法華玄論 3

English (machine translation) 3

Language: English

Question: The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, explaining the 'Chapter on Inquiring about the Vehicle', says: 'Listing ten kinds of great sūtras, namely the Megha-sūtra, Mahāmegha-sūtra, Kuśalamūlasaṃparigraha-sūtra, Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra, and so forth, this Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra is the most profound and greatest among them.' Furthermore, the hundredth fascicle of the treatise says: 'The Lotus is an esoteric Dharma, explaining the arhats' receiving prophecy to become Buddhas. Prajñā is not an esoteric Dharma, not explaining the two vehicles' becoming Buddhas.' Furthermore, the treatise explaining the 'Chapter on Determination' says: 'Subhūti heard the Lotus Sūtra explain that all sentient beings will become Buddhas, and also heard that in the Prajñāpāramitā-sūtra there is regression; therefore he now asks the Buddha: "Are these bodhisattvas determined, or are they not determined?"' Furthermore, the treatise's commentary on the 'Chapter on Great Illumination' says: 'All other wholesome dharmas enter into prajñā.' The treatise says all other wholesome dharmas refers to the Lotus Sūtra. It also says: 'The Lotus is the fruit-name of prajñā.' These five passages in the treatise have three contradictions: the first passage lists Prajñā as superior and the Lotus and others as inferior; the second passage has Prajñā as shallow and the Lotus as profound; the remaining three do not distinguish shallow and profound. How are these three contradictions to be harmonized and reconciled?

3.3

Answer: Relying on the theory of the five periods and the treatises of the four tenets, these are said to mutually harm each other like spear and shield and cannot be harmonized.

3.4

Question: Why is that so?

3.5

Answer: The various masters all say that Prajñā is shallow and the Lotus is profound; there is definitely none who says Prajñā is superior and the Lotus is inferior. Hence we know they cannot be harmonized.

3.6

Question: Since this contradicts the old interpretations, how are they to be integrated and reconciled now?

3.7

Answer: One must comprehensively scrutinize the intention of the old treatises for it to become clear. The reason is that although these are but a few sentences of text, they encompass Buddhist teachings; one must not speak lightly of them, and should carefully and thoroughly examine them.

3.8

Question: What did the old interpretations say?

3.9

Answer: Dharma Master Huiguan of Daochang Monastery under the Song wrote the "Preface to the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra", clarifying that there are two kinds of teachings: the first is the sudden teaching, which refers to the stream of the Avataṃsaka; the second is the gradual teaching, which refers to the doctrine of the five periods. Later people added one more to them, further positing a teaching without fixed direction. The three great dharma masters all made use of this. When reaching the northern lands, they in turn reflected the five teachings and instituted four doctrines. Now, relying on Mahāyāna sūtras and treatises, I shall examine their merits and flaws in detail. The Dazhidulun states: 'The Buddha's Dharma is of two kinds: first, the Mahāyāna canon; second, the Hīnayāna tripiṭaka.' It also states: 'The Buddha's Dharma has two paths: first, the śrāvaka path; second, the bodhisattva path.' The former distinguishes two in terms of doctrine, while the latter establishes two in terms of persons. Furthermore, the Dazhidulun states: 'After the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, Kāśyapa and Ānanda compiled the tripiṭaka; Mañjuśrī and Maitreya also compiled the Mahāyāna canon along with Ānanda.' The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra states: 'Letters are of two kinds: first, the half letters; second, the full letters. For śrāvakas he speaks the half letters, and for bodhisattvas he speaks the full letters.' It also states: 'The great assemblies are generally of two kinds: first, those seeking the Hīnayāna; second, those seeking the Mahāyāna. Formerly in Vārāṇasī he turned the lesser wheel of Dharma for śrāvakas; now, for the first time, here in Kuśinagara he turns the great wheel of Dharma for bodhisattvas.' Furthermore, the Lotus Sūtra states: 'Formerly in Vārāṇasī he turned the lesser wheel of arising and cessation; now, arriving at Vulture Peak, he turns the great wheel free of arising and cessation.' The Lotus Sūtra also clarifies two kinds of teaching: first, teaching śrāvakas; second, teaching bodhisattvas. Teaching śrāvakas is like hiring someone to clear away dung; teaching bodhisattvas is like bequeathing the wealth to the destitute son. From the bequeathing of the wealth onward, it is entirely the teaching of bodhisattvas. Furthermore, there are only the thatched hut and the great mansion; there are only the intermediate conjured city and the treasure trove. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha also explains the śrāvaka dharma and the bodhisattva dharma: the śrāvaka dharma only severs the obstruction of afflictions, while the bodhisattva dharma severs both the obstruction of afflictions and the obstruction to knowledge. The Daśabhūmikavyākhyāna also clarifies the two canons, in accord with the Dazhidulun. Furthermore, the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa states, 'Subsumed under the bodhisattva dharma-canon,' from which we know there is that which is subsumed under the śrāvaka dharma-canon. The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā also states: 'The śrāvaka dharma enters the path of ultimate truth; the Mahāyāna enters the path of ultimate truth.' Furthermore, the beginnings of all sūtras list two assemblies: first, the Hīnayāna assembly; second, the Mahāyāna assembly. In this way, various sūtras and treatises throughout clarify only the two vehicles, Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna. Therefore, there are only two kinds of wheels of Dharma; one should not establish three teachings. Moreover, deducing it through principle, the spiritual capacities of sentient beings are of two kinds: first, those capable of receiving the Buddha's path; second, those incapable of receiving the great path. For those capable of receiving the great path, he preaches the Buddha-vehicle, termed the Mahāyāna; for those incapable of receiving it, he preaches the Hīnayāna. Hence we know there should only be two; one should not establish three. Furthermore, as for the talk of three teachings, there is no precise and clear basis; it cannot be adopted.

