法華玄義釋籤 13.10

13.10

次分大小，中二：初大小相望以論通別，次「為緣」下明通別意。初又三：初小九望大三，對十二為通別。次「有人」言下，大九望小三，對十二為通別。三「有經言」下，大一望小十一，對十二為通別。初文中三：初略標三九別，次釋十二通小，三「又涅槃」下明十二大小共。初如文。次文又五：初明通小，言「大空經」者，《阿含經》中有《大空經》，經中廣明是老死，誰老死，為人法二空，如《止觀》第六記。次「故涅槃」下，證通小意。三「大品」下，舉大品況。四「有經」下，若通小故大小俱十二。五「但是」下，釋三別在於大，則十二唯大。次「故涅槃」下，十二通大者，《大經》既云「先雖得聞十二部」者，並指鹿苑，故知鹿苑亦有十二。如次文。魔雖不能說頓十二部，故知亦能說權十二部也，亦為二乘說小十二部。三「大品」下舉況，魔說尚具十二，況小乘耶？四引一經據信者，情不偏於九，則大小俱十二。「按此」下結。言「若信六部通大小乘，不信六部互不相通」者，河西云：脩多羅，祇夜，和伽羅，優陀那，伊帝目多伽，優波提舍，此六顯現是故易信，餘六深隱是故不信。復有人云：但信六部，不信六部，不論深淺。今謂不然，將大小俱十二，望大小各九，各九是別、各十二是通，各九之中緣、喻、事三局在於小，廣、問、記三局在於大，餘之六部通於大小，此以通難別，故云「既信六部通於大小」，不信餘六，三唯在小，三唯在大，故云「不信六部互不相通」。此六若許通於大小，則成大小俱有十二。五正釋三九別，中三：初先斥通義，次正立別，三「何者」下釋小無三。三明十二大小共，可知。次大九望小三，中二：先明大別在九，次「通語」下明大通十二。三明一與十一，中二：先別立十一，次「若言」下亦通具十二。言「十二部」者，《大經》十四云：「又有說者名十一部，菩薩純說大乘方等」，第十九云「復有十一部經，除毘佛略，亦無如是甚深之義」。

Next, he distinguishes Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna. Within this are two parts: first, comparing Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna to discuss common and distinct; next, from "for conditions" downward, clarifying the intent of common and distinct. The first part also has three: first, comparing the small nine to the large three against the twelve as common and distinct; next, from "some say" downward, comparing the large nine to the small three against the twelve as common and distinct; third, from "a sūtra says" downward, comparing the large one to the small eleven against the twelve as common and distinct. In the first text, there are three: first, briefly indicating the difference between three and nine; second, explaining that the twelve are commonly present in the Hīnayāna; third, from "moreover, the Nirvāṇa" downward, clarifying that the twelve are shared by both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna. The first is as in the text. The second text also has five: first, clarifying that they are common to the Hīnayāna; regarding the "Great Emptiness Sūtra" (Mahāśūnyatā Sūtra), in the Āgama sūtras there is the Great Emptiness Sūtra, in which it is extensively explained whether old age and death exist, who undergoes old age and death, and the two emptinesses of persons and dharmas, as noted in the sixth fascicle of the Zhiguan. Second, from "hence the Nirvāṇa" downward, verifying the intent of being common to the Hīnayāna. Third, from "the Large Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra" downward, bringing up the Large Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra as an analogy. Fourth, from "there is a sūtra" downward, if common to the Hīnayāna, then both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna have twelve. Fifth, from "merely" downward, explaining that the three are distinctly in the Mahāyāna, so the twelve are exclusively Mahāyāna. Next, from "hence the Nirvāṇa" downward, regarding the twelve being common to the Mahāyāna: since the Great Sūtra says "although previously having heard the twelve divisions," all pointing to the Deer Park, we therefore know that the Deer Park also had twelve. This is like the next text. Although Māra cannot speak the sudden twelve divisions, we therefore know he is also able to speak the provisional twelve divisions, and also speaks the small twelve divisions for the two vehicles. Third, from "the Large Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra" downward, an analogy is raised: if even Māra's speech possesses all twelve, how much more so the Hīnayāna? Fourth, adducing one sūtra based on the believer whose inclination is not biased toward nine, then both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna possess twelve. From "according to this" downward concludes. Regarding "if one believes that six genres are common to both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, but does not believe that the [other] six genres are mutually non-communicating": Hexi said: sūtra, geya, vyākaraṇa, udāna, itivṛttaka, and upadeśa—these six are manifest and therefore easy to believe; the remaining six are deep and hidden, and therefore not believed. There are also people who say: one merely believes in six genres and does not believe in six genres, without discussing depth or shallowness. Now I say this is not so: comparing both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna having twelve to both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna each having nine—the respective nine are distinct, and the respective twelve are common. Among the nine, nidāna, avadāna, and itivṛttaka are confined to the Hīnayāna; vaipulya, udāna (without asking), and vyākaraṇa are confined to the Mahāyāna; the remaining six genres are common to both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna. This uses the common to challenge the distinct, and therefore says "since one believes six genres are common to both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna," but does not believe that the other six—three being exclusively in the Hīnayāna and three exclusively in the Mahāyāna—hence says "does not believe that the six genres are mutually non-communicating." If these six are allowed to be common to both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, then it results in both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna possessing twelve. Fifth, directly explaining the distinction between three and nine, within which are three: first, refuting the view of commonality; second, directly establishing the distinct; third, from "why" downward, explaining why the Hīnayāna lacks three. Third, clarifying that the twelve are shared by Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna can be known. Next, comparing the large nine to the small three, within which are two: first, clarifying that the Mahāyāna is distinctly in nine; next, from "generally speaking" downward, clarifying that the Mahāyāna commonly has twelve. Third, clarifying the one and eleven, within which are two: first, distinctly establishing eleven; next, from "if it is said" downward, also commonly possessing twelve. Regarding "the twelve divisions": scroll fourteen of the Great Sūtra says: "There are also speakers who call it eleven divisions, where bodhisattvas exclusively preach the Mahāyāna Vaipulya"; scroll nineteen says: "There are again eleven divisions of sūtras which, excluding vaipulya, also lack such profound meaning."