續高僧傳 22.21.2

22.21.2

或導達周秦。 或揚塵齊魯。 莫不同師雲術齊駕當時。 雖出鈔記略可言矣。 而導開業關中盛宗帝里。 經律雙授其功可高。 于時世尚僧祇。 而能間行四分。 登座引決其從如流。 勍敵每臨銜箭而返。 然遵一其神志。 聲色不渝。 由是人法歸焉。 可謂行之及也。 智首律師承斯講授。 宗係盛廣探索彌深。 時屬雲雷接統傳化。 學門遠被製述全希。 豈非博贍百家共師一軌。 雖欲厝筆無詞可通。 屬有礪亮行判爍勝藏興。 或傳道於東川。 或稱言於南服。 其中高第無越魏都。 制疏乃行其緒誠少。 餘則名擅一方蓋無筆記。 而復化行難阻多翳時心。 豈不以制在篇初故陷者惡聞其失。 嗚呼律為法命。 弘則命全。 今不欲不弘正法斯滅。 又可悲之深矣。 觀夫定慧兩藏理在通明。 戒律宗中情。 纏事局事。 則紛披雜集。 前後異條開制適緣。 舉例寧准。 論餘兩藏義在潛通。 達解知微名為會正。 所以天仙小聖逗機明道。 互說精理開明慧務。 俱稱至教。 印定成經。 若據律宗惟遵佛誨。 大小諸聖不妄傳揚。 斯何故耶。 良由教限內眾軌躅常儀。 僧寶可欽非餘訓勗。 自非位極至聖。 誰敢厝心。 是以文云。 吾尚不以眾僧付於身子。 況餘人乎。 故所制重輕皆遵成教。 縱有疑問還委佛通。 雖著論詳述而不作。 是使遺言四命戒為大師。 三集法輪先弘斯典。 論稱法壽。 豈虛也哉。 昔鵠樹已前持律者眾。 其中高者。 牛王最初。 往業未夷。 徙居天室。 其次接緒號優波離。 五百獻功奉持為上。 致使四十餘載七眾憲章隨犯科要多因面結。 至於持犯通塞徵舉治儀。 皆命顯揚委其監護。 雖復二十四依通傳正軌。 揩摸後葉必祖斯文。 暨乃東川創開戒業。 曹魏嘉平方弘具戒。 爾前法眾同號息慈。 師弟乃聞纔移俗耳。 行羯磨也憑准法護之宗。 論布薩也翻誦僧祇之戒。 教網初啟隨得宗之。 奉可怪也。 西晉務法稍漸綱猷。 中原喪亂干戈競接。 雒邑凋殘渭陰荒燼。 竺護青門之眾。 可卷而懷。 康會黃武之徒。 未足收採。 重以孫皓苛虐元燾不仁。 擁寺列兵虔劉釋種。 平城之側高尚覆屍。 黃河之涘梵僧捐寶。 投骸靡厝法律寧通。 時會彌天恢張儀範。 僧眾常則皆約戒科。 兵飢交貿網制嚴密。 廣如前傳所敘。 故安舉三章且救時要。 攝緣成濟得其務焉。 但教缺未弘必假傳授。 鼻奈耶律初是安通。 文極疎略粗知大旨。 審其正則誠所未聞。 弘在人乎安當斯寄。 其後遠叡願翼。 咸習門風。 秦晉兩邦昌明法化。 誠其力矣。 自斯厥後南北兩分住持位別。 各程綱目互舉清徒。 故有𭗵嶺栖霞弘明淨地秦川靈隱建立戒壇。 應供列雁行之僧。 敘戒聞重受之夏。 即其事也。 若夫人法交映。 則行解相扶。 有昧則絕紐。 當時無得遂埋神於地。 故世中迷學其流四焉。 試略舉之。 想當迷責樂大乘者。 志尚浮虛情專貪附。 故有排委戒網捐縱威儀。 見奉律者輕為小乘。 毀淨戒者重為大道。 便引黃葉是真金之喻。 木馬非致遠之能。 訶折排拉如捐草土。 皆由行缺於身塵染綱領。 恥己不逮於清達。 慢己有累於嚴制。 遂即迴情學大開展心胸。 陵轢聲聞褒揚菩薩。 通情則恐投於坑阱。 取解則曲媚於門侶。 如斯懷挾未曰倫通。 以此求心心可知矣。 何不廣讀大乘開張慧路徵延聖意有附塵焉。 是以勝鬘所談女人之起行也。 猶知毘尼即大乘學也。 時所明初心之具修也。 尚識律儀即菩薩藏。 何況諳達理教體化知神。 解不謝於上賢。 行寧虧於下眾。 必行有乖解非解也。 得語而不詳義。 棄智而從諸識。 生死無涯之儔。 固難述矣。 流俗常事三省而加九思。 出世所詮四依之與八正。 降斯以往未足言哉。 是以大小兩教隨相攝修。 並在離著。 豈惟封執。

Some guided [followers] through Zhou and Qin, or stirred up dust in Qi and Lu. None did not take Yunshu as their master and run abreast in their age. Though they produced notes and commentaries, they can be spoken of in brief. Yet Dao founded the tradition in Guanzhong, flourishing as the main school in the imperial capital; conferring both the scriptures and the Vinaya, his achievement was truly high. At that time the world esteemed the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya, yet he was able concurrently to practice the Dharmaguptaka Four-Part Vinaya. Taking the high seat, he resolved doubts, and his followers were like a flowing stream. Whenever formidable adversaries approached, they returned with arrows in their mouths. Yet Zun unified his spirit and resolve, unchanging in voice and expression. From this, both men and Dharma took refuge in him; he may be said to have reached the height of practice. Vinaya Master Zhishou received this teaching; his lineage was vast and prosperous, his inquiries ever deeper. At that time of cloud and thunder, he took up the succession and spread the transformation; his school of learning reached far and wide, yet he produced very few written compositions. Was this not because, having widely mastered the hundred masters, they all took a single rule as their guide? Even though one wished to apply the brush, there were no words that could fully convey it. It happened that Li, Liang, Xing, Pan, Shuo, Sheng, and Zang arose: some transmitted the Way to the eastern rivers, and some won praise in the southern regions. Among them, the eminent disciples did not exceed [those of] the Wei capital; they produced commentaries and put them into practice, but their textual lineages were indeed few. As for the rest, their names were renowned in single regions, but they left no written records. Moreover, the propagation of their teachings met with resistance and difficulty, mostly obscured in the minds of their contemporaries. Was it not because the regulations lie at the head of the sections, so that those who violated them hated to hear of their own faults? Alas! The Vinaya is the life of the Dharma: when it is promoted, this life is preserved; now, if one does not wish to promote it, the true Dharma will perish. This is also profoundly lamentable. Looking upon the two piṭakas of concentration and wisdom, their principle lies in pervasive clarity. In the Vinaya school, human sentiments are entangled and affairs are confined; affairs are diverse and multifarious. Earlier and later rules