法華玄論 3.10

3.10

次明亦無漸教。舊云《波若》是三乘通教，凡引四文：初云「欲得聲聞地者，當學波若，乃至欲得菩薩地者，當學般若。」又云「是波若中廣說三乘之教」，又云「二乘智斷是菩薩無生法忍」，又云「欲住須陀洹者亦不應離是忍」，故知波若是三乘通教。評曰。論序說波若因緣意云：於三藏中但為聲聞說法，未說菩薩行；今欲為彌勒等廣說菩薩行，故說《波若》。不言今欲通說三乘人行故說《波若》，即知《波若》非三乘通教。又論云「《波若》不屬二乘，但屬菩薩。」若《波若》是三乘通教者則應通屬三乘，不應但屬菩薩。又論云「在菩薩心中名波若，在聲聞心中名道品。」又云「在菩薩心中名陀羅尼，在二乘心中名為道品。」若《波若》是三乘通教，則在三乘心通名波若，不應有別名也。又難曰：若三乘通學波若，《波若》是三乘通教者，《涅槃經》云「三乘之人同觀中道，下智觀故得聲聞菩提，乃至上智觀故得諸佛菩提。」亦應是三乘通教。若言蓋是《涅槃》一枝之義，不足以證大宗者，〈勸學品〉勸三乘學《波若》亦是一句之言，不足以證其通致。又云《波若》出生三乘，故是三乘通教者，《大經》云「即是聲聞藏出生諸聲聞，即是因緣藏出生緣覺。」應是三乘通教。又《勝鬘經》明大地出四寶藏，攝受正法能生五乘，亦應是三乘通教。

Next, I shall explain that there is also no gradual teaching. Formerly it was said that the Prajñāpāramitā is a teaching shared by the three vehicles, citing four passages in all: first, it states, 'Those who wish to attain the stage of the śrāvaka should train in prajñā... up to: those who wish to attain the stage of the bodhisattva should train in prajñā'; it also states, 'Within this prajñā, the teachings of the three vehicles are extensively explained'; it also states, 'The wisdom and abandonment of the two vehicles are the bodhisattva's forbearance of the unarisen dharmas'; it also states, 'Those who wish to abide as a srotāpanna should also not depart from this forbearance.' Therefore, it was known that the Prajñāpāramitā is a teaching shared by the three vehicles. In critique, I say: The commentary's preface explains the intention of the causes and conditions for the Prajñāpāramitā, saying that in the tripiṭaka he only taught the Dharma for śrāvakas and had not yet taught the bodhisattva practices; now, wishing to extensively teach the bodhisattva practices for Maitreya and others, he therefore taught the Prajñāpāramitā. It does not say that now, wishing to teach the practices of people of the three vehicles in common, he therefore taught the Prajñāpāramitā. Thus we know that the Prajñāpāramitā is not a teaching shared by the three vehicles. Furthermore, the treatise states: 'Prajñā does not belong to the two vehicles; it belongs only to bodhisattvas.' If the Prajñāpāramitā were a teaching shared by the three vehicles, then it should pertain in common to the three vehicles, and should not belong only to bodhisattvas. The treatise also states: 'In the minds of bodhisattvas it is called prajñā; in the minds of śrāvakas it is called the factors of enlightenment.' It also states: 'In the minds of bodhisattvas it is called dhāraṇī; in the minds of the two vehicles it is called the factors of enlightenment.' If the Prajñāpāramitā were a teaching shared by the three vehicles, then in the minds of the three vehicles it would be universally called prajñā and should not have different names. Furthermore, I raise this challenge: If the three vehicles all study prajñā, and the Prajñāpāramitā is a teaching shared by the three vehicles, then the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra states, 'People of the three vehicles together contemplate the middle way: by contemplating with inferior wisdom they attain śrāvaka bodhi... up to: by contemplating with superior wisdom they attain the bodhi of the Buddhas.' It, too, should be a teaching shared by the three vehicles. If it is said that this is merely a branch meaning of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra and is insufficient to prove the primary doctrine, then the 'Chapter on Exhorting Practice' exhorting the three vehicles to study prajñā is likewise merely a statement of a single phrase, insufficient to prove its shared intent. Furthermore, if it is said that because prajñā gives birth to the three vehicles it is therefore a teaching shared by the three vehicles, then the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra states: 'It is the śrāvaka canon that gives birth to the śrāvakas; it is the causes-and-conditions canon that gives birth to the pratyekabuddhas.' It, too, should be a teaching shared by the three vehicles. Furthermore, the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra explains that the great earth produces four treasure troves, and embracing the true Dharma can generate the five vehicles; it, too, should be a teaching shared by the three vehicles.