止觀輔行傳弘決 10.17

10.17

次「行者」下，正明見發。雖云因聞必須先有禪定，禪定未能發見，於此禪後復藉少聞力，故云因聞。非全散心得為因聞，以散心中無發見義。初外外中，云「餘三亦如是」者，依初三祖但云餘二，依入大乘故云餘三。次附佛法中應具列二人，文但列一。所言等者，等取方廣。「第五不可說」，是犢子法。「及以幻化」，是方廣法。次明佛法，先小、次衍。衍中初正明發。「雖發此解」下，判見體性。此見雖依大乘門發，見生執盛，不成大乘入道方便，故云「非大方便」。故知此見不名衍門三教賢位，亦復不入三藏內外凡中，故云「不入小賢中」耳。「震旦有二福」者，一無羅剎、二無外道。儻使此土有得通外道，此方道俗誰不歸之？如姚秦時有天竺外道來至此土，顏容可畏眼光外射。姚主見已，請求角試。帝問什公。什公曰：「恐此土無人能對此外道。」又云：「於此眾中，融公應得。」命來問之，融受斯命。乃令姚主請此外道師徒，七日入內供養。融竊讀其書，七日之內究其宗旨，便剋日論議。纔登論席，融先敘其宗而廣破之，次引此土經書問之，默無言對。什公嘲之曰：「君不聞大秦學海，而欲以蚊嘴傾之。」於是外道便還天竺。若使此時不破其宗，此土學宗皆為所壞。驗知此地有不受邪人之福也。又西方外宗及大小乘經論所載，此土咸諳，故彼方外宗多不敢至。次「寄此以辯於彼」者，此方既無外道宗計，泛將莊老以例韋陀。次結數者，一種有三，約人成七，合二十一。準《入大乘》亦應合有二十八人。次依佛法不同中，初小、次衍。初云「通慧自在」者，通謂通神，慧謂一切智。「下通韋陀」等者，迦毘羅見尚自竊讀三藏及行，今人信他所引經論謂為有憑，不尋宗源，謬誤何甚。

Next, from "The practitioner" below, it directly clarifies the manifestation of views. Although it says "because of hearing," there must first be dhyāna-concentration; dhyāna-concentration alone cannot manifest views, so after this dhyāna one further relies on the power of a little hearing; hence it is said to be "because of hearing." An entirely distracted mind cannot be said to be "because of hearing," because in a distracted mind there is no principle of manifesting views. First, in [the section on] non-Buddhists outside [the Buddhist teaching], the statement "the remaining three are also like this" means that according to the first three patriarchs it only says "the remaining two," while according to the *Entering the Mahāyāna* it therefore says "the remaining three." Next, under those clinging to the Buddhadharma, two persons ought to be fully listed, but the text only lists one. The word "etc." encompasses the Vaipulya [heretics]. "The fifth, inexpressible" is the Vātsīputrīya doctrine. "And illusions and transformations" is the Vaipulya doctrine. Next it clarifies the Buddhadharma: first Hīnayāna, next Mahāyāna. In the Mahāyāna, it first directly clarifies the manifestation. From "Although generating this understanding" below, it determines the nature of the view. Although this view manifests by relying on the gate of Mahāyāna, when the view arises attachment is intense, and it does not become an expedient means for entering the path of Mahāyāna; hence it is said to be "not a great expedient." Therefore, know that this view is not called the stage of worthies of the three teachings of the Mahāyāna gate, nor does it enter among the internal and external ordinary beings of the Tripiṭaka; hence it is merely said that it "does not enter among the lesser worthies." As for "Cīnasthāna has two blessings": first, there are no rākṣasas; second, there are no non-Buddhists. If this land were to have non-Buddhists who had attained supernormal powers, who among the monastics and laity of this region would not take refuge in them? For example, during the Yao Qin, an Indian non-Buddhist came to this land; his countenance was terrifying and the light of his eyes shot outward. When the Yao ruler saw him, he asked for a contest. The Emperor asked Master [Kumāra]jīva. Master Jīva said: "I fear there is no one in this land who can face this non-Buddhist." He also said: "Among this assembly, Master Dao[rong] ought to be able to." He was summoned and asked, and Rong accepted this command. He then had the Yao ruler invite this non-Buddhist master and disciple to enter the inner [palace] for seven days of offerings. Rong secretly read his texts, thoroughly investigated his tenets within seven days, and then set a date for debate. As soon as he ascended the debate seat, Rong first related his tenets and extensively refuted them; next he cited the scriptures of this land to question him, and he remained silent without reply. Master Jīva mocked him, saying: "Have you not heard of the Great Qin's ocean of learning, and yet you wished to drain it with a mosquito's beak?" Thereupon the non-Buddhist returned to India. Had his tenets not been refuted at that time, the learning and tenets of this land would all have been ruined by him. By this test we know that this land has the blessing of not receiving heterodox people. Moreover, what is contained in the outer tenets of the Western regions and the scriptures and treatises of the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna is all well known in this land; hence the outer tenets of that region mostly do not dare to come. Next, as for "drawing upon this to distinguish that": since this region has no tenets of non-Buddhists, it generally takes Zhuangzi and Laozi to serve as an analogy for the Vedas. Next, concluding the number: one type has three, which based on persons makes seven, totaling twenty-one. According to *Entering the Mahāyāna*, there should also be twenty-eight persons. Next, in the differences based on the Buddhadharma: first Hīnayāna, next Mahāyāna. The initial "mastery of penetrations and wisdom": "penetrations" refers to spiritual penetrations; "wisdom" refers to the knowledge of all aspects. As for "penetrating down to the Vedas" and so forth: Kapila's view even stole from and read the Tripiṭaka and practices; people today believe in the scriptures and treatises cited by others, considering them to have authoritative basis, without examining the source of the tenets—how extreme is their error!