肇論新疏 1.228

1.228

初二句斥彼謬計，義不異前。何必者，責彼之辭。後二句直破其非，尚無如此，豈是順物達性即物見中之解耶？今詳破此三家，前二家許其所得、破其所失，汰師尚無，一向破斥者，亦以著空之見難治故也。非特撥無因果，亦恐惡取斷空，如《智論》說食鹽之喻也。據《梁傳》支、汰二師皆出類離群世間之英者，正由道源初浸，又經論未廣、明師罕遇，致有此弊。不可見破便輕前修。自下正述論文。大科有三：初、理絕名相，謂欲寄名依相顯示，先示名相本虛、真諦超出，令悟了法不在言，善入無言際也。二、寄詮顯實，以名相雖虛，亦可假詮以顯實理，即無離文字說解脫也。三、至論末，引《放光》等示妄顯真，謂雖依詮顯實，若著名相妄想是生，何能悟入第一之真？若悟名相本虛，即名相而如智顯現，不在捨於文也。故我說法如筏喻者，文字性空即是解脫，十二分教無非如也。一論大旨妙在于斯，但血脈沈隱，故具出之。

The first two lines censure his erroneous calculation; the meaning does not differ from before. "Why must" is a phrase of reproach. The latter two lines directly refute his error: prizing non-being in this way, how could it be an understanding that accords with things, penetrates their nature, and sees the middle within things as they are? Now, examining the refutation of these three schools in detail: for the first two schools he granted what they attained and refuted what they missed; but for Master Tai's prizing of non-being, he completely rejected it, precisely because the view clinging to emptiness is difficult to cure. It is not only that it negates cause and effect, but also for fear that one may mistakenly grasp at nihilistic emptiness, like the metaphor of eating salt in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa. According to the Liang Biographies, both Master Zhi and Master Tai were exceptional individuals who stood out from the crowd, heroes of the world; it was simply that the source of the path had only begun to steep, sūtras and treatises were not yet widespread, and enlightened teachers were rarely encountered, which brought about these shortcomings. One must not lightly disparage these earlier cultivators just because they are refuted. From here on, the treatise text is formally expounded. The general outline has three divisions: First, principle transcends names and marks: meaning that wish to rely on names and appearances to reveal it, he first shows that names and appearances are fundamentally empty and the ultimate truth transcends them, enabling one to realise that the Dharma does not lie in words and skillfully enter the realm beyond words. Second, relying on designations to reveal reality: because though names and appearances are empty, one may also make provisional use of designations to reveal the real principle; this is explaining liberation without departing from words. Third, reaching the end of the treatise, citing the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā and others to indicate the false and reveal the real: meaning that although one relies on designations to reveal reality, if one clings to names and appearances, delusions will arise—how could one then realise and enter the supreme real? If one realises that names and appearances are fundamentally empty, then right within names and appearances, suchness and wisdom are revealed, without need of abandoning the text. Therefore, when I say that the Dharma is like a raft, the emptiness of the nature of words is itself liberation, and the twelvefold scriptures are nothing other than suchness. The subtle purport of the treatise lies herein; but because the lineage thread is submerged and concealed, it is brought out in full.