止觀輔行傳弘決 1.45

1.45

「疑者云」去，假設問端也。後去例是。今立疑云：既稱祖於龍樹，法門不應不同。遣蕩建立既殊，師祖之義安在？「然天竺」去，答也。初旁引注論人答。言「凡七十家」者，《付法傳》云「龍樹造《大無畏論》，有十萬偈，《中論》從彼略出大綱，有五百偈。長行並是諸師注解。」關中影法師云：「有數十家注，《中論》最下。」河西朗云：「有七十餘家。」真諦云：「西方有廣略二本，此間所傳略本耳。」元康師云：「此恐不爾。此間已有四本：一青目注，名為《中論》，後秦羅什所譯。二無著注，名《順中論》，後魏菩提流支譯，但得兩卷，餘者未出。三羅睺法師注，亦名《中論》，梁真諦譯，但得〈因緣〉一品。四分別明菩薩注，名《般若燈論》，唐波頗三藏譯，有十六卷。」河西既云七十餘家，豈以諸師為非，獨存青目為是？況青目最劣，遣蕩叵依，故云也。「又論云」去，引論文答。龍樹本文有蕩有立，今依龍樹意亦同然。故不應以專蕩之文，却形止觀而為建立。論初句云「因緣所生法」，即建立也。「我說即是空」，即遣蕩也。假名、中道，又建立也。四句論中，三立一蕩。《止觀》前後盛引斯文，二處符同，師資礭立。即者，《廣雅》云「合也。」若依此釋，仍似二物相合名即，其理猶疎。今以義求，體不二故，故名為即。即三而一，與合義殊，下去皆然。

From "The doubter says" onwards, an opening question is hypothetically posed; those that follow are similar. Now, the doubt is raised: "Since Nāgārjuna is hailed as ancestor, their Dharma gates should not differ. If eradicating and establishing are completely distinct, where lies the meaning of master and ancestor?" From "However, in India" onwards, [the text] answers. First, it collaterally cites the commentators on the treatise to reply. Regarding "altogether seventy masters": the Fu fazang zhuan states, "Nāgārjuna composed the Da wuwei lun in one hundred thousand verses; the Madhyamaka-śāstra (Zhong lun) extracted an abridged outline from it in five hundred verses. The prose commentaries were all composed by various masters." Dharma Master Daoying of Guanzhong said, "There are several dozen commentaries; that of the Madhyamaka-śāstra is the lowest." [Dharmakṣema / Dao]lang of Hexi said, "There are over seventy." Paramārtha said, "In the West there are two recensions, an extensive and an abridged one; what was transmitted here is only the abridged recension." Master Yuankang said, "This is perhaps not so. In this land there are already four recensions: first, the commentary by Piṅgala, titled Madhyamaka-śāstra, translated by Kumārajīva under the Later Qin; second, the commentary by Asaṅga, titled Shun zhong lun, translated by Bodhiruci under the Later Wei, but only two fascicles were procured, the rest having not appeared; third, the commentary by Master Rāhula, also titled Madhyamaka-śāstra, translated by Paramārtha under the Liang, but only the chapter 'Conditions' (Hetupratyaya) was procured; fourth, the commentary by Bodhisattva Bhāviveka, titled Prajñāpradīpa-śāstra, translated by the Tripiṭaka Master Prabhākaramitra under the Tang, in sixteen fascicles." Since Hexi already stated that there are over seventy masters, how could one consider all the masters wrong and solely preserve Piṅgala as right? Furthermore, Piṅgala is the most inferior, and his exclusive eradication cannot be relied upon; hence this is said. From "Moreover, the treatise states" onwards, the treatise text is cited to answer. Nāgārjuna's original text contains both eradication and establishment; now, following Nāgārjuna's intention, it is likewise so. Therefore, one should not use a text exclusively devoted to eradication to contrast with calming and contemplation as being establishment. The first line of the treatise says, "Phenomena arisen through causes and conditions"—this is establishment. "I declare to be identical to emptiness"—this is eradication. "Provisional designation and middle way"—these are again establishment. Among the four lines of the treatise, three are establishment and one is eradication. The Mohe zhiguan extensively quotes this passage from beginning to end; the two places match, firmly establishing master and disciple. "Identical to" (ji): the Guangya says, "It means joined." If following this explanation, it still resembles two things conjoining being called "identical," so its principle remains loose. Now seeking it by its doctrinal meaning: because the essence is non-dual, it is called "identical." It is identical to three yet one, which differs from the meaning of conjoining; the following are all like this.