大方廣佛華嚴經隨疏演義鈔 46.8

46.8

第八念藏。疏「十二分教今當略釋」者，即第五演教也。文中三：一釋總名、二「各有二相」下釋相、三料揀通局。二中，先總明、後「修多羅者」下別釋之。此一部分二：先辨二相。其「長行綴緝」等者，次下當知。二「然更有」下，辨異名，便彰三相。於中二：先列四名，亦如初卷；後「言法本」下，別釋。於中二：一正述遠公釋；二「以彼立」下，為出所以，即立三相，以五中後三即三修多羅相故。於中，先列、後總。「不異前」下，釋。於中二：一正釋三相總，不異前二相中總也。餘二可知。「然其後二」下，遮破會通。以《刊定記》自立兩重總別，如第一疏鈔不許立三。彼第一疏中破云：隋遠法師雖說修多羅總別略三，初順涅槃、二無聖教亦乖正理、三違《雜集》。《雜集論》云「修多羅者，謂長行綴緝，略說所應說義。」彼自釋云「略說所應說義，即是長行綴緝。曾無先略標舉、後廣釋之相。言略者，總之異名，謂修多羅一分是總，餘十一分是別。今修多羅依藏部中總相業用而立其名，餘藏部名依藏部中別相業用。所以者何？修多羅業用能貫攝故。故餘藏餘部所詮所化，由此貫攝，彼方成故。故《涅槃》云『始從如是我聞，終至歡喜奉行，皆修多羅攝。』」釋曰：此即彼之立破。今疏知其所立但是總相，更不敘之。言「違雜集」，故為辨相，却用《雜集》，故云不違。此成別相，故云「長行綴緝是十一所不攝者」。恐義未顯，故引《涅槃．賢首品》示之，以總長行綴緝即是總相，總相何得揀偈頌耶？疏「其略說所應說義」，通略相修多羅。即《雜集論》文，而為兩段，出別略之據，只用上〈賢首品〉一文雙證二義。如云「爾時文殊師利說無濁亂清淨行大功德已」者，但是長行綴緝。若云「欲顯示菩提心功德故」，即略示相，標下文之所說故。次明不違《成實》，可知。從「斯則通十二分」者，明略相通也，不同別相，十一不攝。疏「若十二分中修多羅」下，雙結藏部二修多羅通局之異。此文正為《刊定》立二總別，彼云「但藏部立，名各有兩重總別：一謂三藏十二部為總名，修多羅等為別稱。二謂修多羅為總號，毘柰耶、應頌等為別目。自古相傳，唯辨前門不論其後。」釋曰：其後一總別，彼為挺拔，今正破之。彼意云：既契理合機名修多羅，則律與論皆有契合，豈不得名修多羅耶？故今示云：二藏有契合者，即十二部中修多羅耳。此約義該，何須更立兩重總別？則三藏修多羅唯局總相，十二分中却分三相，故從總相立於經藏揀異二藏也。疏「但開雜集」下，結示遠公之據。疏「有不曉」下，結彈《刊定》違《雜集》言，却在彼已餘十二分，文並可知。然隨一一分便引當經為證，則顯此經具十二分耳。（二中）疏「涅槃云：佛昔為諸比丘」等者，即十五經云：長行具云何等名為祇夜經。佛告諸比丘：「昔我與汝愚無智慧，不能如實見四真諦。是故流轉，久處生死沒大苦海。何等為四苦集滅道？如佛昔日為諸比丘說契經」竟下全同疏。疏後等字有二：一等餘偈。更有一偈云「若能見四諦，即得斷生死。諸有既已盡，更不受諸有。」是名祇夜經是也。二等取餘經文。疏「如記彌勒」者，《涅槃》云「何等名為授記經？如有經律，如來說時，為諸天人受佛記別。汝阿逸多，未來有王名曰穰佉，當於是世而成佛道，號曰彌勒。是名授記經。」四伽陀，《涅槃》中引諸惡莫作偈二相，即是二意立偈。（五中）疏「二因事方說知本末故」，《涅槃》云「何等名為尼陀那經？如諸經偈，所因根本為他演說。如舍衛國有一丈夫，羅網捕鳥，得已籠繫，隨與水草而復還放。世尊知其本末因緣，而說偈言：『莫輕小罪，以為無殃。水滴雖微，漸盈大器。』」疏「七本事」，二相中，《瑜伽》八十一但有初相，云「本事者，說佛前際所有事、後際所生事。」《雜集》但有後意，論云「本事者，謂宣說聖弟子等前世相應事。」疏「八本生」等，「一說如來」者，《涅槃》云「如佛世尊本為菩薩時，修諸苦行，所謂比丘當知，我於過去作鹿作羆、作麞作兔、作粟散王轉輪聖王、龍金翅鳥。如是等行菩薩道時，捨所可愛身。」疏「九方廣」，可知。所引《雜集》皆第十一。開總菩薩藏相，應言為四，并總為五。餘即可知。

Eighth: Mindfulness of the Piṭaka. The Commentary's remark, "The twelve divisions of the teaching shall now be briefly explained," refers to the fifth [item], the exposition of the teaching. Within the text there are three parts: first, explaining the general name; second, from "each has two characteristics" downward, explaining their characteristics; third, discerning what is shared and what is restricted. Within the second part, it first clarifies in general, and then from "As for sūtras..." downward, it explains them individually. This part itself has two divisions: first, distinguishing the two characteristics. Its phrase "connecting and compiling prose," etc., will be understood directly below. Second, from "However, there are still..." downward, it distinguishes different names and thereby manifests the three characteristics. Within this, there are two: first, listing the four names, just as in the first fascicle; second, from "The phrase 'source of phenomena'..." downward, explaining them individually. Within this, there are two: first, properly setting forth Master Huiyuan's explanation; second, from "Because he established..." downward, giving the reasons—namely, establishing three characteristics, because the last three among the five correspond to the characteristics of the three [types of] sūtras. Within this, it first lists and then summarizes. From "not different from the preceding" downward, it explains. Within this, there are two: first, properly explaining the general among the three characteristics, which is not different from the general among the preceding two characteristics. The other two may be understood [from this]. From "However, regarding the latter two..." downward, it refutes [opposing views] and harmonizes them. Because the Kanding ji independently established two levels of general and specific, as [mentioned in] the subcommentary to the first fascicle of the Commentary, it did not permit establishing three. In that commentary's first fascicle, it refutes [Huiyuan], saying: "Although Master Huiyuan of the Sui spoke of sūtras as having three [types]—general, specific, and abbreviated—first, this accords with the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]; second, it lacks sacred teaching and contradicts correct reasoning; third, it violates the Abhidharmasamuccaya-bhāṣya. The Abhidharmasamuccaya-bhāṣya states: 'As for sūtra, it refers to prose connecting and compiling, briefly explaining the meanings that ought to be explained.' He himself explained this, saying: 'Briefly explaining the meanings that ought to be explained is precisely connecting and compiling prose. There is