華嚴經探玄記 1.49

1.49

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.