宗鏡錄 46.3.2

46.3.2

Third, not knowing the kalpa of formation after the voidness, they grasp it as the two separations of the clear and the turbid. Fourth, not knowing that sentient beings of higher realms are born below, they grasp it as the transformations of heaven and earth. Thus one knows that the net of views is difficult to escape, and heterodox interpretations easily arise. As minutely investigated in the *Zhiguan*: Regarding observing the objects of various views, 'not one' is called 'various'; heterodox interpretation is called 'view'. Furthermore, to understand and know is the meaning of 'view'. Reason is improperly investigated, yet a biased view is distinct; forming a definitive understanding is termed a 'view'. Now, students of listening and learning memorize names and characteristics, forming interpretations aligned with the letter of the text. Their mind's eye does not open, completely lacking contemplation of principle. Those who rely on the letter survive, yet without realization they die. Now, practitioners of dhyāna only value contemplation of principle; encountering anything, their minds blend, yet they are dark regarding names and characteristics, not recognizing a single sentence. Those who recite the texts guard the stump; those who comprehend through sensibility attain wondrous awakening. Both sides are mutually deficient; upon critical examination, both are mistaken. Broadly speaking, there are three types of heterodox views: First, non-Buddhists outside the Buddha Dharma. Originally there were three: First, the Kapila non-Buddhists, translated here as 'Yellow-head', who assert that the effect exists within the cause. Second, the Ulūka [non-Buddhists], translated here as 'Xiuhou', who assert that the effect does not exist within the cause. Third, the Ṛṣabha [non-Buddhists], translated here as 'Asceticism', who assert that the effect both exists and does not exist within the cause. Furthermore, according to the *Introduction to the Mahāyāna*, what Kāla taught had the fault of asserting oneness: the agent and the action are one; the characteristic and that which possesses the characteristic are one; the part and that which possesses parts are one. Such views are called asserting oneness. Ulūka asserted difference; Kakuda asserted oneness and difference; Jñātiputra asserted neither oneness nor difference. All non-Buddhists, as well as Makkhali and others who assert difference, never depart from these four. Branching streams derived from these three or four non-Buddhist teachings. By the time the Buddha appeared in the world, there were six great masters: namely, Pūraṇa, of the Kāśyapa clan, who asserted neither arising nor cessation; Makkhali Gosāla, who asserted that the suffering and pleasure of sentient beings have no cause or condition, being spontaneously so; Sañjaya Vairāṭīputra, who asserted that sentient beings attain the Way when their time ripens, and that when the suffering of eighty thousand kalpas is exhausted, they spontaneously attain liberation—like a ball of thread that comes to rest on its own when the string is spent; Ajita Keśakambala—'kambala' meaning coarse garment—who asserted that the suffering of karmic retribution is substituted by throwing oneself from cliffs and pulling out one's hair; Kakuda Kātyāyana, who asserted both existence and non-existence; and Nirgrantha Jñātiputra, who asserted that what is produced by karma is definitively unalterable. Second, non-Buddhists附-attached to the Buddha Dharma: These originated with the Vātsīputrīyas and the Fangguang. Relying on their own cleverness, they read the Buddhist scriptures and treatises, yet generated a single view that arose by attaching itself to the Buddha Dharma; hence they received this name. The Vātsīputrīyas read Śāriputra's *Abhidharma* and personally formulated a distinct doctrine, saying that the self exists outside the four propositions, within a fifth, ineffable repository. What are the four propositions? Non-Buddhists assert: form is the self; there is a self apart from form; form is within the self; the self is within form. The other four aggregates are also like this, totaling twenty views of the self. The *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* states that destroying the twenty views of the self constitutes becoming a srotāpanna—this is precisely the meaning. Now the Vātsīputrīyas' assertion of a self is different from the six masters, yet is also not the Buddha Dharma. The treatises all examine and reject it; it is precisely the teaching of heterodox persons attached to the Buddha Dharma. Alternatively, it is said that the three times and unconditioned phenomena constitute the four propositions. Furthermore, the Daoists of the Fangguang, relying on their own cleverness, read the Buddha's ten metaphors and personally formulated the doctrine, saying that neither arising nor cessation is like an illusion, like a phantom, taking emptiness and illusion as their doctrine. Nāgārjuna rebuked this, saying it is not the principle of the Buddha Dharma; what the Fangguang produced is also the teaching of heterodox persons. Third, those who study the Buddha Dharma and turn into non-Buddhists: They grasp the teachings of the Buddha and generate kleśas, unable to enter the principle. The *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* states: 'If one does not attain the expedient means of prajñā, entering the *Abhidharma*, one immediately falls into existence; entering emptiness, one immediately falls into non-existence; entering the *Piṭaka* (*Bhelasaṃhitā* / *Peṭaka*), one falls into both existence and non-existence.' The *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* states: 'Grasping neither existence nor non-existence is called foolish discourse.' Inverting the grasp of the correct Dharma, it turns back into the teaching of heterodox persons. If one studies the four gates of the Mahāyāna, having lost the meaning of prajñā, one is burned by the fire of heterodox views, and all four become the teachings of heterodox persons. Even if, regarding the limbs of contemplation, one suddenly understands that avidyā is transformed into vidyā, and vidyā is endowed with all phenomena; or states that avidyā is unobtainable, transforming into vidyā—how could vidyā be obtained?—and this unobtainability is also endowed with all phenomena; or states that the vidyā of the dharmatā is both obtainable and unobtainable, neither obtainable nor unobtainable; one gate is precisely three gates, and three gates are precisely one gate—this understanding being sharp and piercing, where whatever is refuted is without exception destroyed, and whatever is posited is without exception established, with nothing able to surpass it, and one also personally calls this anutpattikadharmakṣānti—such an understanding is the arising of views concerning the four gates of the Perfect Teaching. Furthermore, when all four gates of the Mahāyāna turn into views, true speech becomes false because of giving rise to views on words; nirvāṇa becomes saṃsāra because of giving rise to greed and attachment. Taking too much amṛta harms life and causes premature death; losing the gate of expedient means, one falls into heterodox grasping, hence it is termed 'internal heterodox views'. Furthermore, in this land of Cīnasthāna, there are also such doctrines. Zhou Hongzheng, in explaining the three mysteries, said: The *Changes* determines the eight trigrams, yin and yang, good fortune and misfortune; this elucidates the mystery in terms of existence. Laozi's emptiness and harmonization elucidates the mystery in terms of non-existence. Zhuangzi's spontaneity elucidates the mystery in terms of both existence and non-existence. The branches and streams derived beyond these originally issued from here. For now, let us explain gain and loss based on this. As Zhuangzi says: 'Nobility and baseness, suffering and pleasure, right and wrong, gain and loss—all are spontaneous.' To speak of spontaneity does not refute the effect, but by not discerning prior karma, it refutes the cause. Ritual codes, humaneness, and righteousness protect the body and bring peace to the state; if not put into practice, one's clan is destroyed and one's family perishes. Simply establishing virtue in the present life without incurring retribution in future lives—this is refuting the effect without refuting the cause. If one says that blessing flows to future generations, combining this with the former, it is then that the effect both exists and does not exist. With respect to a single doctrine, there are three types of practice: first, asserting existence and practicing good; second, asserting existence and practicing evil; third, asserting existence and practicing the indeterminate. Dividing according to the mysterious principle, it should be thus: wealth and nobility cannot be aspired to or sought; poverty and lowliness cannot be resented or avoided. Life is not worth rejoicing over; why should death be feared? Taking this empty mind, let one who dwells in nobility not be arrogant.