大方廣佛華嚴經疏 2.2

2.2

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.