3.10

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.

3.11

Question: This is not an apt objection. The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra and Śrīmālādevī-sūtra elucidate the one vehicle and Buddha-nature, but Prajñā is not like that; hence they cannot be taken as parallel.

3.12

Answer: If the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra primarily elucidates Buddha-nature yet also clarifies that the three vehicles together contemplate the middle way, and Prajñā primarily elucidates the dharma for teaching bodhisattvas yet also exhorts the three vehicles to study prajñā together, these meanings ought to be equal—how can they not be parallel? Furthermore, citing the Dazhidulun's discrimination of the ten kinds of great sūtras, it clarifies that Prajñā is the most supreme; since it surpasses the Lotus Sūtra, how could it be shallower than the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra and others?

3.13

Question: Prajñā has not yet elucidated permanence, hence we know it is shallow.

3.14

Answer: Within the commentary on the sūtra title, the citations have already been made; now I shall explain further. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha cites Prajñā saying: 'Vehicles are of three kinds: the causal vehicle, the conditioning vehicle, and the resultant vehicle. The resultant vehicle refers to permanence, bliss, self, and purity.' If so, Prajñā has already elucidated the four virtues; how could it not be permanent? It is merely that people do not understand the sūtra's intent, and say that it speaks of impermanence.

3.15

Question: Why did Nāgārjuna not rely on this interpretation?

3.16

Answer: The author of the treatise also clarified unconditioned prajñā, and also spoke of eternally abiding prajñā; it is not without this meaning.

3.17

Question: If Prajñā is not a teaching shared by the three vehicles, why does it exhort persons of the three vehicles to study Prajñā in common?

3.18

Answer: I shall now relate this for you. From Prajñā to the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, all are dharmas for teaching bodhisattvas; however, the dharmas for teaching bodhisattvas are generally of two kinds: first, explicit teaching; second, both explicit and esoteric. For instance, the Lotus Sūtra and the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra explicitly teach bodhisattvas, hence they clarify that the people of the three vehicles are all bodhisattvas. Prajñā is both explicit and esoteric: it explicitly teaches bodhisattvas and esoterically teaches the two vehicles. Explicitly teaching bodhisattvas means causing bodhisattvas to cultivate and study prajñā to accomplish the Buddha's path; esoterically teaching the two vehicles means exhorting the two vehicles to study prajñā, likewise causing the two vehicles to accomplish the Buddha's path. As stated in the bequeathing of wealth, esoterically demonstrating the great Dharma to make it one's own responsibility is the reason for bequeathing the wealth to the destitute son; the destitute son has dull faculties and is unaware and uncomprehending, supposing that studying prajñā leads to realizing the three vehicles. If one claims that studying prajñā accomplishes the three vehicles, this is still the mindset of the destitute son.

3.19

Question: The sūtra and the Dazhidulun explicitly state that studying prajñā accomplishes the two vehicles; why do you make this interpretation?

3.20

Answer: As for studying prajñā accomplishing the two vehicles, this is ultimately failing to recognize that prajñā is the bodhisattva dharma and thus realizing the two vehicles; if one certainly recognized that prajñā is the bodhisattva dharma, then studying prajñā would not lead to realizing the two vehicles.

3.21

Question: How is this known to be so?

3.22

Answer: If studying prajñā and realizing the two vehicles meant that within the minds of the two vehicles it should be called true prajñā, why does the treatise state, 'In the minds of the two vehicles it is not called prajñā'? And how could it initially exhort the two vehicles to study prajñā, yet upon their later realizing the fruits of the two vehicles, it is not called prajñā? Worthies who seek its flavor should direct their minds to this meaning. Furthermore, studying prajñā and accomplishing the two vehicles is merely a tiny portion of prajñā. How is this known? The Dazhidulun states: 'The two vehicles' realization of emptiness, compared to the bodhisattva's emptiness, is like the emptiness of a pore compared to the emptiness of the ten directions.' The Mahāyānasaṃgraha also states: 'The two vehicles only attain emptiness of the person, not emptiness of dharmas.' Hence we know that the two vehicles only attain a tiny portion of prajñā.

3.23

Question: If it is according to the latter meaning, then one may use this statement to prove that Prajñā is a teaching shared by the three vehicles. Since they attain a tiny portion, is it not shared?

