止觀輔行傳弘決 5.64.4

5.64.4

」又《大經》第九云「有一闡提作羅漢像，住空間處誹謗方等。 凡夫見之謂真羅漢。 」此等即是作比丘身破滅佛法。 若退戒還家，如衛元嵩等，即以在家身破壞佛法。 言「越濟」者，《報恩經》第六云「賊住越濟，斷善根人、五逆等人，受戒不得」。 此即正以破內外道名為越濟。 濟者道也，越謂違越，即當破義。 先破外道來投出家，中途背此却復邪宗，若更重來成難障戒。 今文不論重來成難，且以彼此俱破義故名為越濟。 此人偷竊正教、助添邪典。 《淮南子》云「偷者天下之大賊。 」「邀」者（古遼反），要也、遮截也。 不可圖勝，且求平等。 「押高」等者，平斗之木曰概。 以道士心為二教概，使邪正等義無是理。 曾入佛法偷正助邪，押八萬十二之高就五千二篇之下，用釋彼典邪鄙之教，名「摧尊入卑」。 如安法師著《二教論》，引班固九流，道教則是九中之一，謂道流也。 若使道流立為一教，則餘之八流法爾分源。 若其九流合為一儒，是則對釋唯存二教，尚不合獨為教主，況復翻欲混和。 自古先賢久判真偽，近代名德仍困是非，不如儒俗猶分清濁，如李思慎《十異》等文。 又牟子曰：「堯事尹壽、舜事務成，丘學老聃、旦師呂望。 四師雖聖，比之於佛，猶白鹿之比麒麟。 比其教也，猶烏鵲之與鸞鳳。 比其形也，猶丘垤（徒結反，蟻封也）之與華恒。 」他又問曰：「蓋諸道叢殘凡九十六，澹泊無為莫尚於佛。 神仙之術僕以為尊，殆佛法之不如乎？ 」牟子曰：「指南為北自謂不惑，引東為西自謂不迷。 如汝所言，似以鴟梟而笑鳳凰、執蝘蜓而嘲龜龍。 然世人有背日月而向燈燭、深溝瀆而淺江河。 豈不謬乎？ 汝背佛法而尊神仙者，此之謂也。 」「以道可道」下，斥其以邪濫正。 如新注云「若稱可真常之道，非常人所行之道。 」舊注云「可說之道，非真常之道。 名可名，例之可知。 」雖有二解，望理惑智行位因果，無可以擬別圓四德常樂之道，故云不可「均齊佛法不可說」等。 「何者」下，引例結責。 「諸法」下，重廣解釋不齊之相。 如道士李仲卿著《十異論》，琳法師立《十喻論》以喻其異而異於彼。 喻，猶曉也，曉彼迷故。 以今文望彼，似彼七異。 復加威儀及族位不齊，合為九異。 一者理本不齊，亦指向來所濫之法。 道可道等，將真如常住之法望之，云何得齊？ 然聃雖有無為無欲之語，語下無旨； 雖有常名常道之說，說無所歸。 若言常無欲觀其妙，妙理眾多，欲非一揆，為是何等欲妙者乎？ 故不可以常道之名均於實相。 「教相」下，二明教相不齊。 今文但略舉一不齊之言。 然五千之文，但去奢去泰、自約自儉、守雌守弱、患智患身，是故聃化以虛無為本、憺怕為先。 豈與八萬法藏、十二分教，逗大逗小、若偏若圓，四悉赴機、五乘接物，冥益顯益、逆化順化，欲校優劣，安可同耶？ 「況以」下，三以苦集不齊況之。 老雖患身去欲，未達患原，弊智勞形不窮弊本，苦集增長去道彌遙。 豈與夫捨三界繫、離六趣果同耶？ 況三惑二死四智五眼，彼無其名，安知其義？ 苦集彰露，具如前說。 「況將」下，四以道滅不齊況之。 故三十七品彼典無名，四德涅槃歸乎釋教。 徒施患身之說、信無不淨，初門身念既無，道品安在？ 生滅道品尚已天隔，況復衍門彼無毫釐。 「本既」下，五示迹不齊。 滅理為本、應化為迹。 俗以三十年為一世，今但以前王後王而為一世，居五天中故云正也。 天竺、身毒、印度，並是梵音輕重。 三世諸佛皆降迦維，是故名正。 言「金輪」者，王四天下。 故《俱舍》頌云「金銀銅鐵輪，一二三四洲。 」律中從劫初來次第相承，八萬四千二百五十二帝，有十輪王，餘皆粟散，悉王天竺、悉達生彼淨飯王宮，當此周昭王甲寅之歲。 若不出家，當為輪王。 不紹王位，夜半逾城志求大道。

Furthermore, the ninth [fascicle] of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra states: "There is an icchantika who takes the form of an arhat, dwelling in a vacant place and slandering the Vaipulya [sūtras]. Worldly people see him and take him for a true arhat." Such are those who take the form of monks to destroy the Buddhadharma. If they renounce the precepts and return to secular life, like Wei Yuansong and others, then they destroy the Buddhadharma in the form of laypeople. As for "transgressing and crossing over" (yueji), the sixth [fascicle] of the Sūtra on Repaying Kindness states: "Those who dwell as thieves, who transgress and cross over, who have severed good roots, or who have committed the five heinous crimes, cannot receive the precepts." This precisely refers to destroying both internal and external paths, which is called "transgressing and crossing over." "Crossing over" (ji) means the path; "transgressing" (yue) means violating, which corresponds to the meaning of destroying. Having previously destroyed an external path, he came to take refuge and go forth; midway he turned his back on this and reverted again to the deviant tradition. If he returns yet again, it forms an obstacle preventing reception of the precepts. The present text does not discuss returning again to form an obstacle; rather, because both this and that are destroyed, it is called "transgressing and crossing over." This person steals the correct teaching to augment and supplement deviant texts. The Huainanzi states: "The thief is the greatest bandit under Heaven." "Compel" (yao; archaic pronunciation liao) means to force or to intercept. Unable to aim for superiority, he merely seeks equality. Regarding "pressing down the high" and so forth: a piece of wood for leveling a grain-measure is called a leveling stick (gai). Taking the mind of a Daoist as the leveling stick for the two teachings, so that the deviant and the correct are made equal, is unreasonable. Having once entered the Buddhadharma and stolen the correct to support the deviant, he presses down the height of the eighty thousand [teachings] and twelve [divisions] to place them below the Five Thousand [Words] in two parts, using them to interpret the deviant and lowly teachings of those classics; this is called "bringing down the venerable