differ; permissions and prohibitions suit particular circumstances. How could one take a single rule as standard? In the other two piṭakas, the meaning lies in covert communion; penetrating understanding and knowing subtlety are called harmonizing with the right. Therefore heavenly immortals and lesser sages accommodate capacities to illuminate the Way, mutually expounding subtle principles to open and clarify the tasks of wisdom; all are called the supreme teaching and sealed to become sūtras. But if based on the Vinaya school, one strictly follows the Buddha's admonitions; the various sages, great and small, do not recklessly expound it. What is the reason for this? It is truly because within the bounds of the teachings, for the regular norms and constant decorum of the internal assembly, the monastic jewel is venerable, and it cannot be taught by anyone else. Unless one's rank reaches the utmost sage, who would dare set his mind to it? Hence the text says: 'I do not even entrust the monastic assembly to Śāriputra, how much less to other men?' Therefore, whether the regulations made are heavy or light, they all comply with established teaching; even if there are doubts, they are still referred to the Buddha to be resolved. Though commentaries were composed with detailed expositions, they did not create anew. This is why the final testament made four behests, taking the precepts as the great master; and at the three councils turning the Dharma wheel, this text was the first to be promoted. The treatise calls it the 'longevity of the Dharma'—how could this be false? Formerly, before the Cranes' Trees, those who upheld the Vinaya were many. Among the foremost, the Bull King was the first: his past karma not yet exhausted, he migrated to dwell in a heavenly chamber. Next in succession was the one named Upāli: five hundred presented their achievements, yet he was supreme in upholding [the precepts]. Consequently, for more than forty years, the penal codes for the seven assemblies were formulated according to infractions, mostly settled directly before [the Buddha]. As for upholding and violating, permission and prohibition, questioning and bringing forth punitive rituals, all were commanded to be manifested and entrusted to his supervision. Although the twenty-four reliances collectively transmitted the correct norms, models for later generations must take this text as ancestor. When the practice of the precepts was first founded in the eastern land, it was during the Jiaping era of Cao Wei that the full ordination was first widely propagated. Before then, the Dharma assembly was uniformly called 'resting compassion' (śramaṇa); masters and disciples were just heard of, merely departing from secular life. When performing karmans, they relied upon the tradition of Dharmarakṣa; when discussing poṣadha, they chanted the precepts of the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya. When the net of teaching was first opened, whatever was obtained became the standard; is that not strange to uphold? In the Western Jin, devotion to the Dharma gradually developed guidelines. The Central Plains fell into chaos, and weapons of war clashed repeatedly. Luoyi was desolate and ruined; south of the Wei River lay scorched ash. The assembly of Zhu Dharmarakṣa at the Blue Gate could only roll up their scrolls and cherish them in their bosoms; the followers of Kang Senghui in the Huangwu era were not sufficient to be gathered and cited. Furthermore, Sun Hao was cruel and tyrannical, and Tuoba Tao was unbenevolent: surrounding monasteries with deployed troops, they slaughtered the Śākya clan. Beside Pingcheng, eminent monks lay dead; on the banks of the Yellow River, Indian monks abandoned their treasures. Casting aside their corpses with nowhere to rest, how could the Vinaya be understood? At that time, Mitian (Dao'an) broadly expanded the models and decorum. The regular rules of the monastic assembly all conformed to the precept statutes; amid wars and famines colliding, the regulations were strict and meticulous, as