[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [出三藏記集](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2145) › 11.27 # 出三藏記集 11.27 出三藏記集 11.27 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [11.27](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2145.11.27) 訶梨跋摩者。宋稱師子鎧。佛泥洹後九百年出。在中天竺婆羅門子也。若人之生也。固亦命世而誕。幼則神期秀拔。長則思周變通。至若世典圍陀。並是陰陽奇術。提舍高論。又亦外詰情辯。皆經耳而究其幽。遇心而盡其妙。直以世訓承習弗為心要也。遇見梵志導以真軌。遂抽簪革服為薩婆多部達摩沙門究摩羅陀弟子。其師既器而非凡。即訓以名典。迦旃延所造大阿毘曇。乃有數千偈。而授之曰。此論蓋是眾經之統例。三藏之要目也。若能專精尋究則悟道不遠。於是跋摩敬承鑽習。功不踰月皆精其文義。乃慨焉而歎曰。吾聞佛旨虛寂。非名相所議神澄妙絕。罕常情攸測。故為先達之所遵崇。我亦注心歸仰。如今之所稟。唯見浮繁妨情支離害志。經云。名相竟無妙異。若以為先聖應期適時之漸。斯則教之流非化之源矣。遂乃數載之中。窮三藏之旨。考九流之源。方知五部創流盪之基。迦旃啟偏競之始。紛綸遺蹤謀方百轍。由使歸宗者昧其繁文。尋教者惑其殊軌。夫源同末異。乃將衰之徵然頹綱不振。亦弘道者之憂也。遂抗言五異辯正眾師。務遵洪範當而不讓。至乃敏捷鋒起苞籠群達。辯若懸河清對無滯。于時眾師雷動相視闕如。後以他日集而議曰。此子恃明淩轢舊德。據言有本末易可傾。邁年值此運也如何。或有論者曰。豈唯此子才明過人。抑亦吾等經論易窮耳。意謂學無自足闇則諮明。明昧之分已自可知。何為苟守偏識不師廣見耶。諸耆德曰。相與誠復慕明情深而忝世宗仰于茲久矣。當不能忽廢舊業問道少年明矣。何者。夫根同葉散像數自然。五部之興有自來矣。但當敦其素業祗而行之。既生屬千載之末。孰能遠軌正法之初哉。且跋摩抽簪之始。受道吾黨。中參異學已自離群。夫師祖不同。所以五部不離黜異之制。蓋先師舊典幸可述。其獨見之明以免雷同之眾。跋摩既宏才放達廣心遠度。雖眾誚交諠傲然容豫深體忘懷明遊常趣。神用閑邃擇木改步。時有僧祇部僧。住巴連弗邑。並遵奉大乘。云是五部之本久聞跋摩才超群彥為眾師所忌。相與慨然。要以同止遂得研心方等銳意九部。採訪微言搜簡幽旨。於是博引百家眾流之談。以檢經奧通塞之辯。澄汰五部商略異端。考覈迦旃延斥其偏謬。除繁棄末慕存歸本造述明論厥號成實。崇附三藏准列四真。大明筌極為二百二品。志在會宗光隆遺軌。庶廢乖競共遵通濟。斯論既宣淵懿嚮萃。旬日之間傾震摩竭。于時天竺有外道論師。云是優樓佉弟子。明鑒縱達每述譏正之辯。歷國命詶莫能制者。聞花氏王崇敬三寶。將阻其信情。又欲振名殊方遂杖策恒南。直至摩竭。王聞不悅。即宣募境內有能辯屈之者。當奉為國師。闔境英豪皆憚其高名。咸曰。才非跋摩孰堪斯舉。王聞甚悅即勅奉迎。跋摩既至。王便請昇論堂令與外道決其兩正。于時外道志氣干雲。乃傲然而詠曰。吾大宗樓迦偉藉世師。繁文則六諦同貫。簡旨則知異于神。神為知主唯斷為宗。敢有抗者斬首謝焉。跋摩既宏才邈世。覩之杪然。神期陵霄容無改顏。乃慨然對曰。異哉子之談也。子所以跨遊殊方。將欲崇其神而長其知也。又以斷為宗而自誣其旨。子無知乎。神可亡乎。神既非知。為神知知知神乎。若神知知知神者誰。知若知神知亦神乎。外道乃退自疑曰。理必若斷我無知矣。知若知神神非宗矣。於是沈惟謝屈心形俱伏。王及臣民慶快非恒。即與率土奉為國師。王乃譴其舊眾昔忌名賢。本眾相視懷愧闕然。咸共追遜固請舊居。王又曰。夫制邪歸正其德弘矣。但弘教之賢業尚殊背乖迕遺筌濁亂象軌。請以檢一令謬昧欽明。王即宣告號為像教大宗。由使八方論士淵異之徒感思舊決朋契而萃。跋摩以絕倫之才超群之辯。每欲師聖附經籍同默異遂博舉三藏開塞之塗。大杜五部乖競之路。難其所執釋其所難。明辯恢廓苞羅眾說。理亂叩機神王若無。於是群方名傑莫能異見。咸廢殊謀受道真軌。淳化以之而隆。邪藹以之而騫。非夫神契實津道參冲旨。孰能盪定群異令廢我求通者哉。所以粗述始末垂諸好事云爾（造諸數論大師傳並集在薩婆多部此師既不入彼傳故附於此）。 > Harivarman—called Shizikai in the Song—appeared nine hundred years after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, born as the son of a brāhmaṇa in Central India. In his birth, he was truly one born destined for his age: in childhood his spiritual promise was preeminent, and in adulthood his thought encompassed transformation and adaptation. As for secular classics and the Vedas, along with unusual techniques of yin and yang, and Tiśya's lofty treatises, as well as external questioning and disputations, all of them he investigated in their profundity once they crossed his ears, and exhausted their subtleties once met by his mind. Yet he considered secular teachings mere inherited conventions, not the essential core of the mind. Encountering a brāhmaṇa who guided him to the true track, he thereupon pulled out his hairpin and changed his robes, becoming a disciple of Kumāralāta, a śramaṇa of the Sarvāstivāda school. His master, recognizing his extraordinary capacity, at once instructed him in renowned scriptures: the Great Abhidharma composed by Kātyāyana, which had several thousand verses, transmitting it to him with the words: 'This treatise is indeed the comprehensive model for the scriptures and the essential summary of the tripiṭaka. If you can investigate it with single-minded devotion, your awakening to the Way will not be far off.' Thereupon Harivarman reverently accepted and studied it; before a month had passed, he had mastered its text and meaning. He then sighed with deep feeling and said: 'I have heard that the Buddha's intent is vacant and serene, beyond the reach of names and characteristics; its spirit is clear and wonderfully transcendent, rarely plumbed by ordinary sentiments. For this reason the ancient masters revered and respected it, and I too focused my mind in turning to it with devotion. As for what has been received today, I see only superficial prolixity impeding the mind, and fragmented divisions harming the intent. A sūtra says: "Names and characteristics ultimately possess no marvelous distinction." If this was taken as the gradual accommodation to the times by the ancient sages answering their era, then this is the stream of teaching, not the source of transformation.' Thereupon, within several years, he plumbed the purport of the tripiṭaka and investigated the origin of the nine streams; only then did he realize that the five schools established the foundation for wandering astray, and Kātyāyana initiated the beginning of biased contention. In confusing disarray their legacy was left, their plans diverging into a hundred ruts, causing those who seek the central lineage to be blinded by its prolix text, and those who seek the teaching to be confused by its divergent tracks. When the source is identical yet the branches differ, it is indeed a sign of impending decline; that