3.24

Answer: If attaining a small part were to justify saying that Prajñā is a teaching shared by the three vehicles, then the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra states, 'Just as when a person obtains food it is also called nirvāṇa'; when the two vehicles sever the afflictions of the three realms, do they not attain a small part of nirvāṇa? Therefore, one should not use the statement about a small part to prove a teaching shared by the three vehicles. Furthermore, the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā states: 'This sūtra is spoken for those of the Great Vehicle, spoken for those of the Supreme Vehicle.' Hence we know that Prajñā is not a teaching shared by the three vehicles.

3.25

Question: It was stated earlier that Prajñā esoterically teaches the two vehicles; on what basis is this said?

3.26

Answer: The Lotus Sūtra's 'Chapter on Faith and Understanding' states: 'Yet formerly, in the presence of the bodhisattvas, he disparaged the śrāvakas who took pleasure in lesser dharmas; however, the Buddha was actually teaching and transforming them with the Great Vehicle.' Hence we know that Prajñā esoterically preaches the one vehicle. This can also be considered an explicit preaching of the one vehicle, but the destitute son has dull faculties and does not perceive or know it. Deducing from this, one should not say that Prajñā is a teaching shared by the three vehicles. Furthermore, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha states: 'Prajñā esoterically speaks the one vehicle. Why is this? All dharmas are suchness.' The three vehicles are not separate from suchness; this is precisely preaching the meaning of the one vehicle, but people of the two vehicles do not perceive or know it. Furthermore, it says that seeking a person anywhere is unattainable; if there is no person, how could one distinguish: this is a śrāvaka, this a pratyekabuddha, this a bodhisattva? Because they are identical in selflessness, one should know that this is precisely the esoteric preaching of the one vehicle. Furthermore, people of the three vehicles together sever the obstruction of afflictions; because they sever the obstruction of afflictions, they are identical in the one vehicle. Furthermore, according to the ancient interpretation: Prajñā has already unified the dharmas, but has not yet unified the persons. Unifying dharmas means that all dharmas enter into the true mark of all dharmas, enter into the Mahāyāna, and also enter into Prajñā. Hence it states: 'If there are true words that subsume all good dharmas, know that it is Prajñā.' Hence we know that Prajñā has already unified all practices. All practices enter the Mahāyāna, but because the faculties and conditions of the two vehicles are not yet ripe and they are not capable of being opened and unified, it is said that it has not yet unified the persons. Since it has already esoterically unified the dharmas, one should know that it has already spoken the one vehicle; but because it has not yet unified the persons, people of the two vehicles do not perceive or know it.

3.27

Next, it was said that the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa is the wheel of Dharma of suppression and exaltation, which praises ordinary persons as capable of turning around, but condemns śrāvakas as having ruined roots. We assess this: this is also not so. The commentator, explaining the "Chapter on Māra's Deeds" in the Prajñāpāramitā, says: "It is like a foolish dog that does not seek food from the master, but begs from a servant." The dog is the śrāvaka. The master refers to the Mahāyāna teaching. The servant is the Hīnayāna scriptures. Although the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa abases them as having ruined roots, it does not go as far as the Prajñāpāramitā's suppressing them as foolish dogs; thus the statement regarding suppression and exaltation is also an erroneous assertion. Furthermore, the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra says: "Yet formerly, before the bodhisattvas, he reviled the śrāvakas who took pleasure in small teachings; however, the Buddha was actually teaching and transforming them with the Great Vehicle." This points precisely to the Prajñāpāramitā as performing suppression and exaltation, not to the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa as performing censure and praise. Moreover, the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa scolds both great and small alike; why say it suppresses the small and exalts the great?

3.28

The questioner says: Although it scolds both great and small alike, in the end it praises the Great Vehicle; therefore it suppresses the small and exalts the great.

3.29

We refute this: If in the end it exalts the great, why did it scold the great? Since the small is already equated with the great, it does not exclusively exalt the great. This meaning is explained in detail in the Explanation of the Title.

3.30

Fourth, that the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra is the teaching of the one vehicle should indeed be beyond doubt, and yet the [traditional] view is also not sound. The commentary, explaining the "Chapter on Certainty" in the Prajñāpāramitā, says that Subhūti heard the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra explain that all become buddhas, and also heard that in the Prajñāpāramitā there is retrogression, and therefore now asks whether it is certain or not certain. If so, it should not be that the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra exclusively explains the one vehicle while the Prajñāpāramitā completely lacks this teaching. Furthermore, the commentary says: "The Saddharmapuṇḍarīka is another name for the Prajñāpāramitā"; it should not be that the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra explains the teaching of the one vehicle while the Prajñāpāramitā has not yet explained it.

3.31

Question: If there are no five periods, how could there be the simile of the mutual generation of the five flavors?