never any characteristic of first presenting an abbreviated heading and later explaining it in detail. The word "abbreviated" is another name for "general," meaning that the sūtra division is the general, while the remaining eleven divisions are the specific. Now, the name "sūtra" is established according to its general activity-and-function among the piṭaka divisions, whereas the names of the remaining piṭaka divisions are based on their specific activities-and-functions within the piṭaka divisions. Why is this? Because the activity-and-function of a sūtra is capable of threading and gathering. Therefore, what is explained and taught in the remaining piṭakas and remaining divisions is accomplished only through this threading and gathering. Thus the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: "From 'Thus have I heard' at the beginning to 'they rejoiced and practiced accordingly' at the end, all are subsumed under sūtra."'" Explanation: This is his thesis and refutation. Now the Commentary, knowing that what he establishes is merely the general characteristic, does not recount it further. Because [the critic claimed it] "violates the Abhidharmasamuccaya," in order to distinguish the characteristics, it instead uses the Abhidharmasamuccaya, and therefore says it does not violate it. This establishes the specific characteristic; hence it says: "Prose connecting and compiling is that which is not subsumed under the other eleven." Fearing that the meaning was not yet clear, it therefore cites the "Xianshou Chapter" of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] to show it, since overall prose connecting and compiling is precisely the general characteristic; how could the general characteristic exclude verses? The Commentary's "its briefly explaining the meanings that ought to be explained" applies to the abbreviated-characteristic sūtra. This is the text of the Abhidharmasamuccaya-bhāṣya, which it divides into two sections to bring out the textual basis for the specific and the abbreviated, using solely that single passage from the "Xianshou Chapter" above to corroborate both meanings simultaneously. When it says: "At that time Mañjuśrī, having expounded the great merit of conduct free from turbidity and defilement," this is merely prose connecting and compiling. When it says: "Wishing to show the merit of the bodhicitta," this is an abbreviated indication of the characteristics, marking what will be explained in the text below. Next, its clarification that it does not violate the Harivarman's Tattvasiddhi-śāstra may be understood. From "This then pervades the twelve divisions," it clarifies that the abbreviated characteristic is pervasive; it is not like the specific characteristic, which is not subsumed under the eleven. From the Commentary's "If, among the twelve divisions, sūtra..." downward, it concludes both by contrasting the pervasiveness and restriction between the two [senses of] sūtra in the piṭakas and in the divisions. This text is precisely directed against the Kanding [ji]'s establishment of two levels of general and specific. That text says: "In establishing the names for the piṭakas and divisions, each has two levels of general and specific: First, the three piṭakas and twelve divisions are general names, while sūtras, etc., are specific designations. Second, sūtra is the general title, while vinaya, geya, etc., are specific rubrics. Handed down from antiquity, only the former approach has been distinguished without discussing the latter." Explanation: As for that latter level of general and specific, he held it up as extraordinary; now [the Commentary] refutes it directly. His idea was: Since according with principle and fitting the faculties is called sūtra, then both vinaya and treatises also possess such accord and fitness—could they not also receive the name sūtra? Therefore it now demonstrates: What accords and fits within the other two piṭakas is simply sūtra among the twelve divisions. This covers it in terms of meaning; what need is there to establish two levels of general and specific further? Thus, the sūtra of the three piṭakas is strictly restricted to the general characteristic, whereas within the twelve divisions it is differentiated into three characteristics; hence the sūtra-piṭaka