摩訶止觀 10.35

10.35

復次，結會不同。然內外諸邪俱明理慧、神通、文字，立德調心，尊人卑己，聲譽動物。如菴羅果生熟難知；天下好首莫測邪正。今判之甚易，如迦羅七種不同，研其根本，皆從邪無中起。若計因中有果，破一切法，唯存此句。作諸神通，搖動時俗，令人信受因中有果法。所引韋陀異家，名相莊嚴因中有果。所立諸行，歸宗趣向指極因中有果。為所執法動身、口、意，造無量罪，如後說。由此驗知，是迦毘羅外道也。僧佉、沙婆，例亦如此。元起邪無，終歸所執，犢子亦如是。小大四門準此可解。驗之以元始，察之以歸宗，則涇渭分流，菽麥殊類。何意濫以莊老齊於佛法？邪正既以混和，何能拔大異小？自行不明，何得化他？師弟俱墮也。

Furthermore, concluding and uniting the differences: now, both internal and external wrong views expound principle and wisdom, supernormal powers, and texts; they establish virtue, harmonize the mind, honor others and humble themselves, their renown moving living beings. They are like the āmra fruit, difficult to know whether raw or ripe; none under heaven can discern whether their fine appearances are heterodox or orthodox. Now it is very easy to judge them: as with the seven kinds of Kapila, if one examines their roots, they all arise from wrong non-existence. If one posits that the effect exists within the cause, he destroys all dharmas and preserves only this proposition. He performs various supernormal powers to sway the secular populace, causing people to believe and accept the dharma that the effect exists within the cause. The different schools of the Vedas he cites are names and characteristics adorning 'an effect exists within the cause.' All practices he establishes ultimately point toward and aim at 'an effect exists within the cause.' For the sake of the dharma he grasps, he moves body, speech, and mind, creating immeasurable sins, as will be explained later. From this examination one knows he is a Kapila tīrthika. The Sāṃkhya and Śaiva are also like this by analogy. Originally arising from wrong non-existence, in the end they return to what they grasp; the Vātsīputrīya is also like this. The small and great four gates can be understood on this model. Testing them by their origin and inspecting them by their final aim, the Jing and Wei rivers part their currents, and beans and wheat are distinguished in kind. Why should one carelessly equate Zhuangzi and Laozi with the Buddha's Dharma? If the heterodox and orthodox are already blended, how can one extract the great from the small? If one's own practice is not clear, how can one transform others? Master and disciple both fall.