[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) › [華嚴經探玄記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733) › 1.49 # 華嚴經探玄記 1.49 華嚴經探玄記 1.49 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.49](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.1.49) 第六定權實者，或有說者：一乘是權、三乘是實，以《深密經》第一時教唯為發趣聲聞乘者說，即總無成佛。第二時教唯為發趣修大乘者說，即總無不成佛。此二若過若不及，故俱非了義。莫若第三時教，有種性者成、無種性者不成，方為了義。法華既當第二時教，即是密意權說，是故《勝鬘經》以一乘為方便說，是故理實但約不定種性說為一乘。《攝論》、《莊嚴論》、《顯揚論》等皆同此釋。又《法華》第三生滅度想入涅槃等，依《瑜伽》八十一並是變化聲聞示現入滅。《楞伽》、《密嚴》皆同此會釋。《無上依經》、《寶性》等論並是不定二乘向菩提者增壽變易，非謂入滅更起受身。《瑜伽》說本轉二識成就不成就四句中第四俱不成就者，為聲聞獨覺入無餘依涅槃界時。又八十云「無餘依涅槃界中唯有清淨真如法界。」依此等文，入涅槃已，身智俱滅、根識永無，豈有變易修行成佛？是故唯有一乘，非極了義。《深密經》中第三時普為發趣一切乘者說，名為了義，故知三乘是盡理實教。又《深密》第二第四皆云一乘是密意說，故知是權也。或有說者：一乘是實、三乘是權，謂《法華經》唯一佛乘是《深密經》三乘後說定性二乘滅亦不存，故方便說三，實唯一故。若言《法華》是第二時教，為引不定二乘故說一切悉皆成佛，而猶未說定性不成故非了者，若爾，法華之時猶未說有定性二乘，何因彼論立四聲聞？彼定性言從何處得？若有定性，豈得總成？若許總成，何名定性？故知定性之言牒前《深密》所說，後至《法華》明悉全成佛，是故彼論順此經文，會前權說歸後實教，故知《法華》定在《深密》後說。《妙智》三教一乘在三乘後，梁論成立正法三中亦一乘在後，並同此說。《法華》中生滅度想入涅槃等，釋為變化示現滅者，極違教理。違教者，若是變化聲聞，即實是諸佛菩薩，豈可迷自所示涅槃乃生滅度之想？若作此釋，元未讀經。違理者，若入涅槃是永斷滅，諸佛菩薩於所化前示現涅槃，若彼所化不定種性是勇猛者，不怖生死能修勝行。若有一類性怯弱者，怖畏生死學佛菩薩，先入涅槃擬欲於後行菩薩道。汝宗入滅既無有起，豈不誤彼一類眾生？此乃誤眾生，何成引導？況復此文無不相干，又亦未見《勝鬘經》意，乃輒斷一乘以為方便。彼經云「若如來隨彼所欲而方便說（謂二乘），即是一乘無有二乘。」二乘入於一乘，一乘者即第一義乘。又彼經中廣破二乘云無涅槃，又云「此經斷一切疑，決定了義入一乘道。」豈說一乘以為方便？《解深密經》一乘是密意者，是未說《法華》之前故作是說，及後說《法華》時，會前三乘皆是方便。《瑜伽》轉本俱滅、《顯揚》六義說一乘、《攝論》十義說一乘，皆同《深密》會釋，以此等論隨彼經造故。《法華論》說決定二乘亦受記等，是隨此本經造故。若不信一乘，守權乖實甚為可愍，故《百喻經》第二卷云「昔有一聚落，去王城五由旬，村中有好美水。王勅村人常使日日送其美水，村人疲苦，悉欲移遠此村去。時彼村主語諸人言：『汝等莫去。我當為汝白王，改五由旬作三由旬，使汝得近，去來不疲。』則往白王，王為改之作三由旬，眾人聞已便大歡喜。有人語言：『此故是本五由旬，更無有異。』雖聞此言，信王語故終不肯捨。世間之人亦復如是，修行正法度於五道向涅槃城，心生疲倦便欲捨離，頓駕生死不能復進。如來法王有大方便，於一乘法分別說三，小乘之人聞之歡喜以為易行，修善進德求度生死。後聞人說無三乘、故是一乘，以信佛語終不肯捨，如彼村人亦復如是。」解云：此經即是金口良斷，權實顯然，可息諸說耳。 > Sixth, determining the provisional and the real. Some say: The one vehicle is provisional and the three vehicles are real. This is because in the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, the teaching of the first period was spoken solely for those setting out in the śrāvaka vehicle, which means that none attain Buddhahood whatsoever. The teaching of the second period was spoken solely for those setting out to cultivate the Mahāyāna, which means that none fail to attain Buddhahood. These two \[teachings\], being either excessive or deficient, are both not of definitive meaning (nītārtha). None can compare to the teaching of the third period, \[wherein\] those with the gotra attain \[Buddhahood\] and those without the gotra do not attain it; only then is it of definitive meaning. Since the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sūtra corresponds to the teaching of the second period, it is an intentional, provisional teaching. For this reason, the Śrīmālā Sūtra regards the one vehicle as an upāya teaching; therefore, as a matter of actual principle, it is only with reference to those of indeterminate gotra that the one vehicle is spoken of. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha, Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra, Prakaraṇāryavācā, and others all share this interpretation. Moreover, regarding the third \[chapter\] of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sūtra, where they give rise to the thought of extinction and enter nirvāṇa, according to fascicle eighty-one of the Yogācārabhūmi, these are all transformed śrāvakas manifesting extinction. The Laṅkāvatāra and Ghanavyūha share this harmonizing explanation. The Anuttarāśraya Sūtra, Ratnagotravibhāga, and other treatises all refer to indeterminate persons of the two vehicles who turn toward bodhi, prolonging their life and undergoing transformation (pariṇāma-cyuti), not that after entering extinction they arise again to receive a body. In the Yogācāra's four alternatives regarding the possession or non-possession of the root and evolving consciousnesses (mūla- and pravṛtti-vijñāna), the fourth alternative—possessing neither—refers to the time when śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas enter the realm of nirvāṇa without residue. Moreover, fascicle eighty states: 'In the realm of nirvāṇa without residue, there is only the pure true-suchness dharmadhātu.' According to these texts, once they have