法華玄義釋籤 6.35

6.35

次斥教道中二：初舉論師謬謂，次「今試」下明今家斥失。初云「攝大乘十勝相」者，彼論始終秖明十種勝相之義，分為十品。論初云：「菩薩欲顯大乘功德，依大乘教說如是言。諸佛世尊有勝相義，所說無等過於餘教。言勝相者有十：一依止，二應知，三入應知，四因果，五入因果脩差別，六於差別依於戒學，七於中依心學，八於中依慧學，九學果寂滅，十智差別。」論文先列，次生起。釋初勝相，明第八識生十二因緣義。言依止者，謂所依也。真諦所譯則依菴摩羅，後代諸譯並依黎耶，如其各計成自他性，一論二譯尚生二計，況諸部耶？論師以黎耶依持，破於《地論》，故云「翻宗」。「翻」者改也。令地論宗破歸我攝宗。次明今家斥中為八：初總，舉迹中十妙。次別，以初妙比破。三「四悉」下以逗機比決。四「彼直」下斥偏。五「因緣」下展轉比決。六「當知」下結歎。七「天竺」下舉勝況劣。八「思自」下結。初如文。次文者，且以迹中十妙之初境妙少分，比彼十勝相之初相全分，於少分中尚有所漏，四句之中但得自他一句而已，故上斥云「有所漏」也。況破則俱破，立則俱立，不同彼論唯計一句，故今文云「不思議因緣」，豈同論文黎耶、摩羅自他因緣耶？文雖雙舉，計必偏執，如新舊兩譯，亦如地論南北二道還成性過，各計不同。今不思議離四性計，豈同彼論各計不同耶？三逗機中四悉俱立，不同彼論唯立一句。四斥偏中彼計一句為一道，「不見」下舉今得顯彼失，四味增減為開合，頓漸可知。由教行別，故情智等不同。第五意者，境妙有六，其但得一少分故也，況復餘耶？六「當知」下結。「鱗沓重積」等者，十妙生起如鱗，皆具諸法如沓，於一一妙，若鱗若沓亦復如是。第七意中「真丹」，義如《止觀》第二記。八結文，可知。

Next, in reproving the doctrinal path, there are two parts: first, adducing the erroneous assertions of the treatise masters; second, from "now let us test..." onward, clarifying the present master's reproof of their errors. First, regarding "the ten superior characteristics of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha": that treatise from beginning to end merely clarifies the meaning of the ten kinds of superior characteristics, divided into ten chapters. The beginning of the treatise states: "A bodhisattva wishing to reveal the merits of the Mahāyāna speaks like this relying on the Mahāyāna teaching: The Buddhas, World-Honoured Ones, possess the meaning of superior characteristics; what they teach is peerless and surpasses other teachings. The superior characteristics are ten: first, support; second, what is to be known; third, entry into what is to be known; fourth, cause and fruition; fifth, the differentiated cultivation of entering cause and fruition; sixth, relying on the training in higher morality regarding differentiation; seventh, relying on the training in higher mind therein; eighth, relying on the training in higher wisdom therein; ninth, the fruition of training, which is cessation; tenth, differentiation of knowledge." The text of the treatise first enumerates them, then explains their sequence. Explaining the first superior characteristic, it clarifies the meaning of the eighth consciousness generating the twelve links of dependent origination. The word "support" means that which is relied upon. What Paramārtha translated relies on amala, while later translations all rely on ālaya; if they each hold their own views, they fall into the nature of self or other. When a single treatise with two translations still generates two views, how much more so for various schools? Treatise masters used the ālaya as support to refute the Daśabhūmikā Sūtra-śāstra, hence it is called "overturning the school." "Overturning" means changing: causing the Daśabhūmikā school to be broken and subsumed under our Saṃgraha school. Next, in clarifying the present master's reproof, there are eight parts: first, general, adducing the ten subtleties in the traces; second, specific, using the first subtlety to compare and refute; third, from "the four siddhāntas" onward, comparing and deciding according to the adaptation to faculties; fourth, from "they directly..." onward, reproving the partial; fifth, from "dependent origination..." onward, progressively comparing and deciding; sixth, from "one should know..." onward, concluding with praise; seventh, from "India..." onward, using the superior to illustrate the inferior; eighth, from "reflect on oneself..." onward, the concluding text. The first is as in the text. As for the second text: merely using a small portion of the subtlety of the objective realm, the first of the ten subtleties in the traces, to compare with the entirety of the first characteristic among their ten superior characteristics, even within that small portion there is still an omission; among the four propositions they obtain only one proposition of self or other, hence the reproof above says "there is an omission." Furthermore, when refuting, all are refuted, and when establishing, all are established; it is not like that treatise, which grasps solely one proposition. Therefore, the present text speaks of "inconceivable dependent origination"—how could it be identical to the dependent origination of self and other through ālaya and amala in the text of the treatise? Although the text mentions both, their attachment is inevitably one-sided, just like the new and old translations, and like the southern and northern tracks of the Daśabhūmikā school which also turn into the fault of intrinsic nature, each attachment differing. The present inconceivable [dependent origination] is free from the attachment to the four natures; how could it be identical to the differing attachments of that treatise? Third, in adapting to faculties, all four siddhāntas are established, unlike that treatise which establishes solely one proposition. Fourth, in reproving the partial, they grasp one proposition as the single path; from "not seeing..." onward, the present gain is adduced to reveal their loss; the increase and decrease of the four flavors constitute opening and combining, and the sudden and gradual can be understood. Because teaching and practice differ, sentiment, wisdom, and so forth are not identical. The fifth meaning is: there are six subtleties of the objective realm, and they obtain only a small part of one; how much less the rest? Sixth, from "one should know..." onward, the conclusion: "heaped like fish scales and layered folds," and so forth: the arising of the ten subtleties is like fish scales, all endowed with the various dharmas like layered folds; for each and every subtlety, whether as scales or layers, it is also like this. In the seventh meaning, regarding "Zhendan," the meaning is as in the commentary on the second fascicle of the Zhiguan. Eighth, the concluding text can be understood.