3.32

Answer: The five flavors and the doctrine of the five periods do not correspond; wishing to use it as proof, on the contrary, undermines itself. Among the five periods, Prajñāpāramitā is the second period, whereas among the five flavors, Prajñāpāramitā is the fourth. Although one may wish to make a forced reconciliation by saying that Prajñāpāramitā is the equal great wisdom of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra, this is twisting the text to fit one's own doctrine and is inadmissible. The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says: "Just as I previously in the Mahāprajñāpāramitā said that self and no-self have no two characteristics"—can this equal great wisdom be citing the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra? This stems from subjective human opinion and deeply violates the meaning of the text. Furthermore, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha explains that there are three vehicles: first, the two vehicles; second, the Mahāyāna; third, the one vehicle; and the one vehicle is supreme. Why not speak of three periods? Again, the Sūtra on the Five Marks in Brief explains that teachings are of three kinds: first, in the Deer Park, explaining the four truths for śrāvakas; second, for those of great capacity, explaining that phenomena are free from intrinsic nature, unborn and unceasing, which is still a teaching with a superior, with a remainder, and of inexplicit meaning, giving rise to dispute; third, for those seeking all vehicles, explaining that phenomena are free from intrinsic nature, unborn and unceasing, without superior, without remainder, and not a matter of dispute. This one-fascicle sūtra corresponds with the Mahāyānasaṃgraha; why not follow this sūtra and speak of three periods? Again, the Anantanirdeśa-sūtra for its part explains three periods: first, explaining the four truths for śrāvakas, whereupon eight hundred million devas came down to hear the Dharma and generated the bodhicitta; next, explaining the profound twelve links of dependent origination for those seeking pratyekabuddhahood, whereupon immeasurable sentient beings generated the bodhicitta while abiding in the śrāvaka stage; next, explaining the vaipulya twelve divisions, the Mahāprajñāpāramitā, and the Avataṃsaka ocean of emptiness, expounding the bodhisattvas' practice across kalpas. If based on this, there are three periods; now, further delivering the Anantanirdeśa-sūtra would be a fourth period; delivering the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra would be a fifth period; the Nirvāṇa would be a sixth period; and initially explaining the human and heavenly vehicles should be a seventh period. Why not establish seven periods? One should not unilaterally establish four tenets or rigidly cling to five teachings. Furthermore, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "When the Buddha taught the Dharma in the Deer Park, immeasurable bodhisattvas attained the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas, and immeasurable bodhisattvas attained the stage of being bound to one last birth to become buddhas in this very lifetime." How could one say that the Deer Park was solely Hīnayāna? Again, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says: "When I first achieved the Way, there were also bodhisattvas who had already questioned me on this profound meaning." That is, Nirvāṇa was taught both initially and later; one should not say that the Nirvāṇa is gradual while the Avataṃsaka is sudden. Again, the Xiangfa jueyi jing says: "Some see me entering nirvāṇa, while others see that I am the reward buddha surrounded by hundreds of thousands of Śākyamunis." If so, one should not say that the Avataṃsaka was taught suddenly only when he first achieved the Way and was not taught at the time of nirvāṇa. Therefore, gradual and sudden are untenable. Furthermore, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa has two kinds of wheels of Dharma: first, the manifest wheel of Dharma; second, the secret wheel of Dharma. As for the manifest, it is like the Deer Park teaching the small Dharma, where the five men and eighty thousand devas attained the Way; as for the secret wheel of Dharma, it was the teaching of the great Dharma in the Deer Park, where immeasurable people generated the bodhicitta and even attained buddhahood in this very lifetime, as was cited just above. Since there are these two aspects in the Deer Park to distinguish manifest and secret, all places are by analogy like this. For instance, in the Jetavana, Śāriputra and others saw Śākyamuni teaching the Dharma, while the bodhisattvas saw the Jetavana Vairocana teaching the Dharma, with the assembly filling the dharmadhātu and teaching the Dharma-gates of the dharmadhātu, which the two vehicles neither heard nor saw; these are all of that category. Furthermore, using four propositions to comprehensively encompass the scriptures: 1. Initially explaining the small and finally explaining the great, as in the Deer Park first explaining the small, and later clarifying the Mahāyāna. 2. Initially great and later small, as in delivering the Avataṃsaka teaching upon first achieving the Way, and from the Deer Park onward teaching the small teaching. 3. Great both initially and finally, as in teaching nirvāṇa both initially and later. 4. Small both initially and finally, as the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "From the first turning of the wheel of Dharma up to the great nirvāṇa, compiled to form the Āgamas." Since the two teachings of manifest and secret and the four propositions are distinct, how could one confine them to five periods or restrict them to three teachings? One should simply know that the Tathāgata teaches the Dharma according to conditions, and the teaching has no fixed form.

3.33

Question: Scriptures such as these are all subsumed under the non-localized teaching; therefore there is no fault.

3.34

Answer: The term "non-localized" has no basis in the sūtras and treatises; it should not be established. Furthermore, one should not establish a non-localized teaching. Why is this? If one takes the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā as the second period, all other Prajñāpāramitā texts belong to the second period; if one takes the Nirvāṇa as the fifth period, all other scriptures on permanence belong to the fifth period. One should only categorize scriptures by their types, and should not subsume teachings under "non-localized." If one claims that those that generate one another are sequential, and those that do not generate one another are non-localized, how does one know that the eight divisions of Prajñāpāramitā all generate one another? Moreover, upon examination, the assertion that the five periods generate one another already fails, let alone having those that do not mutually form into a non-localized teaching. Furthermore, Nāgārjuna and Vasubandhu both divided great and small by type, and Harivarman and Dharmaśreṣṭhin opened the three piṭakas by category; one should not establish a non-localized teaching.

