止觀輔行傳弘決 3.61

3.61

次明體法。依門修觀亦應具含三種四門，今亦從總，故但云四。「此觀」下，正判也。既云大小諸門生著並用幻破，故知一向屬大乘也。前小門中即云諸著皆觀無常，此中衍門既具三教，即是三教同用幻化破計。若用三觀破計不同兼前成四，全與第十破見意同。「若得」下，斥奪也。大乘三教十二門著，尚須幻化即空破之。「終不」下，比斥也。老莊尚自不識小乘能著所著、能破所破，況大乘中若著若破？是故不與佛法少同。然世講者迷於名相、濫禪者惑於正理，欲將道德、逍遙之名齊於佛法解脫之說，豈可得乎？王瞀（音目）夜云：「逍遙者，調暢逸豫之意。夫至理內足，無時不適，亡懷應物何往不通？以斯而遊天下，故曰逍遙。」又云：「理無幽隱，逍然而當；形無巨細，遙然俱適，故曰逍遙。而不知以何為理、以何為形，亡何煩惱、遊何天下。」故知法既不齊，人亦可判，且置法報以應比之，優降天殊、是非永隔。捨金輪聖帝之位，何如吝於柱史微官？光明相好丈六金軀，何如凡容六尺之質？異相無量不可具云，委如李仲卿著《十異九迷》以斥佛法，南山作《十喻九箴》用形邪說。今略其五，用甄邪正。一曰：老君逆常，託牧女而早出：世尊順化，因聖母而誕生。二曰：老聃有生有滅，畏患生之生，反招白首；釋迦垂迹示生示滅，歸寂滅之滅，乃耀金軀。三曰：重耳誕形，居陳州之苦縣；能仁降迹，出東夏之神州。四曰：伯陽職處小臣、忝充藏吏，不在文王之日，亦非隆周之師；牟尼位居太子、身證特尊，當昭王之盛年，為閻浮之教主。五曰：李氏三隱三顯無教可依，假令五百許年，猶慚龜鶴之壽；法王一生一滅示現微塵之容，八十年間開演恒沙之眾。凡諸比決其事實多，具如《甄正》辨正。《笑道心鏡》破邪二教，《牟子》等論廣明異相。今猶見有不肖之車，尚云同是出家之徒，有何彼此而相是非？「螢日懸殊」者，圓門生著，著心不入小賢之數，尚為三藏有門所破；況復莊老凡鄙見心，而欲儔於佛法圓理，如螢對日、如山比毫。《大品》中云「聲聞如螢火，菩薩如日光」，今借比老莊，饒之過分。「山毫相絕」者，彼〈齊物〉云「秋毫不小、泰山不大。」今不用彼齊物之儀，借用大小永絕之文，故云相絕。「自言道真」等者，迦葉見佛現大神變，內心已知佛力難量，仍為矯言自憍慢彼，而云：「瞿曇雖神，不如我道真。」如此等僻，寧不破耶？在迦葉緣起中，廣如律文及《瑞應》等。

