止觀輔行傳弘決 10.10

10.10

次出破宗似小似外。「捉義出沒」等者，若論大體，百家破外亦應破小；今但破外，即是沒於破小而出破外。論師破小，亦應破外；今但破小，即是沒於破外而出破小。所以《楞伽》宗於大乘，文中處處破外破小，即是雙存雙破故也。「又似因中」等者，此責大乘論師破他二論同彼外道，何異勒沙破於因中有果無果，自立亦有亦無計耶？亦非全同，故但云似。「又似昆勒」者，重更與之。何但似於勒沙所計，亦似小乘第三門計，亦非全小，故亦云似也。「當時」下，正斥炎師謬破之失，正救二論不同三外。流行論處，入道者眾，如何頓斥同彼外宗？縱執者成非，何關正法？故云「此應從容」。有執則非、無執則正，住小則非、通入為正，故云「不可雷同」等也。等取優樓。「若以大破小」等者，此通伏難。難云。若云二論不同外計，何故淨名斥須菩提云：「外道六師是汝之師，彼師所墮汝亦隨墮。」是故通云：此且斥其不見中道，挫同六外，非是奪其小為大門。

Next, pointing out that their refutation of tenets resembles the Hīnayāna or resembles non-Buddhists. Regarding 'seizing meanings to reveal or conceal' and so on: broadly speaking, the hundred schools in refuting externalists should also refute the Hīnayāna; now only refuting externalists conceals the refutation of the Hīnayāna and reveals the refutation of externalists. The treatise master in refuting the Hīnayāna should also refute externalists; now only refuting the Hīnayāna conceals the refutation of externalists and reveals the refutation of the Hīnayāna. Therefore, the Laṅkāvatārasūtra takes the Mahāyāna as its doctrine and throughout its text refutes both externalists and the Hīnayāna; this is precisely preserving both and refuting both. Regarding 'further resembling [the view of effect existing] within the cause' and so on: this rebukes the Mahāyāna treatise master who refutes the other two treatises as being the same as those non-Buddhists—how does this differ from Rṣi refuting the existence or non-existence of the effect within the cause while himself establishing the view of both existence and non-existence? Yet they are not entirely identical, which is why it only says 'resembling.' Regarding 'further resembling Piṭaka' (Kunle): this grants it once more. Not only does it resemble what Rṣi asserts, it also resembles the third gate assertion of the Hīnayāna. It is not entirely Hīnayāna either, so it is also merely said to 'resemble' it. From 'At that time...' downward, it directly rebukes Master Yan's error of mistaken refutation and directly rescues the two treatises as not being the same as the three types of non-Buddhists. Where these treatises circulated, many entered the path; how could one rashly denounce them as identical to those non-Buddhist traditions? Even if those who grasp at them fall into error, how does that implicate the true Dharma? Hence it says: 'Here one should be lenient.' If there is grasping, it is wrong; if there is no grasping, it is correct. Abiding in the Hīnayāna is wrong; using it as an entryway is correct. Hence it says 'one must not sweepingly conflate...' and so forth, with 'and so forth' including Ulūka. Regarding 'if one refutes the Hīnayāna with the Mahāyāna' and so on: this resolves an implicit objection. The objection asks: If the two treatises are not the same as externalist views, why did Vimalakīrti rebuke Subhūti, saying: 'The six non-Buddhist teachers are your teachers; wherever those teachers fall, you shall fall likewise'? Therefore it is resolved: this merely rebukes his failure to see the Middle Way, temporarily humbling him by equating him with the six externalists; it is not stripping away the Hīnayāna's status as a gateway to the Mahāyāna.