into the base." As Master Dao'an wrote in the Treatise on the Two Teachings, citing Ban Gu's nine schools: the Daoist teaching is just one among the nine, namely the Daoist school. If the Daoist school is established as a single teaching, then the other eight schools naturally diverge in source. If those nine schools are combined into one Confucianism, then when compared and contrasted there remain only two teachings; it is not even fitting to stand alone as a founder of a teaching, let alone turn around and desire to confound and unify them. Since antiquity, former sages have long distinguished the true from the false; yet eminent and virtuous figures of recent times are still bewildered by right and wrong, falling short of Confucian secular scholars who still distinguish the clear from the turbid, as in Li Sishen's Ten Differences and other writings. Furthermore, Mouzi says: "Yao served Yin Shou; Shun served Wu Cheng; Confucius studied under Lao Dan; Dan (Duke of Zhou) took Lü Wang as his teacher. Although these four masters were sages, compared to the Buddha they are like white deer compared to the qilin. Comparing their teachings, it is like crows and magpies compared to phoenixes. Comparing their bodily forms, it is like anthills (die, ant mounds) compared to Mounts Hua and Heng." He was further asked: "There are generally ninety-six scattered and remnant paths; in quietude and non-action, none surpasses the Buddha. Yet I consider the arts of divine immortals supreme; are they perhaps not inferior to the Buddhadharma?" Mouzi said: "Pointing south as north, one claims not to be deluded; citing east as west, one claims not to be confused. What you say is like an owl mocking a phoenix, or holding a gecko to ridicule tortoises and dragons. Indeed, there are people in the world who turn their backs on the sun and moon to face a lamp or candle, or consider ditches and gutters deep while considering the Great River and River shallow. Is this not an error? Your turning your back on the Buddhadharma to venerate divine immortals is just like this." From "the Dao that can be spoken of" downward, he refutes its confusing the deviant with the correct. As the new commentary says: "If it is called the true and constant Dao, it is not the path walked by ordinary people." The old commentary says: "A Dao that can be spoken of is not the true and constant Dao. The name that can be named can be understood by analogy." Although there are two interpretations, when looking at the principle, delusions, wisdom, practice, stages, causes, and effects, nothing can compare to the Dao of constancy and bliss, the four virtues of the distinctive and perfect [teachings]; hence it says that it cannot "equal the inconceivable of the Buddhadharma," and so forth. From "Why so?" downward, he cites analogies to conclude with a rebuke. From "All phenomena" downward, he re-expounds and explains the marks of inequality. For instance, the Daoist Li Zhongqing wrote the Treatise on Ten Differences, and Dharma Master Falin established the Treatise on Ten Similes using similes to illustrate their differences, showing how they differ from each other. "Simile" (yu) means to awaken or clarify, clarifying their delusion. Looking from the present text to that [treatise], it resembles its seven differences. Adding to this the inequalities of deportment and lineage, they combine into nine differences. First, the fundamental principles are not equal, which also refers to the teachings that were previously confounded. If one compares "the Dao that can be spoken of" and so forth with the permanently abiding dharma of suchness, how could they be equal? Although Dan had words about non-action and desirelessness, beneath the words there was no ultimate meaning; although he spoke of the constant name and the constant Dao, what he spoke