Next, the contemplation of the essence of phenomena is explained. Practicing contemplation relying on the gates should also fully contain the three kinds of four gates; here it also follows the general, so it only speaks of four. From "this contemplation" onward, it directly evaluates it. Since it says that grasping arising in the various gates of both small and great is refuted entirely by means of illusion, we know it categorically belongs to the Mahāyāna. In the earlier small gate it was said that all graspings are contemplated as impermanent; here, since the Mahāyāna gate encompasses the three teachings, this means that the three teachings equally use illusion and transformation to refute attachments. If using the three contemplations to refute attachments differs, together with the preceding it forms four, fully identical in meaning to the tenth [method of] refuting views. From "if one attains" onward, is the reprimand and deprivation: attachment to the twelve gates of the three Mahāyāna teachings still requires the illusion-like identity with emptiness to refute it. From "it is never" onward, is the comparative refutation: Laozi and Zhuangzi do not even recognize the small vehicle's grasping agent and object grasped, nor its refuting agent and object refuted, let alone what is grasped or refuted in the Mahāyāna. Therefore it does not have the slightest similarity with the Buddha's Dharma. Yet worldly lecturers are deluded by names and marks, and reckless Chan practitioners are confused about the correct principle, wishing to equate the names "Dao and Virtue" (daode) and "Free and Easy Wandering" (xiaoyao) with the Buddhist teaching of liberation—how could that ever be possible? Wang Mu [or Muye] says: "Free and easy wandering means the sense of being harmonious, unimpeded, leisurely, and joyful. When the ultimate principle is internally sufficient, there is no time when one is not comfortable; letting go of conceptions to respond to things, wherever one goes, what is not unobstructed? Roaming the world by means of this is called free and easy wandering." He also says: "The principle has no obscurity, being freely appropriate; forms have neither great nor small, being distantly and equally accommodated; hence it is called free and easy wandering. Yet they do not know what constitutes the principle, what constitutes forms, what afflictions are forgotten, or what world is roamed." Therefore we know that since the teachings are not equal, the persons can also be distinguished. Setting aside the Dharma and reward bodies to compare only by the response body, superiority and inferiority differ as heaven and earth, and right and wrong are forever separated. How can renouncing the position of a gold-wheel-turning sage king be compared to grudgingly clinging to the petty office of an archivist? How can a sixteen-foot golden body with radiant marks and signs be compared to the ordinary appearance of a six-foot frame? The boundless extraordinary marks cannot be detailed fully, just as Li Zhongqing composed *Ten Differences and Nine Delusions* to denigrate the Buddha's Dharma, and Nanshan composed *Ten Analogies and Nine Admonitions* to manifest false teachings. Now five are briefly stated to discern the heterodox from the orthodox. First: Lord Lao went against the ordinary, emerging prematurely by relying on a shepherd girl; the World-Honoured One conformed to transformation, being born relying on a holy mother. Second: Laozi had birth and death, fearing the birth of mortal suffering and thus incurring a white head; Śākyamuni manifested traces showing birth and showing death, returning to the extinction of peaceful cessation, and thus radiated a golden body. Third: Chong'er (Laozi) took physical form and resided in the bitter district (Kuxian) of Chenzhou; the Capable and Benevolent One descended his traces and appeared in the divine continent of the Eastern Xia (India viewed relatively / the eastern lands). Fourth: Boyang occupied the post of a petty official, unworthily serving as an archive clerk, neither living during the days of King Wen nor serving as master to the thriving Zhou; the Sage (Muni) held the rank of crown prince, his person realizing extraordinary nobility, flourishing in the prime years of King Zhao and becoming the religious master of Jambudvīpa. Fifth: The Li clan hid three times and appeared three times, with no canonical teachings to rely upon; even if granting roughly five hundred years, he would still be ashamed before the lifespan of tortoises and cranes; the Dharma King had one life and one extinction, manifesting a form like atomic dust, and in eighty years expounded teachings to assemblies like the sands of the Ganges. All such comparisons are indeed numerous, as fully detailed in the *Zhenzheng lun* in distinguishing orthodoxy. The *Xiaodao lun*, the *Xinjing*, and the *Poxie lun* refute the two heterodox teachings, and treatises like *Mouzi* explain the extraordinary marks at length. Even now we still see degenerate fellows who still say that both are members of the renunciant order, so why should there be this and that to judge right and wrong? Regarding "differing vastly as a firefly and the sun": when attachment arises in the perfect gate, the attached mind does not even enter the ranks of small sages, and is still refuted by the existence gate of the Tripiṭaka; how much more so the vulgar and base viewpoints of Zhuangzi and Laozi, which wish to match the perfect principle of the Buddha's Dharma—like a firefly facing the sun, or a mountain compared to a fine hair. The *Dapin* says: "Voice-hearers are like fireflies; bodhisattvas are like the sunlight." Now borrowing this to compare with Laozi and Zhuangzi is already excessively generous. Regarding "the mountain and the hair are forever severed": the chapter "On the Equalization of Things" says: "Nothing is larger than the tip of an autumn hair, and Mount Tai is small." Now without adopting their manner of equalizing things, we borrow the phrase that large and small are forever severed, hence saying "mutually severed." Regarding "saying of himself that his way is true" and so forth: when Kāśyapa saw the Buddha display great spiritual transformations, he already knew internally that the Buddha's power was difficult to fathom, yet he still made false claims to arrogantly surpass him, saying: "Although Gautama has spiritual powers, he is not as true as my way." Can such perversions not be refuted? In the causal background of Kāśyapa, it is as fully detailed in the Vinaya texts and the *Ruiying jing*.