entered nirvāṇa, both body and wisdom are annihilated, and sense organs and consciousnesses are forever absent; how could there be transformation, cultivation, and attainment of Buddhahood? Therefore, the teaching of only one vehicle is not the most definitive. In the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, the third period, which is spoken universally for those setting out in all vehicles, is called definitive; hence we know that the three vehicles constitute the fully reasoned, real teaching. Moreover, the second and fourth \[chapters\] of the Saṃdhinirmocana both state that the one vehicle is an intentional teaching; hence we know it is provisional. > > Others say: The one vehicle is real and the three vehicles are provisional. This means that the one Buddha-vehicle of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sūtra was spoken after the three vehicles of the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, \[showing that\] even the extinction of the two vehicles of determinate nature does not remain; thus, three are provisionally spoken, because in reality there is only one. If one says that the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka belongs to the teaching of the second period, and that to guide the indeterminate two vehicles it states that all attain Buddhahood, while not yet having stated that those of determinate nature do not attain it, and is therefore not definitive—if that were so, at the time of the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka it had not yet been stated that there are two vehicles of determinate nature; by what cause did that commentary (Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa) establish four kinds of śrāvakas? From where did that term 'determinate nature' come? If there is a determinate nature, how could all attain \[Buddhahood\]? If one accepts that all attain it, why call them 'determinate nature'? Hence we know that the words 'determinate nature' refer back to what was stated previously in the Saṃdhinirmocana, and later coming to the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, it clarifies that all completely attain Buddhahood. Therefore, that treatise complies with this sūtra text, reconciling the previous provisional teaching and returning to the subsequent real teaching; hence we know that the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka was definitely spoken after the Saṃdhinirmocana. In the three teachings of the \*Vimalaprabhā-prajñāpāramitā\*, the one vehicle comes after the three vehicles; in the Liang \[Paramārtha's\] treatise establishing the three \[stages\] of the correct Dharma, the one vehicle also comes last; all agree with this explanation. As for the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka's 'giving rise to the thought of extinction and entering nirvāṇa,' explaining this as transformed beings manifesting extinction greatly contradicts both teaching and reason. Contradicting the teaching: if they were transformed śrāvakas, they would actually be Buddhas and bodhisattvas; how could they be deluded about the nirvāṇa they themselves manifested so as to give rise to the thought of extinction? One who makes such an interpretation has fundamentally never read the sūtra. Contradicting reason: if entering nirvāṇa is eternal annihilation, and Buddhas and bodhisattvas manifest nirvāṇa before those to be converted—if those among the converted of indeterminate gotra are courageous, they will not fear saṃsāra and can cultivate superior practices. But if there is a class whose nature is timid and weak, who fear saṃsāra and emulate the Buddhas and bodhisattvas by first entering nirvāṇa with the intention of later practicing the bodhisattva path—since in your school once they enter extinction there is no arising, would you not mislead that class of sentient beings? This would mislead sentient beings; how could it constitute guidance? Furthermore, this text is completely unrelated \[to your interpretation\]. Moreover, \[you\] have also not seen the intention of the Śrīmālā Sūtra, yet rashly judge the one vehicle to be an upāya. That