3.35

Question: What about the Northern Dilun masters' explanations of the four tenets, five tenets, and so forth?

3.36

Answer: These are all merely reflections of the teachings of the four or five periods, which is why they made such explanations. Since the five periods are already untenable, the four tenets naturally fall away. Furthermore, Bodhiruci—translated here as Daoxi—himself translated the Daśabhūmikā-śāstra and explained only the half-word and full-word [teachings]. Bodhiruci is the patriarch of the Dilun tradition, so we know that the half-word and full-word teachings have a basis; whereas relying on the four tenets has no root. Yet they arbitrarily place deep faith in them, not discerning the reason for this.

3.37

Question: Although you have extensively criticized the three teachings and rejected the five periods, how do you reconcile and synthesize the five passages cited from the earlier treatises? The Biography of Nāgārjuna says: "The sun of wisdom had already set; this man caused it to shine again. The world had long slept in darkness; this man awakened it to awareness. Foreign lands erected temples for him and revered him like a buddha." The Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra says: "There is a monk of great virtue named Nāgārjuna Bodhisattva, who abides in the first stage of Joy and explains the Mahāyāna for people." The Sūtra of Queen Māyā says: "Within seven hundred years there shall be a monk named Nāgārjuna, who will destroy the banner of wrong views and light the torch of the true Dharma." Deducing from the scriptures and biographies, the principle is not an erroneous statement. If these words can be comprehended, it is like the bright sun illuminating one's breast and amṛta flowing through one's four limbs; if they are not yet understood, one's mind has nothing to rely upon, dark as a night journey. We ask you to resolve them so that not the slightest obstruction remains.

3.38

Answer: The text departs from the ordinary conventions, and its meaning runs contrary to traditional formulations; though I wish to reconcile and harmonize them, I truly fear it might not readily suit your mind. Now I shall roughly set forth the essential principles for you. The first passage says that the Prajñāpāramitā is the greatest among the ten kinds of scriptures. However, when examining the ultimate reach of all scriptures, the true mark is taken as the principle; and when governing the mental function of all sages, wondrous wisdom is taken as primary. The ten thousand transformations are not without a source, yet that which is their source is markless; the vacuous source is not without realization, yet that which realizes it is mindless. Therefore, the sage, with mindless wondrous wisdom, realizes that markless vacuous source: internal and external are both obscured, and object and cognition are both tranquil. How could names and numbers find room between them? These two fathom the origin of attaining the One and exhaust the marvel of the profound beyond profound; there is no principle they do not govern, and no teaching they do not encompass. Like space containing the myriad forms, or like the ocean receiving the hundred rivers, the Prajñāpāramitā abundantly clarifies this meaning. When the treatise calls it the greatest, how could that be a hollow fabrication?

3.39

Question: You have explained the reason for its greatness; what text do you now use to verify it?

3.40

Answer: The four siddhāntas subsume the twelve divisions of scripture and the eighty thousand treasuries of Dharma. The first three siddhāntas can still be broken and destroyed; the ultimate-truth siddhānta cannot be broken or destroyed. It is supreme and unsurpassable. This sūtra specifically clarifies the ultimate-truth siddhānta, hence it is said: "Therefore, to teach the ultimate-truth siddhānta, he delivered this sūtra." Thus we know that the Prajñāpāramitā abundantly clarifies the true mark, verifying the first point, the greatness of the objective realm. It also says: "The first three siddhāntas all return to the ultimate truth"; thus we know that the eighty thousand treasuries of Dharma are for revealing the ultimate truth. Since the Prajñāpāramitā specifically clarifies the ultimate truth, it subsumes the eighty thousand treasuries of Dharma; therefore we know it is the greatest. Second, Nāgārjuna opened ninety chapters to clarify the two wisdoms: sixty-six chapters clarify real wisdom, and from the "Chapter on the Inexhaustible" through the end of the scripture, he analyzes expedient wisdom. These two wisdoms are the mother and father of the dharmakāya of the buddhas of the ten directions and the three periods of time. As the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: "The perfection of wisdom is the mother of the bodhisattva, and skillful means is the father; of all the guides of living beings, there are none who are not born from these." This verifies the second point, the greatness of wisdom. Through these two points, it is the greatest among all scriptures. How could it be merely ten scriptures? It is simply that the author of the treatise spoke concisely of ten.

3.41

Question: All scriptures clarify these two; how could it be the Prajñāpāramitā alone? Could it be that the author of the treatise was merely extolling it for the occasion?

3.42

Answer: The Prajñāpāramitā exclusively clarifies these two, whereas the other scriptures do not. Furthermore, where the other scriptures clarify these two, they are all subsumed into the Prajñāpāramitā. Therefore it was previously stated that the other good dharmas—meaning the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra—all enter into the Prajñāpāramitā. It is simply that the author of the treatise spoke in accord with the actual truth of principle, not praising it arbitrarily according to subjective inclination.

