[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) › [法華玄義釋籤](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1717) › 11.10 # 法華玄義釋籤 11.10 法華玄義釋籤 11.10 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [11.10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1717.11.10) 大章第七明位廢，中二：先總敘意，次正明廢。初文者，具明諸教展轉漸廢，故作此說。若至《法華》一切權廢，是故此中不全同《法華》。次正釋中二：先敘破立之意，次正明廢。初文者，則廢三存一。初廢三中三：一先明如來破立之意，次明龍樹破立之意，三明今師破立之意。初文者，雖復五時增減不同，本意祇為破三存一，故云如來破立意也。具如教興，迭興至小，如是漸廢唯存一極。次文中云「毘曇婆沙明菩薩義」等者，且對衍門存三廢一，廣如《止觀》第三記。三明今師破立之意，又二：先破，次「而圓」下立。初又二：先破，次「往者」下明破立意。初文又三：初破大乘不立小失，次「常途」下破小乘師謬用大失，三「又別」下單破別教執非實教失。初如又。次文中三：初總破棄小用大，次「此有」下直破其謬用之失，三「縱令」下縱難其不識大乘謬用之失。初文者，汝棄小用大沒佛小乘為大方便，又汝若不伏不曉，論文自有菩薩義，何須用大？故以二失破之。汝若不嫌論主不解，何須棄之？三縱中云「縱令引經釋大乘」者，破舊引經不識義旨，是故須破，是故斥云何等大乘？汝雖引八地破無明，而不知是通教下根被接之義，當通始終不破無明，通義不成，是故須破。汝引六地以齊羅漢，而不知是名別義通，別義初地即破無明，何得六地始齊羅漢？是故須破。次單破別教，言「別是方便」等者，執別教道，不信頓極，名為謗實。次破立意者，豈以古師人往而存其非義？是故須破。次立一實，中二：先立，次謙退，即章安歎師法妙而自謙也。初立文中云「超三權」者，約廢權說，「即一實」者，約開權說。次正明廢，中二：先結前生後，次正明廢。於中二：初總敘漸頓三法四果，次釋。釋中三：初列經，次述今意，三正釋。初如文。次明今意。「且置頓論漸」者，若欲論頓有何不可？但明迭興迭謝之相，恐文稍煩，故且置之，以論於漸。 > The seventh major section explains the abrogation of stages, within which there are two parts: first, a general account of the intention; next, the abrogation proper. The first passage fully explains that the teachings are progressively and gradually abrogated, which is why this explanation is given. When it comes to the Lotus Sūtra, all expedients are abrogated, and therefore this is not entirely identical to the Lotus Sūtra. Next, in the explanation proper, there are two parts: first, recounting the intention of refuting and establishing; next, the abrogation proper. In the first passage, it abrogates the three and retains the one. In the initial abrogation of the three, there are three parts: first, explaining the Tathāgata's intention in refuting and establishing; next, explaining Nāgārjuna's intention in refuting and establishing; third, explaining the present master's intention in refuting and establishing. In the first passage, although there are differences of increase and decrease across the five periods, the original intention was only to refute the three and retain the one; hence it is called the Tathāgata's intention in refuting and establishing. Fully as in the arising of teachings: they arose successively down to the small, and were thus gradually abrogated, leaving only the single ultimate. In the next passage, where it says "the Abhidharma and Vibhāṣā explain the meaning of the bodhisattva" and so forth: this provisionally retains the three and abrogates the one in contrast to the Mahāyāna, fully as noted in the third fascicle of the Zhiguan. Third, explaining the present master's intention in refuting and establishing has two parts: first, refuting; next, from "yet the Perfect" onward, establishing. The first again has two parts: first, refuting; next, from "those of the past" onward, explaining the intention in refuting and establishing. The first passage again has three parts: first, refuting the error of the Mahāyāna in not establishing the Hīnayāna; next, from "ordinary" onward, refuting the Hīnayāna masters' error of mistakenly using the Mahāyāna; third, from "furthermore, the Separate" onward, singly refuting the Separate Teaching's error of clinging to what is not the real teaching. The first is as in the text. In the second passage, there are three parts: first, generally refuting the abandonment of the Hīnayāna to use the Mahāyāna; next, from "this has" onward, directly refuting the error of its mistaken application; third, from "even if" onward, hypothetically challenging their error of mistakenly applying the Mahāyāna through failure to understand it. The first passage means: you abandon the Hīnayāna and use the Mahāyāna, submerging the Buddha's Hīnayāna to make it a great expedient; furthermore, if you do not submit and do not understand, the treatises themselves contain the meaning of a bodhisattva, so why must you use the Mahāyāna? Hence he refutes them with these two errors. If you do not dislike the treatise master's lack of understanding, why must you abandon it? In the third hypothetical part, where it says "even if one cites sūtras to explain the Mahāyāna": this refutes the ancient masters who cited sūtras without understanding their meaning and intent, which is why they must be refuted; hence he rebukes them, saying: what kind of Mahāyāna is this? Although you cite the eighth bhūmi as breaking ignorance, you do not know this is the meaning of being received for lower capacities in the Shared Teaching; throughout the Shared Teaching, ignorance is not broken from beginning to end, so the Shared meaning is not established; therefore it must be refuted. You cite the sixth bhūmi as being equal to an arhat, yet you do not know that the name is Separate while the meaning is Shared; by the Separate meaning, ignorance is broken at the first bhūmi, so how could the sixth bhūmi only then equal an arhat? Therefore it must be refuted. Next, singly refuting the Separate Teaching, where it says "the Separate is an expedient" and so forth: clinging to the path of instruction of the Separate Teaching and not having faith in the sudden and ultimate is called slandering the real. Next, as for the intention in refuting and establishing: how could one preserve someone's incorrect doctrine just because the ancient master has passed away? Therefore it must be refuted. Next, in establishing the single real, there are two parts: first, establishing; next, self-effacement, which is Zhang'an praising the wondrousness of his master's Dharma and humbling himself. In the first passage on establishing, where it says "transcending the three expedients," this is spoken in terms of abrogating the expedient; "identical to the single real" is spoken in terms of opening the expedient. Next, the abrogation proper contains two parts: first, concluding the previous and introducing the subsequent; next, the abrogation proper. Within this there are two parts: first, a general account of the gradual and sudden, the three dharmas, and the four fruits; next, the explanation. In the explanation there are three parts: first, listing the sūtras; next, stating the present intention; third, the explanation proper. The first is as in the text. Next, explaining the present intention. "Setting aside the sudden for the moment to discuss the gradual": if one wished to discuss the sudden, what objection would there be? But as for explaining the aspects of successive arising and successive cessation, fearing the text would be somewhat burdensome, it is set aside for the moment to discuss the gradual. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 11.9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1717.11.9) - [Next: 11.11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1717.11.11) - [Up: 11](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1717.11) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1717~en-mt.11.10) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1717.11.10](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1717.11.10) · Pramāṇa