sūtra states: 'If the Tathāgata, according to what they desire, speaks by way of upāya (referring to the two vehicles), that itself is the one vehicle, and there are no two vehicles.' The two vehicles enter into the one vehicle, and the one vehicle is the supreme-meaning vehicle. Furthermore, that sūtra extensively refutes the two vehicles, saying they have no nirvāṇa, and also says: 'This sūtra cuts off all doubts; it is the definitive meaning for entering the path of the one vehicle.' How could it say that the one vehicle is an upāya? When the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra says the one vehicle is an intentional teaching, that was spoken before the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka had been delivered; when the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka was delivered later, it harmonized the previous three vehicles as all being upāya. The Yogācāra's cessation of both evolving and root \[consciousnesses\], the Prakaraṇāryavācā's six meanings for explaining the one vehicle, and the Mahāyānasaṃgraha's ten meanings for explaining the one vehicle—all harmonize and explain in accord with the Saṃdhinirmocana, because these treatises were composed in conformity with that sūtra. The Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa's statement that the determinate two vehicles also receive prediction is because it was composed in conformity with this root sūtra. If one does not believe in the one vehicle, clinging to the provisional and going against the real, it is deeply pitiable. Thus fascicle two of the Sūtra of a Hundred Parables says: 'Formerly there was a village five yojanas away from the royal city. In the village there was delicious, fine water. The king ordered the villagers always to send that fine water day after day. The villagers grew weary and suffered, and all wished to move far away from this village. At that time the village headman said to the people: "Do not go. I will speak to the king for you to change the five yojanas to three yojanas, so that it will be near for you, and your coming and going will not be wearisome." He then went to speak to the king, and the king changed it for them to three yojanas. Having heard this, the multitude rejoiced greatly. Someone said to them: "This is still the original five yojanas; there is no difference whatsoever." Although they heard these words, because of their faith in the king's words, they ultimately refused to abandon it. Worldly people are also just like this: cultivating the correct Dharma, crossing over the five destinies, and heading toward the city of nirvāṇa, their minds grow weary and they wish to abandon it, pausing in saṃsāra and unable to advance further. The Tathāgata, the Dharma King, possessing great upāya, discriminates and speaks of three within the Dharma of the one vehicle. Hearing this, people of the Small Vehicle rejoice, thinking it easy to practice, and cultivate goodness and advance in virtue, seeking to cross over saṃsāra. Later, hearing someone say that there are no three vehicles, and that it is solely the one vehicle, because of their faith in the Buddha's words, they ultimately refuse to abandon \[their previous view\]—just like those villagers.' Explanation: this sūtra is precisely the fine judgment from the golden mouth \[of the Buddha\]; the provisional and the real are evident, and all other assertions may be laid to rest. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.48](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.1.48) - [Next: 1.50](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.1.50) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733~en-mt.1.49) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (3) - [法苑珠林](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2122.24.19) — 道世, Classical Chinese - [大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1736.8.25) — Classical Chinese - [諸經要集](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2123.2.35) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.1.49](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1733.1.49) · Pramāṇa