|
問曰。若諸法十譬喻皆空無異者。何以但以十事為喻。不以山河石壁等為喻。
答曰。諸法雖空而有分別。有難解空。有易解空。今以易解空喻難解空。
復次諸法有二種。有心著處有心不著處。以心不著處解心著處。
問日。此十譬喻 。何以是心不著處。
答曰。是十事不久住易生易滅故。以是故是心不著處。
復次有人知十喻誑惑耳目法。不知諸法空故。以此喻諸法。若有人於十譬喻中。心著不解種種難論以此為有。是十譬喻
不為其用。應更為說餘法門。
問曰。若諸法都 空不生不滅。是十譬喻等種種譬喻種種因 緣論議。我已悉知為空。若諸法都空不應說是喻。若說是喻是為不空。
答曰。我說空破諸法有。令所說者若說有先已破。若說無不應難。譬如執事比丘。高聲舉手唱言眾皆寂靜。是為以聲遮聲非求聲也。以是故雖說諸法空不生不滅
。愍念眾生故。雖說非有也。以是故說諸法如化。
--「十喻釋論」完--
|
|
Question: If all dharmas and the subjects
of the ten similes are all identically empty, why are only
these ten matters employed as similes? Why not use
mountains, rivers, stone walls and so forth as similes?
Reply: Although all dharmas are empty,
still, there are distinctions among them: There are those
the emptiness of which is difficult to understand and there
are those the emptiness of which is easy to understand. Now,
those for which emptiness is readily comprehended are
employed herein as similes for those the emptiness of which
is only understood with difficulty.
Moreover, there are two kinds of dharmas:
those which constitute a locus for attachment of the mind
and those which do not constitute a locus for attachment of
the mind. [Herein], those points to which the mind does not
attach are employed to release the mind from those points to
which it does attach.
Question: How is it that the [topics] of
these ten similes constitute places to which the mind does
not attach?
Reply: These ten phenomena do not dwell
for long. It is because they arise readily and perish
readily. For this reason they constitute points to which the
mind does not attach.
Moreover, there are those who are aware
that the [topics of] the ten similes constitute dharmas
which deceive and delude the ears and the eyes. Because
[those same individuals] are unaware that all dharmas are
empty, these [subjects] are used as similes for all dharmas.
If there are people who become mentally
attached to these ten similes, who do not understand them
and who raise all manner of arguments in order to establish
that they do [in fact] exist, then these ten similes are not
useful for them.
One should [instead] set forth alternate
dharmic access methods for their benefit.
Question: As for all dharmas being empty,
not produced and not destroyed, I was already entirely
knowledgable as regards the emptiness referred to through
the various comparisons and various causes and conditions
set forth within this discussion of the ten similes. If all
dharmas are empty, one ought not to set forth these similes.
If one sets forth these similes, then this is contrary to
emptiness.
Reply: My explanation of emptiness is for
the sake of refuting the existence of all dharmas. Now, as
for what has been said here, if it is a setting forth of
existence, that has already been refuted. If it is a setting
forth of nonexistence, then one ought not to challenge it.
This is analogous to [the actions of] the bhikshu charged
with maintaining order when he, with loud voice and upraised
hand, calls out, "Silence in the Assembly!" This is done for
the purpose of employing speech to cut off all speech and is
not done for the purpose of soliciting further speech. For
this reason [it should be understood that], although one
engages in an explanation demonstrating that all dharmas are
empty and neither produced nor destroyed, one does so
[solely] out of compassionate regard for beings. Although
there is a discussion, it is not a case of [establishing
anything as] existent. It is for these reasons [discussed
above] that it is said that all dharmas are like a
[supernatural] transformation.
(The End of the Ten Similes)
|