the collapsed guidelines are not restored is also a sorrow for those who propagate the Way. He thereupon spoke openly against the five differences and disputed with the masters to correct them, striving to follow the great standard and taking his stand without deference. He was so sharp and agile that his spearheads rose everywhere, embracing all accomplished masters; his eloquence flowed like a hanging river, his clear replies meeting no obstruction. At that time the masters were shaken like thunder, looking at each other at a loss. Later, gathering on another day, they deliberated: 'This youth relies on his brilliance to trample upon the seniors of long standing; his statements have roots and branches and cannot easily be overturned. Now that we are advanced in years and meet with such a turn of fortune, what should we do?' Someone among the debaters said: 'Is it only that this youth's talent and brilliance surpass others? It is rather that our scriptures and treatises are easily exhausted. We think that learning knows no self-sufficiency: when in darkness, one consults the bright. The distinction between clarity and obscurity is already evident; why stubbornly cling to biased knowledge and refuse to learn from broad perspective?' The senior elders said: 'We indeed admire his brilliance deeply, yet we have occupied the world's venerable position for a long time. It is clear that we cannot suddenly abandon our long-standing vocation to seek instruction from a youth. Why is this so? The roots are identical while the leaves disperse—such is the nature of forms and numbers. The rise of the five schools has its own origin. We need only reinforce our original vocation and practice it reverently. Having been born at the end of a thousand years, who can trace back to the beginning of the correct Dharma from afar? Moreover, when Harivarman first pulled out his hairpin, he received the Way from our group; later participating in divergent studies, he had already separated himself from our community. Because masters and ancestors differ, the five schools do not depart from the regulation of expelling dissenters. The former master's ancient scriptures may fortunately be transmitted, while his individual insight may save him from the conformist crowd.' Since Harivarman possessed grand talent and free-spirited detachment, with a broad mind and far-reaching capacity, though public rebukes clamored around him, he remained proud, composed, and deeply realized, forgetting self-interest and traveling clearly in the ordinary path. His spiritual function was calm and profound; choosing his tree, he altered his steps. At that time there were monks of the Mahāsāṃghika school dwelling in Pāṭaliputra, all revering the Mahāyāna, saying it was the root of the five schools. Having long heard that Harivarman's talent surpassed the eminent crowd and was envied by the masters, they sighed together and invited him to dwell with them. Thereupon he was able to apply his mind to the Vaipulya and concentrate his intent on the ninefold division of scriptures, collecting subtle words and searching out hidden meanings. He then broadly cited the discussions of the hundred schools and various streams to test the arguments regarding the profundities, open passages, and blockages of the scriptures. He refined the five schools and critically reviewed their divergent tenets; he investigated Kātyāyana and rejected his biased errors; discarding prolixity and abandoning the branches, he longed to preserve and return to the root. Thus he composed an illuminating treatise entitled the Tattvasiddhi (Chéngshí lùn). Revering and adhering to the tripiṭaka, he set forth the four noble truths in proper order, brightly explaining the ultimate standard across two hundred and two chapters. His intent lay in unifying the lineage and gloriously exalting the bequeathed tracks, hoping to put an end to divergent contentions and together follow universal salvation. When this treatise was promulgated, its profound elegance drew crowds; within ten days it shook Magadha. At that time in India there was a non-Buddhist dialectician, said to be a disciple of Ulūka, whose clear discernment was unconstrained and who always set forth arguments mocking the orthodox. Traveling through various states to challenge others, none could master him. Hearing that the king of Pāṭaliputra revered the Three Jewels, he wished to obstruct the king's faith and also make his name resound in distant regions; so he took his staff and traveled south of the Gaṅgā directly to Magadha. The king was displeased to hear this, and at once issued a summons throughout his territory: whoever could defeat him