大方廣佛華嚴經疏 2.2

2.2

第四立四教者，略有四家：一梁朝光宅法師，依《法華》第二立四乘教，謂臨門三車即是權教三乘；四衢等賜即實教大乘，以臨門牛車亦同羊鹿俱不得故、並無體故、諸子皆索故，是知三皆虛指以為方便。此則前三是三乘、後一是一乘，無乖教理。若唯說《法華》為實，則抑諸《般若》及諸大乘了義之經，是知昔大亦有權實，《法華》但會昔權，故說三皆虛指昔實，不滯方便故不會之。若約會權歸實，即是會三為一。若破小顯大，即是會二歸一。若開權顯實，則三是一，更無別一。故彼經云「汝等所行是菩薩道，先所出內是子所知。」若廢權立實，義說為四，如攬三點以成一伊，點別非伊、伊具三點。昔三既別，實不兼權；今一全兼，成四無爽。若依昔未顯說一切具有如來知見，根敗之種今並說成，則今昔有異，於文有據，義亦極成。二陳隋二代天台智者，承南岳思大師，立四教云：一三藏教，此教明因緣生滅四真諦理，正教小乘、旁化菩薩。二者通教，通者同也，三乘同稟故。此教明因緣即空無生四真諦理，是摩訶衍之初門，正為菩薩、旁通二乘。《大品》云「欲得聲聞乘，當學般若波羅蜜」等。然教理智斷、行位因果皆通，淺深不同，於共般若唯共於淺。三別教，別即不共，不共二乘人說故。此教正明因緣假名無量四真諦理，的化菩薩、不涉二乘，故聲聞在座如聾如盲。不名不共而云別者，兼欲揀非圓故，以一因逈出、一果不融，歷別而修，不得因果圓融故。四圓教，圓以不偏為義。此教正明不思議因緣二諦中道，事理具足、不偏不別，但化最上利根之人，故名為圓。《華嚴經》云「顯現自在力，為說圓滿經。無量諸眾生，悉受菩提記」等。別則教理等皆別，圓則教等皆圓。又此四教由三觀起，從假入空，析體異故，有初二教；從空入假，從假入中，有別教起；三觀一心中得，有圓教起。又此四教，不局定一部，一部之中容有多故。又更以四種化儀收之，謂頓、漸、不定、祕密。頓、漸同前岌公；後二謂一音異解，若互相知名為不定，互不相知即名祕密。此師立義理致圓備，但三藏教名義似小濫，以餘三教亦有三故。所以爾者，良以《智論》之中多詺小乘為三藏故。《成實論》中亦自說云「我今欲說三藏中實義故、初對舊醫戒定慧故。」立此三事迢然不同，異後三教，通教意融三故、別教依一法性而顯三故、圓教三一無障礙故。所以不名小乘教者，此教亦有大乘，六度菩薩三十四心斷結成真佛故。故藏通別圓之義四教互有，而覈其定實，餘三不成，唯成當教中義耳。但判華嚴兼於圓別，以就登地已上約寄位行布為別義故，名異義同亦無大過。三唐初海東元曉法師，亦立四教：一三乘別教，如四諦、緣起經等；二三乘通教，如《般若》、《深密經》等；三一乘分教，如《梵網經》等；四一乘滿教，如《華嚴經》等。然三乘共學名三乘教，於中未明法空名別相教，說諸法空是為通教，不共二乘名一乘教。於中未顯普法名隨分教，具明普法名圓滿教。然此大同天台，但合別圓，加一乘分耳。自言：「且依乘門略立四種，非謂此四遍攝一切」，故無有失。四賢首弟子苑公，依《寶性論》立四種教。論云「有四種眾生，不識如來藏，如生盲人：一者凡夫、二者聲聞、三者辟支佛、四者初心菩薩。言四教者，一迷真異執教，當彼凡夫；二真一分半教，當彼二乘；三真一分滿教，當彼初心菩薩；四真具分滿教，即當彼識如來藏者。」初教謂諸外道迷於真理，廣起異計。二謂小乘，於真如隨緣不變二分義中，唯說生空所顯之理，故名為半，如《涅槃》半字。三謂但得不變，不得隨緣，故名一分；而雙辯二空，故名為滿。四由具隨緣不變二義，故名具分。廣如彼說。然今判聖教，那參邪說？若對教主，應如此方先立三教，或如西域分內外及六師等。又依《涅槃》為半滿者，後二既滿，不應復有一分之言；既但得不變一分，豈名為滿？又《涅槃》半滿，豈唯約二空？豈彼不說妙有而訶空耶？故其所立，未為允當。

Fourth, among those who establish four teachings, there are briefly four masters: First, Dharma Master Guangzhai of the Liang dynasty, based on the second [chapter] of the Lotus Sūtra, established the teaching of four vehicles. He held that the three carts outside the gate are the three vehicles of the provisional teaching, while the equal granting [of great white ox-carts] at the crossroads is the Great Vehicle of the real teaching. This is because the ox-cart outside the gate, just like the goat and deer [carts], was not obtained at all, nor did any [such cart outside the gate] have actual existence, and because all the sons asked for them; thus one knows that all three were fictitious designations used as expedient means. In this view, the preceding three are the three vehicles and the latter one is the Ekayāna, which does not contradict doctrine or reason. If one were to say that only the Lotus Sūtra is real, this would depreciate all the Prajñāpāramitā and other definitive Mahāyāna sūtras; hence one knows that the Great [Vehicle teachings] of old also had provisional and real aspects. The Lotus Sūtra merely integrates the provisional teachings of old; thus it says that the three [carts outside the gate] were all fictitious designations of the past [teachings], but because past real teachings did not cling to expedient means, it does not integrate them. If one considers it in terms of integrating the provisional into the real, this is integrating the three into the one. If in terms of refuting the Hinayāna to reveal the Mahāyāna, this is integrating the two into the one. If in terms of opening up the provisional to reveal the real, then the three are the one, and there is no separate one besides them. Thus that sūtra states: "What you practice is the bodhisattva path; what was previously brought out and kept within is known by you sons." If one abolishes the provisional to establish the real, in meaning they are described as four—just as gathering three dots forms the single letter 'i' (𑀇): a separate dot is not the 'i', yet the 'i' comprises the three dots. Since the three of old were separate, the real did not include the provisional; now the one fully includes them, so establishing four contains no error. If based on the fact that in the past it was not explicitly taught that all possess the Tathāgata's knowledge and vision, whereas now even those whose faculties were ruined are all declared to achieve it, then the present and past differ; this is grounded in the text and its meaning is extremely well-established. Second, Tiantai [Master] Zhizhe of the Chen and Sui dynasties, succeeding the Great Master Si of Nanyue, established four teachings, stating: 1. The Tripiṭaka Teaching: this teaching clarifies the principle of the four noble truths of the arising and ceasing of causes and conditions; its primary purpose is to teach the Hīnayāna, while secondarily converting bodhisattvas. 