十止世人情門
指要行世。積有歲年。當途拒轍之流。數亦眾矣。或毀於舌表。或攻以筆端。而皆檐麻棄金。執礫謂寶。略援數四。用止人情。使汎學之曹。無猶預於兩岐之間也。齊曰。指要乃斥予稟法師所立之義耳。予師嘗立問於後學云。別教真如不隨緣。起信真如能隨緣。未審起信為別為圓。若別。文且相違。若圓。乖彼藏疏。此乃予師深病。後學不知。所以輒將今家四教。對彼宗之五教。既見藏疏判起信。正唯終教。亦兼於頓。乃謂與別教相符。遂將起信。以為別教。蓋不知宗師判教之意也。析曰。二十問中。責彼不解問意云云。又若謂安國定判別教無隨緣者。何故云藏疏非圓教耶。既非圓教。非別是何。豈彼隨緣四教不攝耶。況安國顯自不許藏疏談圓。子焉得苦執彼之隨緣。同今圓耶。祇知抑理順情。不覺違師背教也。玄曰。近有稟山家教者。不自務本。而強攀馬鳴宗教。謂無圓極之說。將他真如隨緣。成諸法義。曲作道理。抑入自宗。偏漸門內。便立別理。有隨緣義。意破馬鳴說不臻極。析曰。此都不知隨緣名義所出。致茲誑妄。其所立難。原始要終。純將此意。罵辱指要。而復全迷山家戶牖。謬自穿鑿。然彼破立之由。予知之矣。蓋被錢塘圓公。致書請之。乃人情所惑也。故書云。有四明法師某甲者。先達之高者也。嘗謂天台別理立隨緣之名。而鯨吞起信之義。有永嘉繼齊上人。後進之尤者也。謂彼為濫說耳。由是並形章藻。二說偕行。如矢石焉。杭諸宗匠。莫有評者。翻汝學徒。甚以為惑。乃至云。庶幾乎用為法之心。詳其得失。揮彌天之筆。定彼是非等。圓既作鯨吞起信之言。玄乃錯謂馬鳴被破之見。徒此狂簡。斐然成章。吾祖有言。傳法利人之功。不補非法毀人之失。加謀若是。果報何之。玄云。撲他還是自撲。頴曰。別教若有隨緣。自智者來諸師。皆不說者。為知而不說。為實無故不說。若知而不說。則聖師有隱覆之過。苟無故不說。今竪立之。莫有乖越聖師之過否。析曰。一家別理。與他宗隨緣之義。宛如符契。燦若星懸。那云宗師皆不說耶。若見別教無隨緣之名。便謂無隨緣之義者。何不責荊谿云。圓教無隨緣之名。安得立隨緣之義耶。此皆戲論。亦人情耳。頴曰。立徵決者。以代齊公。答二十問也。文義煩漫。不能具書。然彼學不師安。何足與議。但慜其無識。故錄以示之。有人問曰。何因緣起立此章文。述四教義。對諸經論。彼自答云。事不獲已。學徒苦問隨緣之義。深不願為。祇為去聖時遙。晚徒不曉宗旨。輒將祖教。作生滅斷常之見。悞累後生。謗法謗人。懺悔之門。其罪不滅等。析曰。此師立四教隨緣有無之義。略無一處小有可觀。但縱𮌎㦗。全違教理。如妄指覺義不是真如。謬用隨緣釋於被接。執別教生法唯在無明。判經論真妄全非了義。此等訛說。始末無殊。又却枉他謗法謗祖。凡有青眼。孰不寒心。噫知過者。如日月之既蝕。能無改乎。執愚者。猶菽麥之不分。難可移也。須循正輒。免墮邪途。顒俟見聞。俯為詳悉。
The *Essential Guide* has circulated in the world for many years. Those who stand in the road to block its path are indeed numerous. Some attack it with their tongues, others assail it with their pens. Yet they all discard gold while grasping hemp, holding gravel and calling it treasure. I will briefly cite a few examples to settle people's doubts, so that those engaged in broad learning will not hesitate between two divergent paths.
Qi said: "The *Essential Guide* criticizes the doctrines established by my teacher, Master Bingshou. My teacher once posed a question to later students: 'The True Suchness of the Separate Teaching does not follow conditions, while the True Suchness of the *Awakening of Faith* can follow conditions. I am uncertain whether the *Awakening of Faith* belongs to the Separate Teaching or the Perfect Teaching. If it is Separate, its text seems contradictory. If it is Perfect, it contradicts the *Zang Commentary*. This is a profound flaw my teacher saw, which later students do not know. Therefore, he took our school's Four Teachings and matched them against that school's Five Teachings. Seeing that the *Zang Commentary* judges the *Awakening of Faith* as belonging precisely to the Final Teaching, while also encompassing the Sudden Teaching, he then said it accords with the Separate Teaching. Consequently, he took the *Awakening of Faith* to be the Separate Teaching. This is because he did not understand the intention behind the Patriarch's judgment of the teachings.'"