is established based on the general characteristic to distinguish it from the other two piṭakas. From the Commentary's "Merely unfolding the Abhidharmasamuccaya..." downward, it concludes by showing Master Huiyuan's authority. From the Commentary's "There are those who do not understand..." downward, it concludes by criticizing the Kanding [ji]'s claim of violating the Abhidharmasamuccaya, turning it back upon him. The remaining eleven divisions may all be understood from the text. Moreover, citing the respective sūtra as proof alongside each and every division manifests that this sūtra is complete with all twelve divisions. (Within the second part,) the Commentary's citing "The Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: 'The Buddha formerly told the monks...'" etc., refers to the fifteenth fascicle, where the prose fully asks: What is called a geya-sūtra? The Buddha told the monks: "In the past, you and I were foolish and lacked wisdom, unable to see the four noble truths as they really are. For this reason we wandered, dwelling long in birth-and-death, submerged in the great ocean of suffering. What are the four? Suffering, origination, cessation, and path. Just as formerly the Buddha spoke sūtras for the monks..." What follows after this conclusion is completely identical with the Commentary. The character "etc." at the end of the Commentary has two meanings: First, it includes the remaining verse. There is another verse that says: "If one can see the four truths, / One will be able to sever birth-and-death. / All states of existence being ended, / One will never again receive any existence." This is what is called a geya-sūtra. Second, it includes the remaining text of the sūtra. The Commentary's "As when prophesying Maitreya": The Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: "What is called a vyākaraṇa-sūtra? When, as in certain sūtras and vinaya, while the Tathāgata speaks, he receives the Buddha's prophecy on behalf of various devas and humans: 'You, Ajita, in the future will have a king named Śaṅkha; you will accomplish the Buddha Way in that world, named Maitreya.' This is called a vyākaraṇa-sūtra." Fourth, gāthās: The Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] cites the verse "Do not commit any evil"; the two characteristics refer to verses established for two purposes. (Within the fifth,) "Second, only being spoken in connection with an event because of knowing the root and branch": The Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: "What is called a nidāna-sūtra? Just as in various sūtras and verses, the underlying cause is expounded for others. For instance, in the city of Śrāvastī there was a man who caught birds with a net; having caught them he caged them, then gave them water and grass and released them again. The World-Honoured One, knowing the root-and-branch causes and conditions, spoke a verse, saying: 'Do not make light of small sins, / Thinking they bring no calamity. / Though drops of water are tiny, / They gradually fill a large vessel.'" The Commentary's "Seventh: itivṛttaka": Among the two characteristics, the eighty-first [fascicle] of the Yogācārabhūmi has only the first characteristic, saying: "As for itivṛttaka, it speaks of all events belonging to the past limit and events arising in the future limit of the Buddha." The Abhidharmasamuccaya has only the latter meaning; the treatise says: "As for itivṛttaka, it refers to proclaiming events associated with the past lives of holy disciples and others." The Commentary's "Eighth: jātaka," etc., "First, speaking of the Tathāgata": The Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: "As when the Buddha, the World-Honoured One, originally being a bodhisattva, cultivated various austerities, namely: 'Monks, you should know that in the past I was a deer, a bear, a roe deer, a rabbit, a minor king, a wheel-turning sage king, a nāga, or a garuḍa. Thus, when practicing the bodhisattva path, I relinquished the bodies I cherished.'" The Commentary's "Ninth: vaipulya" may be understood. All citations from the Abhidharmasamuccaya are from the eleventh [fascicle]. Expanding the general characteristic of the Bodhisattva Piṭaka, it should be said to be four, and including the general, it makes five. The rest may be understood.