2. The Shared Teaching: 'shared' means identical, because the three vehicles receive it alike. This teaching clarifies the principle of the four noble truths of non-arising, [namely that] causes and conditions are identical to emptiness; it is the entry-door to the Mahāyāna, primarily for bodhisattvas and secondarily shared with the two vehicles. The Great Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra states: "One who wishes to attain the śrāvaka vehicle should train in the prajñāpāramitā," and so forth. However, teaching, principle, wisdom, eradication [of afflictions], practices, stages, causes, and effects are all shared [among the three vehicles], differing in shallowness and depth; regarding the shared Prajñā, they are shared only in its shallow [aspect]. 3. The Distinct Teaching: 'distinct' means unshared, because it is not taught to people of the two vehicles. This teaching primarily clarifies the principle of the immeasurable four noble truths of nominal designations of causes and conditions; it exclusively transforms bodhisattvas and does not concern the two vehicles, which is why the śrāvakas in the assembly were as if deaf and blind. The reason it is not called 'unshared' but 'distinct' is also to distinguish it from the round, because its single cause stands uniquely apart and its single fruit is not merged; since one cultivates through discrete stages, it does not achieve the perfect interpenetration of cause and fruit. 4. The Round Teaching: 'round' takes impartiality as its meaning. This teaching primarily clarifies the middle way of the two truths of inconceivable causes and conditions, where phenomena and noumenon are fully complete, neither biased nor distinct; it transforms only people of the highest and sharpest faculties, hence it is called 'round'. The Avataṃsaka Sūtra states: "Manifesting sovereign power, he expounds the complete sūtra for them; immeasurable sentient beings all receive prediction to bodhi," and so forth. In the Distinct [Teaching], the teaching, principle, etc., are all distinct; in the Round [Teaching], the teaching, etc., are all round. Furthermore, these four teachings arise from the three contemplations: entering emptiness from the provisional, through the difference between analyzing and realizing essence, yields the first two teachings; entering the provisional from emptiness, and entering the middle from the provisional, gives rise to the Distinct Teaching; attaining the three contemplations within a single mind gives rise to the Round Teaching. Moreover, these four teachings are not confined to a single text, for a single text may contain several of them. Furthermore, they are subsumed under four modes of conversion: sudden, gradual, indeterminate, and secret. Sudden and gradual are the same as Master Ji's above; the latter two refer to different understandings from a single voice—if they know of one another, it is called indeterminate; if they do not know of one another, it is called secret. This master's established meaning is completely well-rounded, yet the name and meaning of the 'Tripiṭaka Teaching' seem slightly confounding, because the other three teachings also possess the three [baskets]. The reason it is so is truly because in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa the Hīnayāna is frequently designated as the Tripiṭaka. The Tattvasiddhi-śāstra also says of itself: "Because I now wish to speak the true meaning within the Tripiṭaka, at first opposing the old physician's morality, concentration, and wisdom." Establishing these three matters as clearly distinct differs from the latter three teachings: in the Shared Teaching the intent is to harmonize the three; the Distinct Teaching manifests the three based on the one dharmatā; and in the Round Teaching the three and the one are unobstructed. The reason it is not called the Hīnayāna teaching is that this teaching also includes the Mahāyāna, since the bodhisattva of the six perfections cuts off defilements and becomes a true Buddha in thirty-four mental moments. Thus, the