Analysis: Within the *Twenty Questions*, it reproaches him for not understanding the meaning of the question, etc. Furthermore, if one claims that Anguo definitively judged the Separate Teaching as having no following of conditions, then why does it say the *Zang Commentary* is not the Perfect Teaching? Since it is not the Perfect Teaching, if it is not the Separate, then what is it? Could it be that their "following conditions" is not included within the Four Teachings? Moreover, Anguo clearly himself did not accept the *Zang Commentary* as discussing the Perfect. How can you, sir, stubbornly insist that their "following conditions" is the same as our Perfect Teaching? You only know how to suppress principle to accommodate sentiment, unaware that you are contradicting your teacher and betraying the teaching.
Xuan said: "Recently, there are those who claim the teachings of the Shanjia school but do not attend to their own foundation. Instead, they forcefully cling to the teachings of the patriarch Asvaghosha, claiming there is no doctrine of ultimate perfection. They take his principle of True Suchness following conditions to form the meaning of all dharmas, distorting it into a rationale to suppress into their own school. Within the biased and gradual gate, they then establish a separate principle having the meaning of following conditions, intending to refute Asvaghosha's teaching as not reaching the ultimate."
Analysis: This entirely fails to understand the origin and meaning of the term "following conditions," leading to such deceitful falsehoods. The objections they raise, from beginning to end, purely use this idea to insult and vilify the *Essential Guide*, while also being completely confused about the doorway of the Shanjia school, erroneously engaging in their own forced interpretations. However, I know the reason for their refutations and assertions. It is because they were prompted by a letter from Master Yuan of Qiantang requesting it, which is a confusion born of human sentiment. Thus the letter says: "There is a certain Dharma Master Siming, a lofty elder of former attainment. He once said the Tiantai Separate Teaching establishes the name 'following conditions,' thereby swallowing whole the meaning of the *Awakening of Faith*. There is the Venerable Jiqi of Yongjia, an outstanding figure among later learners. He says that is reckless talk. Therefore, both have put forth writings; the two theories proceed together like arrows and stones. The various eminent masters in Hangzhou have none who evaluate them. Instead, your students are greatly confused by them." It even says: "We hope that with a mind devoted to the Dharma, you will examine their gains and losses, wield your pen that reaches to heaven, and determine their right and wrong," etc. Since Yuan made the statement about "swallowing whole the *Awakening of Faith*," Xuan then mistakenly thought this was the view that Asvaghosha had been refuted. Merely from this reckless simplicity, he elaborately composed his writing. Our patriarch has a saying: "The merit of transmitting the Dharma and benefiting people does not make up for the fault of unlawfully slandering people." With schemes like this, what will the karmic retribution be? Xuan said: "Striking others is ultimately striking oneself."
Ying said: "If the Separate Teaching had 'following conditions,' since the time of Master Zhiyi, all the teachers have not spoken of it. Is it because they knew but did not speak of it, or because it truly did not exist, so they did not speak of it? If they knew but did not speak, then the sage teachers have the fault of concealment. If it did not exist and therefore they did not speak, now to erect and establish it—does this not have the fault of transgressing against the sage teachers?"
Analysis: The separate principle of our school and the meaning of "following conditions" in other schools match like tally tokens, shining clearly like stars in the sky. How can one say the patriarchs and teachers all did not speak of it? If, seeing the Separate Teaching lacks the *name* "following conditions," one then says it lacks the *meaning* of following conditions, why not reproach Master Jingxi, saying: "The Perfect Teaching has no name 'following conditions,' how can it establish the meaning of following conditions?" These are all frivolous debates, merely human sentiment.
Ying said: "I establish critiques and decisions to represent Master Qi in answering the *Twenty Questions*. The text and meaning are extensive and scattered; I cannot write them all out. However, his learning does not take Anguo as teacher; he is not worth discussing with. I only pity his lack of understanding, therefore I record this to show him."
Someone asked: "For what reason did you compose this chapter, expounding the meaning of the Four Teachings in relation to the various sutras and treatises?" He himself answered: "It was unavoidable. Students bitterly questioned the meaning of 'following conditions.' I deeply did not wish to do it. It is only because we are far removed from the time of the sages, and later disciples do not comprehend the essential meaning. They arbitrarily take the ancestral teaching and make views of production-extinction and annihilation-eternality, mistakenly burdening later generations, slandering the Dharma and slandering people. The gate of repentance—their offense is not extinguished," etc.
Analysis: This teacher's establishment of the meaning of the presence or absence of "following conditions" in the Four Teachings has not a single place that is even slightly worthy of regard. He merely indulges in wild talk, completely contradicting the teaching and principle. For example, he mistakenly points to the meaning of awakening as not being True Suchness; he erroneously uses "following conditions" to explain "being received"; he insists that the Separate Teaching's production of dharmas resides solely in ignorance; he judges the sutras' and treatises' true and false as entirely non-definitive meaning. These kinds of mistaken statements are uniformly flawed from start to finish. Furthermore, he wrongly accuses others of slandering the Dharma and slandering the patriarchs. Any person with clear discernment—who would not feel chilled at heart? Alas! Those who know their errors are like the sun and moon after an eclipse—can they not change? Those who cling to folly are like those who cannot distinguish beans from wheat—they are difficult to move. One must follow the correct path to avoid falling into wrong ways. I respectfully await what is seen and heard, humbly requesting detailed clarity.
附法智遺編別理隨緣十門析難書卷(終)
Supplementary Collection of Dharma Wisdom: Ten Gates Analysis of the Doctrine of Conditioned Arising
比丘宗峴贖教乘息錢開板