in debate would be honored as the National Master. The heroes across the whole realm feared his high reputation, and all said: 'Unless one has the talent of Harivarman, who is equal to this undertaking?' Hearing this, the king was delighted and immediately gave orders to welcome him reverently. When Harivarman arrived, the king invited him to ascend the debate hall and bade him determine the truth between the two with the non-Buddhist. At that time the non-Buddhist's ambition reached the clouds; proudly chanting, he said: 'Our great master Kaṇāda was magnificent, relied upon as a teacher of the world. In extensive phrasing, the six categories are linked together; in concise purport, consciousness differs from the soul. The soul is the master of consciousness; annihilation alone is our tenet. Should anyone dare oppose this, let my head be cut off in apology!' Harivarman, possessing grand talent transcending the world, looked upon him lightly; his spiritual promise soared to the skies, and the expression of his face did not change. With deep emotion he replied: 'How strange is your discourse! The reason you have traveled across distant lands is to exalt your soul and augment your consciousness. Yet taking annihilation as your tenet, you slander your own purport. Do you lack consciousness? Can the soul be annihilated? Since the soul is not consciousness, does the soul know consciousness, or does consciousness know the soul? If the soul knows consciousness, who knows the soul? If consciousness knows the soul, is consciousness also the soul?' The non-Buddhist then drew back and doubted himself, saying: 'If the principle must be annihilation, then I have no consciousness. If consciousness knows the soul, then the soul is not the primary tenet.' Thereupon, contemplating deeply, he admitted defeat, submissive in both mind and body. The king, his ministers, and the common people rejoiced beyond measure, and together with the whole land honored Harivarman as the National Master. The king then reprimanded Harivarman's former community for having previously envied a worthy of renown. The original community looked at each other with shame and deficiency; all of them yielded and earnestly invited him back to his old residence. The king also said: 'Subduing the heterodox and returning to the orthodox—how vast is his virtue! Yet the worthy ones who propagate the teaching still hold divergent pursuits, opposing the bequeathed fish-traps and throwing the model into confusion. We request that he examine and unify them, so that the errant and benighted may revere the bright.' The king immediately proclaimed him the Great Ancestor of the Semblance Teaching. As a result, debaters from the eight directions and those of profound differences, moved by the desire to resolve past doubts, assembled like companions bound by a pledge. With peerless talent and transcendent eloquence, Harivarman always sought to take the sage as his teacher, adhere to the scriptures, integrate the silent, and harmonize the divergent. He then broadly adduced the open and blocked paths of the tripiṭaka, completely closing off the routes of contention among the five schools; he interrogated what they clung to, resolved what they found difficult, and his illuminating eloquence was expansive, encompassing all doctrines. Facing order and disorder, he responded to the key impetus, his spiritual mastery as though effortless. Thereupon the renowned heroes from all quarters could harbor no differing views; all abandoned their separate schemes and received the true track of the Way. Pure transformation flourished because of this, and heterodox mists dispersed because of this. Were it not for one whose spirit matched the true ford and whose Way joined the profound purport, who could sweep away and settle all differences, causing people to discard selfhood and seek universality? Thus I have roughly set forth the beginning and end, leaving it to those who take pleasure in such matters. (Biographies of the great masters who composed the treatises on enumeration were all collected under the Sarvāstivāda school; since this master was not included in those biographies, his account is appended here.) > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 11.26](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2145.11.26) - [Next: 11.28](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2145.11.28) - [Up: 11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2145.11) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2145~en-mt.11.27) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2145.11.27](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2145.11.27) · Pramāṇa