3.43

Question: If the clarification of these two in other scriptures is subsumed under the Prajñāpāramitā, then likewise the clarification of these two in the Prajñāpāramitā should be subsumed under the other scriptures; in that case, the other scriptures would be great, not the Prajñāpāramitā alone.

3.44

Answer: It has already been judged as before: the Prajñā [sūtras] exclusively clarify these two. Furthermore, the Prajñā [sūtras] were the first to explain these two, and other sūtras lack these two meanings; hence they cannot be called Prajñā. In ancient times there were masters of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā who held the Prajñā [sūtra] to be the sūtra for attaining the Way. These words tally with the treatise's purport that it is the greatest, because all attainment of the Way is due to Prajñā, and therefore Prajñā is the greatest. This connects with the first passage above. As for the second passage clarifying that the Lotus [Sūtra] is an esoteric teaching clarifying that [followers of] the two vehicles attain buddhahood, while Prajñā is an exoteric teaching not clarifying that [followers of] the two vehicles attain buddhahood, and therefore Prajñā is shallow and the Lotus is deep: although various lecturing masters recite these words, most do not grasp their meaning, so divergent interpretations abound—some praising Prajñā and demoting or refuting the Lotus, others blindly believing their teachers' assertions without examining the meaning of the text. Now, cutting through such various disparate assertions, we take Nāgārjuna's treatise text as normative. The treatise says: 'Prajñā is not an esoteric teaching because it does not clarify the prediction of buddhahood for the two vehicles. But the Lotus [Sūtra] is an esoteric teaching because it clarifies the prediction of buddhahood for arhats.' It precisely distinguishes esoteric and non-esoteric on the basis of whether or not the two vehicles attain buddhahood.

3.45

Question: Prajñā does not clarify that the two vehicles attain buddhahood; why is it an exoteric teaching? The Lotus clarifies that the two vehicles attain buddhahood; why is it an esoteric teaching?

3.46

Answer: This was already explained earlier, and will now be elaborated. Prajñā merely clarifies that bodhisattvas are causes for buddhahood and therefore attain buddhahood, while the two vehicles are not causes for buddhahood and therefore do not attain buddhahood. This meaning was easy to understand in former times, and is therefore called exoteric. The Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra clarifies that the two vehicles attain buddhahood, which contradicts the former teaching and was difficult to understand in former times, and is therefore called esoteric. The treatise master says: 'Just as using medicine as medicine is an easy matter, using poison as medicine is a difficult matter.' Prajñā clarifying that bodhisattvas attain buddhahood is like using medicine as medicine; not clarifying that the two vehicles attain buddhahood is like not using poison as medicine. The Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra clarifying that the two vehicles attain buddhahood is like using poison as medicine. Its meaning is thus difficult to understand; hence it is esoteric.

3.47

Question: Are esoteric and exoteric deep or shallow, great or small?

3.48

Answer: Generally discussing these two meanings, there are two approaches. First, the Hīnayāna is exoteric, and the Mahāyāna is esoteric. As the fourth fascicle of the treatise says: 'The Buddha's Dharma is of two kinds: first, exoteric; second, esoteric.' In the exoteric teaching, it clarifies that arhats have severed afflictions and are pure, whereas the bodhisattvas have not yet severed afflictions and are not yet pure; thus bodhisattvas do not equal arhats, so the arhats are listed first and the bodhisattvas are placed behind. In the esoteric teaching, it clarifies that bodhisattvas obtain the six supernatural powers, sever all afflictions, and their wisdom is pure, surpassing the two vehicles. This passage precisely takes the shallow and easy of the Hīnayāna as exoteric, and the extremely profound of the Mahāyāna as esoteric. If so, then both Prajñā and the Lotus clarify that bodhisattvas attain the forbearance of non-arising and possess the six supernatural powers, both belonging to the esoteric, extremely profound teaching, while pointing to the Tripiṭaka teaching as exoteric. Second, taking the meaning clarified as still shallow to be exoteric, and the meaning clarified as extremely profound to be esoteric. As the hundredth fascicle says, 'Prajñā only clarifies that bodhisattvas attain buddhahood': Prajñā has already clarified that the Buddha-vehicle is real, but has not yet clarified that the two vehicles attain buddhahood, not yet revealing that the two vehicles are skillful means. With respect to this one point, it is inferior to the Lotus; hence Prajñā is called shallow. The Lotus clarifies that the Buddha-vehicle is real and also reveals that the two vehicles are provisional; hence the Lotus is deep. This is within the Mahāyāna itself having shallowness and depth, thus distinguishing the two teachings of exoteric and esoteric.

3.49

Question: Since Prajñā has not yet revealed the provisional and manifested the real, it should be esoteric; since the Lotus has already revealed the provisional and manifested the real, it should belong to the exoteric. Why is it not so?

3.50

Answer: If one takes the unrevealed as esoteric and the fully revealed as exoteric, it would be as you ask. But here, taking shallow and easy as exoteric and extremely profound as esoteric, Prajñā is taken as exoteric and the Lotus as esoteric. This meaning has already been clarified in [the section on] the causes and conditions for expounding the sūtra.

