也。亦可云吾可猶是昔人乎？吾非復昔人也。隣人皆愕然非其言者，愕謂驚愕，不解其言故驚愕也。所謂有力者負之而趨者，有力謂無常力也，負謂擔負也，趨，疾行也，昧謂暗昧也。歟者，此字單作自得，不勞著欠；此謂助語，如焉乎之類也。 > Fourth, reconciling the teachings to clarify non-motion. The text has two sections, both of which reconcile the teachings: the first is extensive and the second is brief. Now this is the first. > > "Alas!" (噫): The \*Lunyu\* says: "Alas! Are men of peck-and-hamper capacity worth reckoning?" The commentary says: "'Alas!' is the sound of discontent." The \*Qieyun\* says: "'Alas!' is the sound of resentment." > > "The Sage" (聖人): The \*Da Dai Liji\* says: "Duke Ai asked Confucius: 'What is called a Sage?' Confucius said: 'A Sage is one whose wisdom penetrates the Great Way, responding to transformations inexhaustibly.'" \*Zhuangzi\* says: "Sharing one's virtue with others is called being a sage; sharing one's wealth with others is called being a worthy." > > "\[Passes\] swifter than a flowing torrent" (速於川流): The \*Nirvāṇa-sūtra\* says: "Human life does not halt; it surpasses mountain torrents." This is not the lament over passing away in the \*Lunyu\*; the text below only then cites the \*Lunyu\*. The meaning here is: the Sage's teachings themselves state that human life passes swiftly, which implies motion; why then call it non-motion? People have this doubt, hence it is now dispelled and explained. > > "Hence śrāvakas awaken to impermanence and attain the Way, while pratyekabuddhas realize the dispersal of conditions and accord with the Real" (是以聲聞悟非常以成道、緣覺覺緣離以即真): Because phenomena are in flux, śrāvakas hear the teaching of impermanence, awaken to the principle of impermanence, and attain the Way. Also, because phenomena are in flux, pratyekabuddhas realize the principle of impermanence and attain the realization of the Real. > > "If the myriad movements were precisely not transformation, how could one pursue transformation to ascend to the Way?" (苟即萬動而非化豈尋化以階道): Supposing that the myriad things were not flux and transformation, on what basis could one pursue this principle of impermanence and transformation to attain the Way? It should indeed be motion. > > "When we examine the sacred words again, they are subtle, hidden, and hard to fathom" (覆尋聖言微隱難測): What preceded was like an inquiry; this is like an answer. "Subtle" (微) means minute. \*Laozi\* says: "Looked at but not seen, it is named 'plain'; listened to but not heard, it is named 'rare'; grasped but not obtained, it is named 'subtle'." "To fathom" (測) means to measure. Some editions have "to instruct" (喻), meaning to make understand. > > "As if in motion yet tranquil, seemingly departing yet remaining" (若動而靜似去而留): According to the spoken teachings, it is as if moving, as if departing; according to the actual truth, it is as if tranquil, as if remaining. > > "It can be spiritually met, but is hard to seek through external phenomena" (可以神會難以事求): It can be intimately met through the spiritual mind of prajñā; it cannot be sought through verbal traces and phenomenal appearances. > > "Therefore, speaking of departing does not necessarily mean departing, \[it is said\] to bar people's notions of permanence" (是以言去不必去閑人之常想): Fu Qian's commentary on the \*Hanshu\* says: "'Bar' (閑) means an enclosure (闌)." Wang Bi's commentary on the \*Yijing\* says: "'Bar' (閑) means to obstruct (閡)." Whether "enclosure" or "obstruction", both carry the sense of guarding against. As for "dispelling" (釋): the \*Xiaoya\* says: "'Dispelling' means untying." Both have the sense of clearing away. The sūtras state that all dharmas arise and cease and are impermanent—this is what is called "departing". When they say "impermanent", it is not necessarily that they are impermanent; it is merely spoken to guard against people's grasping at permanence. The sūtras also state that karma and fruit are not lost—this is what is called "remaining". When they speak of there being "remaining", it does not necessarily mean remaining; it is merely spoken to guard against people's mind of grasping at annihilation. > > "How could it be said that departing can be dismissed, or remaining can be detained?" (豈曰去而可遣住而可留): Some editions read "departing can be pursued" (去而可追), which is incorrect. The dharma-nature does not depart; when the sūtras speak of departing, one cannot dismiss the dharma-nature to make it depart. The dharma-nature does not remain; when the sūtras speak of remaining, one cannot detain the dharma-nature to make it remain. One should know that "departing" is spoken on account of conditions, while in reality there is no departing; "remaining" is spoken on account of conditions, while in reality there is also no remaining. > > "Hence the \*Chengju\* says: 'The bodhisattva abides in the midst of reckoning permanence and expounds the teaching of impermanence'" (故成具云菩薩處計常之中而演非常之教): This is the \*Guangming dingyi jing\*. That text says: "The Tathāgata does not use food and clothing; he abides in the midst of reckoning permanence and knows the truth of impermanence." Here the meaning of that sūtra is taken, hence it says "bodhisattva". > > "The \*Mahāyāna Treatise\* says" (摩訶衍論云): The \*Dazhidulun\* comments on the \*Mahāyānasūtra\*, hence that treatise is titled the \*Mahāyāna Treatise\*. "Mahāyāna" is the Sanskrit sound, translated here as Great Vehicle, which is the \*Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā\*. > > "These all guide and penetrate diverse quarters; the two statements converge in one" (斯皆導達群方兩言一會): "Guide" (導) means to lead; "penetrate" (達) means to comprehend; "diverse quarters" (群方) means sentient beings. This says that the Sage guides sentient beings with many expedient means; though there are many approaches, they converge and return to a single principle. It may also be that "diverse" (群) is of itself diverse, and "quarters" (方) is of itself quarters. The \*Yijing\* says: "Directions are gathered according to category; things are divided according to kinds." The Sage speaks of this, hence