肇論疏 1.67

1.67

第二、破異見也。頃者俄頃，謂少許時也。此頃諸家作論多有不同，良以虛宗玄妙，故談者不得其實，致成異見耳。夫以不同而適同有何物而可同者，以，用也。適，往也。以不同之情往取同理，何由可得同耶？有本作「釋」字，皆謂解也。故眾論競作而性莫同焉者，總明諸家作論，理性不同也。何則心無者下，正出諸家不同之論也。然不同之論非止一家，今略破三家，餘可知矣。心無者，破晉朝支慜度心無義也。《世說》注云：慜度欲過江，與一傖道人為侶。謀曰：若用舊義往江東，恐不辨得食。便立心無義。既此道人不成度江，慜果講此義。後有傖人來，先道人語云：為我致意慜度，心無義那可立？此法權救飢耳，無為遂負如來也。從是以後此義大行。《高僧傳》云：沙門道恒頗有才力，常執心無義，大行荊土。竺法汰曰：此是邪說，應須破之。乃大集名僧，令弟子曇一難之。據經引理，折駁紛紜。恒杖其口辨，不肯受屈。日色既暮，明旦更集。慧遠就席，攻數番，問責鋒起。恒自覺義途差異，神色漸動，麈尾扣案，未即有答。遠曰：不疾而速，杼軸何為？坐者皆笑。心無之義於是而息。今肇法師亦破此義。先敘其宗，然後破也。無心萬物，萬物未甞無，謂經中言空者，但於物上不起執心，故言其空。然物是有，不曾無也。此得在於神靜失在於物虛者，正破也。能於法上無執，故名為得。不知物性是空，故名為失也。

Second, refuting divergent views. "Lately" (頃) means in an instant, referring to a short period of time. Recently, the treatises composed by the various schools have many differences; truly, because the lineage of emptiness is subtle and profound, those who discuss it fail to capture its reality, which brings about divergent views. "Now, if by using divergences one proceeds toward convergence, what thing could ever be converged with?": "By using" (以) means using. "Proceeds" (適) means going to. If one uses divergent sentiments to go and grasp the principle of convergence, how could convergence ever be attained? Some editions have the character "explain" (釋); both mean understanding. "Therefore, diverse treatises vie in their compositions, yet their natures are nowhere identical": this generally clarifies that in the treatises composed by the various houses, their underlying principles are not identical. "Why so? As for 'No-mind'…" below directly sets forth the disparate treatises of the various houses. Now, these disparate treatises are not limited to one house; here [Master Sengzhao] briefly refutes three houses, and the rest can be known from them. "No-mind" refutes the doctrine of No-mind held by Zhi Mindu of the Jin dynasty. A note in the Shishuo [xinyu] states: "Mindu wished to cross the Yangtze River and took as his companion a northern monk. They plotted: 'If we use the old doctrines when going east of the river, I fear we will not manage to obtain food.' Thereupon he formulated the doctrine of No-mind. In the end that monk did not succeed in crossing the river, and Mindu indeed lectured on this doctrine. Later, when a northern man arrived, the former monk sent word saying, 'Give my regards to Mindu: How could the doctrine of No-mind possibly be established? That method was an expedient merely to stave off starvation; do not, for its sake, betray the Tathāgata!' From then on, this doctrine was widely practiced." The Gaoseng zhuan states: "The śramaṇa Daoheng had considerable talent and ability; he consistently adhered to the doctrine of No-mind, which was widely propagated in the Jing region. Zhu Fatai said, 'This is a heterodox teaching and must be refuted.' He then gathered prominent monks in great numbers and had his disciple Tanyi challenge him. Basing himself on the scriptures and adducing reason, he attacked and refuted him in intricate detail. Daoheng relied on his eloquence and refused to submit. When dusk fell, they reassembled the following morning. Huiyuan took his seat, attacked several times, and sharp questions and rebukes arose like spear-points. Daoheng realized for himself that the path of his doctrine was divergent; his expression gradually showed agitation, and he tapped the desk with his fly-whisk, unable to answer immediately. Huiyuan said, 'Not hurrying yet swift—why still work the loom?' All who were seated laughed. The doctrine of No-mind was brought to an end by this." Now Master Sengzhao also refutes this doctrine. He first sets forth its tenet and then refutes it. "Having no mind toward the ten thousand things, yet the ten thousand things have never been non-existent": this means that when the scriptures speak of emptiness, it merely means not giving rise to grasping thoughts regarding things, which is why it is called emptiness. However, things exist and have never been non-existent. "This succeeds in calming the spirit, but fails with respect to the vacuity of things": this is the direct refutation. Being able to have no grasping regarding phenomena is called its success. Failing to know that the nature of things is empty is called its failure.