3.51

Question: If Prajñā is called exoteric because its clarified meaning is not definitive, why did you say before that Prajñā is the most profound and greatest among all Mahāyāna sūtras?

3.52

Answer: Each has its meaning. Saying it is profound and great is based on the former two points; saying later that it is not definitive refers to its not yet clarifying that the two vehicles attain buddhahood.

3.53

Question: If the Lotus is superior in that its clarified meaning is definitive and Prajñā is inferior in that its clarified meaning is not definitive, why did you say at the beginning that Prajñā is superior with definitive meaning and the Lotus is inferior with non-definitive meaning?

3.54

Answer: They are not analogous. At first, determining that Prajñā broadly clarifies the two meanings such as the true mark makes it superior, while the Lotus does not exclusively clarify the two meanings, so the Lotus is merely inferior in that regard. It did not judge superiority and inferiority on the basis of Prajñā's clarified meaning being definitive and the Lotus's clarified meaning being non-definitive. Where the Lotus is superior and Prajñā is inferior, it is judged precisely on the basis of being definitive and non-definitive.

3.55

Question: Did you make this judgment yourself, or is it supported by doctrine?

3.56

Answer: The principles are naturally so; why trouble to ask now? After completing this explanation, I further saw Sengrui of Guanzhong's preface to the Aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā, which thoroughly evaluated the superiority and inferiority of the two sūtras, agreeing with my view. Master Sengrui said: 'Prajñā is illumination; the Lotus is reality. Discussing the exhaustive penetration of principle and nature, and the level illumination of the myriad practices, reality is not equal to illumination; taking the great illumination of true transformation and the understanding that originally there are no three, illumination is not equal to reality. Therefore, in praising illumination, the merit of Prajñā is weighty; in extolling reality, the function of the Lotus is exalted.' Examining this text from Guanzhong, it deeply perceives the treatise's intent and wondrously grasps the purport of the sūtras.

3.57

Third, the Chapter on Definite Determination states: 'Subhūti heard the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra explain non-retrogression, and also heard that in Prajñā there is retrogression; therefore he asked the Buddha: "Are these bodhisattvas definitely determined, or are they not definitely determined?" The Buddha answered: "They are all definitely determined. Being definitely determined means that all bodhisattvas, from the initial mind to the final mind, are non-retrogressing; therefore they are definitely determined."' The intent of this treatise clarifies that between Prajñā and the Lotus there is no superiority or inferiority. Because Prajñā and the Lotus equally clarify that all sentient beings are definitely determined to attain buddhahood, the two sūtras have no superiority or inferiority. Since there is no superiority or inferiority, both sūtras are equally called esoteric.

3.58

Question: This passage contradicts the second passage; how is it reconciled?

3.59

Answer: The treatise master says: 'Prajñā was not spoken at one time or in one assembly.' Inferring from these words, the earlier portion clearly stating retrogression precedes the Lotus, and the later portion on non-retrogression follows the Lotus; hence the two statements do not contradict each other. Furthermore, among the five inconceivables, the Buddha is the most inconceivable. As the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says: 'Some see the Buddha entering extinction tonight; some only begin to inquire after fifteen days; some only take nirvāṇa after one year.' The Xiangfa jueyi jing says: 'Some see nirvāṇa between the twin trees today; some see him taking birth and leaving home; some see him as Vairocana abiding in the Lotus Store; some see the Buddha's body filling empty space.' If so, one cannot determine that Prajñā is before and the Lotus after, or the Lotus before and Prajñā after; they are heard according to the time and seen in accordance with spiritual capacity.

3.60

Fifth, as for the Lotus being another name for Prajñā: the treatise says, 'Prajñā does not belong to the two vehicles, but only to bodhisattvas.' That is, Prajñā is the teaching for bodhisattvas; the Lotus clarifies the one vehicle, and also clarifies the teaching for bodhisattvas protected and remembered by the buddhas; therefore Prajñā and the Lotus are different names [for the same]. Furthermore, one must rely on the father and mother of the two kinds of wisdom to give birth to the buddhas. Since Prajñā clarifies these two, the Lotus's clarification of attaining buddhahood is also identical to Prajñā. That is, Prajñā and the Lotus are not different; it is merely that the aspect of revealing the provisional is different from Prajñā.

3.61

Question: Since comparing Prajñā to the Lotus possesses three meanings, can comparing Prajñā to the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra also possess three meanings or not?

3.62

Answer: It also possesses three meanings; it can be known by analogy with this. First, Prajñā directly clarifies the two meanings of object and wisdom, while the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra does not directly clarify these meanings, which can be known by analogy with the Lotus. Due to these two meanings, Prajñā is superior and the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra is inferior.

3.63

Question: How is this known to be so?

3.64

Answer: The treatise lists ten kinds of great sūtras, saying Prajñā is the greatest. Among the ten sūtras is the Mahāmegha-sūtra; the Mahāmegha-sūtra clarifies that buddha-nature is eternally abiding, etc.; thus we know Prajñā is superior and the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra is inferior. Second, Prajñā has not yet clarified that sentient beings possess buddha-nature, analogous to not yet clarifying that the two vehicles attain buddhahood; hence Prajñā is inferior and the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra is superior. Third, the two sūtras are not different: since Prajñā, like the Lotus, clarifies that the two vehicles attain buddhahood, it also equally clarifies buddha-nature; hence the two sūtras are equal. Furthermore, Prajñā teaches only bodhisattvas, and the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra does likewise; therefore they are not different.