there are two teachings. > > "How could it be said that though the texts are different, their import is discordant?" (豈曰文殊而乖其致哉): One cannot say that because the two texts speaking of "departing" and speaking of "remaining" differ, the profound purport of the dharma-nature is thereby disrupted. > > "Therefore, speaking of permanence yet not remaining, declaring departure yet not moving" (是以言常而不住稱去而不遷): Speaking of permanence does not mean permanent, hence not remaining; declaring departure does not necessarily mean departing, hence not moving. This will be explained again below, as will be seen. > > "Thus, the reason why Master Zhuang hid the mountain and Zhongni stood by the river" (然則莊生之所以藏山、仲尼之所以臨川): The "Great Ancestral Teacher" chapter in the Inner Chapters of the \*Zhuangzi\* says: "Hiding a boat in a ravine and hiding a mountain in a marsh is called secure. Yet at midnight a strong man shoulders it and runs away, while the ignorant do not know." The \*Lunyu\* says: "The Master stood by the river and said: 'What passes away is like this, not ceasing day or night!'" Zhuangzi's intent was to clarify that the former mountain is not the later mountain; Confucius's intent was that the former water is not the later water. > > "These are all lamentations over the difficulty of detaining what passes away; how could it be said that present things are pushed away so as to depart?" (斯皆感往者之難留豈曰排今而可往): Both men lamented that what passes does not halt and that before and after are distinct; it was not meant that there is definitively an entity pushed and displaced from here to there. > > The reason for citing these two texts to corroborate non-motion is that the essence of a teaching lies in awakening beings. If it awakens beings, the teaching brings benefit; if it brings no benefit to beings, the teaching conversely causes harm. If one extensively explained non-motion solely relying on sūtras and treatises, it was feared that Confucianists and Daoists would doubt and not believe; hence these two texts are cited to bring about their awakening and understanding. > > This is just like the Buddhist teaching expounding precepts, taking non-killing as primary. Worldly people are fond of killing—how could they grasp it? But if one relies on worldly texts to clarify non-killing, none fail to comply. \*Mencius\* says: "If five-mu homesteads are planted with mulberry, those of seventy years may wear silk. If the breeding seasons of chickens, pigs, dogs, and swine are not missed, those of eighty years may eat meat." Relying on this text, those under seventy ought not to wear silk, and those under eighty ought not to eat meat. Does compassion and non-killing belong only to Buddhist sūtras? When corroborated with this, who could fail to believe? The intent in citing the two texts now is the same as this. > > "Therefore, those who behold the Sage's mind differ from what ordinary people perceive" (是以覩聖心者不同人之所見得): Some editions read "use" (用); some editions read "same" (同); both are acceptable. When sūtras speak of permanence and impermanence, the mind of the Sage is difficult to perceive and grasp; the ordinary mind of people does not see the Sage's mind. > > "Why is this? People think that youth and prime have the same substance, and that a hundred years are of a single material" (何者？人則謂少壯同體百齡一質): Ordinary people think that the youth of yesterday subsequently moves to become the prime of today, hence they say "the same substance". A hundred years are deemed one and the same body, not someone else. > > "They merely know that years pass, but do not realize that bodily forms follow" (徒知年往不覺形隨): "Merely" (徒) means in vain. When years pass, bodily forms also pass; this is the meaning of motion. Yet right within this motion there is non-motion. The past year was at the past time, and the past form was on the past day—this is called non-motion. But people say that the person of the past day has moved into today; this is called delusion. > > From "Hence, when the brahmacārin left home..." downward (是以梵志出家下): The sūtra from which this matter originates is not yet clear. > > "Is the man of the past still alive?" (昔人尚存乎): Meaning, does the man of the past still survive into today? > > "I am still like the man of the past" (吾猶昔人): "Still like" (猶) means resembling. It is as if resembling the man of the past, but in reality is not the man of the past. It may also be said: "Although my body is still like the man of the past, in reality it is not the man of the past." It may also be said: "You think I am still the man of the past, but in reality I am not the man of the past." It may also be said: "Could I still be the man of the past? I am no longer the man of the past." > > "The neighbors were all astounded and rejected his words" (隣人皆愕然非其言): "Astounded" (愕) means surprised and shocked; because they did not understand his words, they were astounded. > > "What is called 'a strong man shouldering it and scurrying off'" (所謂有力者負之而趨): "The strong" refers to the power of impermanence; "shouldering" means carrying on the back; "scurrying off" (趨) means walking swiftly; "ignorant" (昧) means benighted. > > As for the particle \*yu\* (歟): this character written alone is complete of itself and does not require the radical \*qian\* (欠); this is an auxiliary particle, of the same kind as \*yan\* (焉) or \*hu\* (乎). > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.50](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1859.1.50) - [Next: 1.52](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1859.1.52) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1859.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1859~en-mt.1.51) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [肇論新疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1860.1.139) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1859.1.51](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1859.1.51) · Pramāṇa