narrated extensively in the previous biographies. Thus Dao'an raised three rules to address the needs of the time; gathering conditions and effecting rescue, he succeeded in his tasks. But where the teaching was incomplete and not yet widespread, it necessarily relied on transmission. The Vinaya [of the Vibhāṣā] was first transmitted by Dao'an; the text was extremely rough and sketchy, providing only a rough knowledge of the general outline. As for examining its correct rules, it was truly unheard of. Does not promotion depend on the person? Dao'an undertook this responsibility. Afterwards, Huiyuan, Sengrui, Sengyuan, and Fayang all practiced this style of the gate; in both Qin and Jin, the transformation of the Dharma was gloriously illuminated, truly through their efforts. From that time forth, the north and south split into two, and the abodes of maintenance were distinct. Each set forth outlines and details, and mutually recommended pure followers. Thus Mount Qi's Xixia promoted the luminous pure land, while Qinchuan's Lingyin established ordination platforms. Monks arranged like wild geese received offerings; the summer retreats where the ordination was explained and re-received were heard of—such were their affairs. If men and the Dharma reflect each other, then practice and understanding assist one another. If there is obscurity, the bond is severed; when none attain it in that age, the spirit is buried in the earth. Therefore, among confused scholars in the world, there are four streams; let me try to briefly cite them. As for those who, facing confusion and blame, take delight in the Mahāyāna: their aspirations are frivolous and empty, their feelings entirely dedicated to greedy attachment. Hence some cast aside the net of precepts and abandon all proper deportment; seeing those who uphold the Vinaya, they belittle them as Hīnayāna; praising those who violate pure precepts, they esteem them as the Great Way. They cite the analogies that yellow leaves are real gold, and that a wooden horse cannot reach far. They scold, refute, and cast aside [the Vinaya] as if tossing away grass and dirt. This is all because their bodies are deficient in practice and their discipline is stained with dust; ashamed that they themselves cannot attain pure realization, and arrogant about being burdened by strict regulations, they immediately turn their feelings to study the Great [Vehicle] to open up their minds. They trample upon the śrāvakas and praise the bodhisattvas. Following their inclinations, they fear falling into pits and traps; seeking understanding, they crookedly flatter their companions. Such harboring of feelings cannot be called fair penetration; seeking their minds with this, their minds can well be known! Why not read the Mahāyāna broadly to open the path of wisdom, investigate the holy intention, and see if it conforms to worldly dust? Thus the practice of women spoken of in the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra still recognizes that the Vinaya is precisely the study of the Mahāyāna; and the complete cultivation of the beginner illuminated at that time still understands that the Vinaya deportment is precisely the bodhisattva piṭaka. How much more so for those who thoroughly understand principle and teaching, embody transformation, and know the spirit! Their understanding does not fall short of the superior sages; how could their practice be deficient among the lower assembly? If practice inevitably contradicts understanding, it is not understanding. Grasping words without discerning meaning, abandoning wisdom to follow various consciousnesses—such a company in boundless saṃsāra is indeed hard to describe. For ordinary secular affairs, one examines oneself thrice and reflects in nine ways; what the supramundane elucidates are the four reliances and the eightfold noble path. Falling below this, it is not worth speaking of. Therefore, the two teachings of Great and Small, in being cultivated according to their marks, both consist in detachment from grasping—how could it be mere clinging?