[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) › 11.32 # 法華玄義釋籤 11.32 法華玄義釋籤 11.32 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [11.32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1717.11.32) 次明別教中三：先正明三軌，次引《攝大乘》辨非，三「若能」下結示。初文二：先正明，次引證解釋。次文者，先列釋，次斥又二：初總，次「何者」下別。又為六：初明不融之相，次「是則」下判，三「元夫」下明教意，四「此語」下今家誡示，五「又阿黎」下重斥判，六「若執」下誡勸。初二可知。三「元夫」去至「一途」等者，破別教教道及明立教道之意，於中先敘諸經論意，次明龍樹意同，並先用空遣蕩相著，後方分別歷別法門。當知前空亦空無明，無明尚空，豈存諸計無沒含藏種子耶？又此文中從先以無常去至於四德，此寄如來漸教示離執之方，此寄漸文兼具兩意：一約酪等四時，二約藏等四教，細類上下，亦應可見。從「淨諸法」已去，正示滅後說法之人，亦應先蕩諸相著已，後還用於自他四句為他說法。四今家誡示中云「如除病」去重更舉喻。從「那得」去責其計者，汝未遣著何得妄計阿黎耶識出一切法？從「本之」去判其有惑，故惑猶存、新惑更重。從「故知」去判屬界外，仍非界外通方法門，故云「一途」。於彼界外尚是一途，何得界內博地執諍？六誡勸中云「語見」者，依教語而起見，不入真道。又云「多唅兒蘇」等者，《大經》第四〈四相品〉云：「有一女人乳養嬰兒，來詣佛所，有所顧念，心自思惟在一面坐。爾時世尊知而故問：汝以愛念，多唅兒蘇，不如籌量消與不消。爾時女人即白佛言：甚奇世尊！善知我心，惟願世尊為我少說，我於今朝多唅兒蘇，恐將不消。佛言：汝兒所食尋即消化更增壽命。女人聞已心大歡喜。」疏云：「凡養嬰兒，唅蘇傷多，尚恐夭命，況復餘食？女人譬慈，嬰兒譬信，乳養譬聞法，唅蘇譬讚歎生喜，喜多尚妨於道，況復癡怒？」今以蘇多譬生語見，故與喜貪義同，依實起見尚損慧命，況於偏乘而生取著？故《大經》第八云：「無礙智甘露，所謂大乘典，如是大乘典，亦名雜毒藥。如蘇醍醐等，及以諸石蜜，服消成甘露，不消成毒藥。方等亦如是，智者為甘露，愚不知佛性，服之成毒藥。」 > Next, in clarifying the Separate Teaching, there are three \[parts\]: first, directly clarifying the three tracks; next, citing the Mahāyānasaṃgraha to distinguish what is incorrect; third, from "if one can" onward, concluding with instruction. The first text has two \[parts\]: first, directly clarifying; next, citing proof and explaining. As for the second text, first it lists and explains, and next refutes, which again has two \[parts\]: first, general; next, from "why" onward, specific. This again has six \[parts\]: first, clarifying the characteristics of non-fusion; next, from "this then" onward, determining \[its status\]; third, from "originally indeed" onward, clarifying the purport of the teaching; fourth, from "these words" onward, our school's admonition and instruction; fifth, from "moreover, the ālayavijñāna" onward, re-refuting and determining; sixth, from "if one clings" onward, admonishing and exhorting. The first two can be known. Third, from "originally indeed" down to "a single path" and so forth, it refutes the instructional path of the Separate Teaching and clarifies the intention of establishing the instructional path. Therein, it first recounts the intention of the various sūtras and treatises, and next clarifies that Nāgārjuna's intention is the same: both first use emptiness to sweep away attachments to characteristics, and only afterward differentiate the successive dharmas. One should know that the former emptiness also empties ignorance; if ignorance is still empty, how could the various clingings to an indestructible, store-containing seed be preserved? Moreover, in this text, from "first using impermanence" down to "the four virtues," this is framed upon the Tathāgata's gradual teaching to show the method of abandoning attachment. This framing upon the gradual text accommodates two senses: first, in terms of the four periods such as curd; second, in terms of the four teachings such as the Tripiṭaka. If one examines the analogies above and below, it should also be apparent. From "purifying the dharmas" onward, it directly shows that those who preach the Dharma after the \[Buddha's\] extinction should likewise first sweep away all attachments to characteristics, and afterward return to using the four alternatives of self and other to preach the Dharma for others. Fourth, in our school's admonition and instruction, stating "like removing a disease" onward again provides an analogy. From "how can one" onward, it reprimands those who hold such views: "Before you have discarded attachments, how can you falsely conceptualize that the ālayavijñāna produces all dharmas?" From "originally" onward, it judges that they possess delusions, so that the old delusions still remain and the new delusions become even heavier. From "hence we know" onward, it classifies this as belonging to the realm beyond \[the triple world\], yet it is still not the universally penetrating teaching of the realm beyond; hence it says "a single path." Since it is still merely a single path in that realm beyond, how can ordinary worldlings within the realm \[of the triple world\] cling to it and dispute? Sixth, in the admonition and exhortation, "view of words" means giving rise to views based on the words of the teaching, without entering the true path. Furthermore, regarding "feeding a child too much ghee" and so forth: the fourth fascicle of the Great Sūtra, in the "Chapter on the Four Characteristics," states: "There was a woman nursing an infant who came to the Buddha's place. With something on her mind, she sat to one side reflecting within herself. At that time, the World-Honored One, knowing \[it\], deliberately asked: 'Out of loving care, you fed \[the child\] too much ghee, without considering whether it would digest or not.' At that time, the woman addressed the Buddha, saying: 'How extraordinary, World-Honored One! You well know my mind. I only wish the World-Honored One would speak briefly for my sake: I fed \[my child\] too much ghee this morning and fear it will not digest.' The Buddha said: 'What your child ate will immediately digest, and furthermore prolong its life.' Having heard this, the woman's heart was filled with great joy." The commentary states: "Generally, in raising an infant, if one feeds it too much ghee, one still fears it will shorten life—how much more so with other foods? The woman is an analogy for compassion; the infant is an analogy for faith; nursing is an analogy for hearing the Dharma; feeding ghee is an analogy for praising to produce joy. If an excess of joy still obstructs the path, how much more so stupidity and anger?" Here, feeding too much ghee is an analogy for giving rise to the view of words, and hence shares the meaning of joy and greed. Giving rise to views based on the real still harms the life of wisdom; how much more so when producing grasping attachment toward the biased vehicle? Therefore, the eighth fascicle of the Great Sūtra states: "The amṛta of unimpeded wisdom, / Namely the scriptures of the Great Vehicle— / Such Great Vehicle scriptures / Are also called mixed poison. / Just like ghee, clarified butter, / And the various rock sugars: / If taken and digested, they become amṛta; / If not digested, they become poison. / The Vaipulya is also like this: / For the wise, it is amṛta; / The foolish do not know the Buddha-nature, / And taking it, it becomes poison." > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 11.31](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1717.11.31) - [Next: 11.33](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1717.11.33) - [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.11.32) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1717.11.32](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1717.11.32) · Pramāṇa