止觀輔行傳弘決 5.64.4

5.64.4

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.