meanings of Tripiṭaka, Shared, Distinct, and Round are mutually present across the four teachings, yet when examining their definitive reality, the other three do not hold [in each], holding only according to the meaning within that respective teaching. However, his classifying the Avataṃsaka as combining both the Round and the Distinct—because above entering the stages he took the distributed deployment of assigned positions as the Distinct meaning—is a difference in terminology with an identical meaning, and involves no great error. Third, Dharma Master Wonhyo of the Eastern Sea at the beginning of the Tang also established four teachings: 1. The Distinct Teaching of the Three Vehicles, such as the sūtras on the four truths and pratītyasamutpāda; 2. The Shared Teaching of the Three Vehicles, such as the Prajñā and Sandhinirmocana sūtras; 3. The Partial Teaching of the Ekayāna, such as the Brahmajāla Sūtra; 4. The Complete Teaching of the Ekayāna, such as the Avataṃsaka Sūtra. Now, that which the three vehicles study together is called the teaching of the three vehicles; within this, that which does not yet clarify the emptiness of phenomena is called the teaching of distinct marks, while that which speaks of the emptiness of all phenomena is the shared teaching. That which is not shared with the two vehicles is called the teaching of the Ekayāna; within this, that which has not yet revealed the universal dharma is called the partial teaching, while that which fully clarifies the universal dharma is called the complete teaching. This is largely identical to Tiantai, merely combining the Distinct and the Round and adding the partial Ekayāna. He himself said: "I have provisionally established four kinds based on the portal of vehicles; this does not mean these four encompass everything entirely," so there is no fault. Fourth, Master Yuangong, a disciple of Xianshou, established four kinds of teachings based on the Ratnagotravibhāga. That treatise says: "There are four kinds of sentient beings who do not recognize the tathāgatagarbha, like people born blind: 1. ordinary beings, 2. śrāvakas, 3. pratyekabuddhas, and 4. bodhisattvas of initial aspiration. As for the four teachings: 1. The teaching of delusion regarding reality and divergent attachments, which corresponds to ordinary beings; 2. The half teaching of a single part of reality, which corresponds to the two vehicles; 3. The full teaching of a single part of reality, which corresponds to bodhisattvas of initial aspiration; 4. The full teaching of the complete parts of reality, which corresponds to those who recognize the tathāgatagarbha." The first teaching means that various non-Buddhists are deluded about the true principle and broadly produce divergent views. The second refers to the Hīnayāna: of the two aspects of tathatā—following conditions and remaining unchanging—it only expounds the principle revealed by the emptiness of the person, hence it is called 'half', like the half-letter in the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]. The third refers to attaining only the unchanging while not attaining following conditions, hence it is called 'a single part'; yet because it clarifies both kinds of emptiness, it is called 'full'. The fourth, because it possesses both meanings of following conditions and remaining unchanging, is called 'complete parts'. This is detailed as he explains it. However, now in classifying the sacred teachings, how could one mix in heterodox doctrines? If one were matching teachings to teachers, one should follow this land in first establishing the three teachings, or like the Western Regions dividing into inner and outer [teachings] and the six masters, and so forth. Furthermore, if based on the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] one establishes 'half' and 'full', since the latter two are already 'full', there should no longer be the expression 'a single part'; if it only attains a single part of the unchanging, how can it be called 'full'? Moreover, does the 'half' and 'full' of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] merely concern the two kinds of emptiness? Does it not speak of wondrous existence and rebuke emptiness? Therefore, what he established is not appropriate.