had no ultimate resort. If one says "constantly without desire, contemplate its subtlety," subtle principles are manifold, and desires are not of one single kind; what kind of subtle desire would this be? Therefore, the name of the constant Dao cannot be equaled to the true mark. From "aspects of the teaching" downward, second, he explains that the aspects of the teaching are not equal. The present text merely mentions briefly the words "not equal." However, the Five Thousand Words merely cast away luxury and excess, restrain oneself in thrift, keep to the female and the weak, and treat wisdom and the body as afflictions; therefore, Dan's conversion takes nothingness as fundamental and serene quietude as primary. How could this compare with the eighty thousand dharma treasuries and the twelve divisions of teachings, suited to the Mahāyāna or Hīnayāna, whether partial or perfect, the four Siddhāntas responding to capacities, the five vehicles receiving beings, hidden benefits and manifest benefits, conversion through adversity and conversion through favor? If one seeks to compare their superiority and inferiority, how could they ever be identical? From "how much more" downward, third, he illustrates this by the inequality of suffering and origin. Although Laozi treated the body as an affliction and eliminated desires, he did not penetrate the source of affliction; he disdained wisdom and wearied the body without getting to the bottom of the root of defect, so suffering and origin increased, leading him ever farther from the Path. How could this be identical to renouncing the bonds of the three realms and leaving the fruits of the six destinies? How much more so with the three delusions, two kinds of death, four wisdoms, and five eyes—those [texts] do not even have the names, so how could they know their meanings? Suffering and origin are manifestly exposed, fully as described before. From "how much more taking" downward, fourth, he illustrates this by the inequality of path and cessation. Thus the thirty-seven aids to awakening are unnamed in those classics, and the nirvāṇa of the four virtues belongs solely to the Śākya teaching. Vainly deploying the discourse of treating the body as an affliction, it genuinely lacks [contemplation of] impurity; since the initial gate of mindfulness of the body is absent, where are the aids to the path? The aids to the path of arising and cessation are already separated [from them] by heaven and earth, how much more so the Great Vehicle, of which they do not possess a single shred! From "since the origin" downward, fifth, he shows that the traces are not equal. The principle of cessation is the origin; responsive transformation is the trace. Secularly, thirty years make one generation; here, we merely take the previous kings and later kings as one generation; dwelling in the midst of the Five Indies, it is therefore called "central." Tianzhu, Shendu, and Yindu are all lighter or heavier Sanskrit phonetic variants. The Buddhas of the three periods all descend in Kapilavastu; therefore it is called central. As for the "wheel-turning king with a golden wheel," he rules over the four continents. Thus the Kośa verse says: "Gold, silver, copper, and iron wheels / [rule over] one, two, three, and four continents." In the Vinaya, successively inherited since the beginning of the kalpa, among eighty-four thousand two hundred and fifty-two emperors, there were ten wheel-turning kings; the rest were mere "millet-scattered" kings. All ruled over India, and Siddhārtha was born there in the palace of King Śuddhodana, corresponding to the jiayin year of King Zhao of the Zhou dynasty. Had he not gone forth, he would have become a wheel-turning king. Not inheriting the royal throne, at midnight he leaped over the city wall to seek the Great Path with determined aspiration.