3.65

Question: In the later portion of Prajñā the clarified meaning, like the Lotus, clarifies non-retrogression; where does it equally clarify buddha-nature so as to be equal with the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra?

3.66

Answer: Since the Prajñā text clarifies that all bodhisattvas are non-retrogressing, we know they all possess buddha-nature. Furthermore, since it is equal to the Lotus, and the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra speaks of buddha-nature, this is Prajñā clarifying the possession of buddha-nature. This is merely citing three passages briefly to discuss identity and difference; one must not restrict other meanings by it.

3.67

Question: What are the similarities and differences between Prajñā, the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, and the Lotus?

3.68

Answer: Both the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa and the earlier portion of Prajñā already reveal that the Buddha-vehicle is real, but have not yet revealed that the two vehicles are provisional; in this respect they are not different. Now we briefly clarify four meanings in which they differ. First, Prajñā broadly explains the bodhisattva practices, as the commentary says: 'Now, for Maitreya and others, I wish to broadly explain the bodhisattva practices.' The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa briefly clarifies two essential practices of bodhisattvas: first, purifying the buddha-land; second, maturing sentient beings; as the Chapter on the Buddha-Land explains the practice of the pure land. From the Chapter on Skillful Means onward, it refutes three kinds of persons to clarify the maturation of sentient beings. The Chapter on Skillful Means refutes the views of ordinary beings, therefore explaining the faults and perils of saṃsāra, and praises the merits of the dharmakāya to cause ordinary beings to enter the bodhisattva's dharma-gate. Next, it refutes the views of the two vehicles and clarifies the bodhisattva's dharma-gate, as explained in the Chapter on the Disciples. Third, it refutes the bodhisattvas' views of the Mahāyāna, as explained in the Chapter on Bodhisattvas. Ordinary beings attach to saṃsāra, and saṃsāra is the affliction of ordinary beings; the two vehicles stagnate in nirvāṇa, and nirvāṇa is the affliction of the two vehicles; bodhisattvas attach to the Buddha Path, and the Buddha Path is the affliction of the Mahāyāna. Therefore, by refuting these three kinds of persons, all awaken to the non-dual dharma-gate of neither ordinary nor noble, neither small nor great; and thereafter, using the two wisdoms of provisional and real, they adapt transformation without limit, benefiting beings according to conditions. Such is the general purport of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa.

3.69

Question: Why does the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra clarify maturing sentient beings and purifying the buddha-land?

3.70

Answer: The Dàzhìdù lùn states: "After a bodhisattva attains the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas, there are no other tasks except maturing sentient beings and purifying buddha-lands." Since Vimalakīrti had already attained non-arising, he now practiced these two tasks. Moreover, since their adaptations to convert others differed, this need not be questioned. Vimalakīrti refuted the three kinds of persons to lead them into the bodhisattva's dharma-gate; these three kinds of persons are simply the people of the five vehicles: refuting ordinary persons refers to the human and heavenly vehicles; next, refuting the śrāvakas refers to the people of the two vehicles; refuting bodhisattvas refers to the people of the Great Vehicle. How does refuting the people of the five vehicles to lead them into the bodhisattva's dharma-gate differ from the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra gathering the five vehicles together to return them to the one [vehicle]? Answer: In revealing the real, it is the same as the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra; in not having opened the provisional, it differs from the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra.

3.71

Question: In what way is the revelation of the real the same? In what way is not having opened the provisional different?

3.72

Answer: By refuting the three kinds of persons, it reveals that the bodhisattva's dharma-gate is profoundly deep, marvelous, unobstructed, and unrestricted; the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra likewise explains that the bodhisattva's dharma-gate is profoundly deep, marvelous, ultimate, and real. Therefore they are the same. However, although it refutes the three kinds of persons, explaining that they have notions of attainment, it does not explain that the five vehicles are all skillful means; therefore it differs from the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra. Furthermore, there are three differences and one commonality. As for the three differences: first, it does not yet open the three as skillful means; second, it does not yet converge the three back into the one; third, it does not yet abolish the three to establish the one. As for the one commonality: Vimalakīrti reproaches both the Great and Lesser Vehicles, and the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra likewise refutes the divergent attachments of the three vehicles; hence they are said to be the same.

3.73

Question: The meanings of the two kinds of refutation are different, so they should not be called the same. Vimalakīrti refutes their notion of attainment, whereas the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra refutes their attachment to the distinct meanings of the five vehicles; how can they be called the same?

3.74

Answer: In this sense the two sūtras indeed differ, but the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka refutes attachments, and refuting attachment necessarily concerns having notions of attainment; here, taking them as sharing in having notions of attainment and thus being refuted, they are therefore said to be the same.

First 74 of 110 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

法華玄論 — Classical Chinese