[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) › [勝鬘寶窟](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744) › 1.23 # 勝鬘寶窟 1.23 勝鬘寶窟 1.23 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.23](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.1.23) 次明經分齊門。若依天竺，二種不同。龍樹釋《般若》不開章門，天親解《涅槃》預科分齊。震旦諸師亦有二說：如什肇注《淨名》不開於文。融朗解《法華》有其章段。今謂開與不開，可適時而用。又佛意在悟道，但令得悟則隨時用之。《攝大乘論》云「教無定相，以利益為定。但使得益，則稱會佛心。」《中論》云「諸法無決定相。」諸法無量方便，眾生根性亦復無遍，故隨機用之，勿生執著也。但末代相承多開章門，以其章門示經起盡、識義類不同。今略明三說：一分為七分、二開為二章、三開為三段。言七分者，第一初五句，結集緣起幽宗分；第二信法未久已下，壽量所解接化分；第三而說偈言已下，方便顯德起信分；第四說調伏大願已下，契理之行修成分；第五初觀聖諦已下，明行所契理非作分；第六勝鬘夫人已下，真子勝鬘必堪紹繼聖蹤分；第七祇洹已下，付囑流通奉行分。有人言：此經二處二會。言二處者，一舍衛處、二踰闍處。舍衛處，謂出家人處；踰闍，在家人處。又舍衛是佛住處，踰闍是菩薩住處。又舍衛是他業所起處，謂須達為佛造也；踰闍是自業所感處。約此二處說法，即成二會，一一會中各有三分。從初乃至「默念請佛」為序分，十五章經以為正宗，佛去已後勝鬘及王宣通此法謂流通分。第二會三分者，「爾時世尊入祇桓林」名為序分；「爾時世尊告天帝」已下，廣說是經明正宗；「說已告天帝」已下，讚歎勸學付囑流通。古舊相傳多開三分，謂序、正、流通。從初至「咸以清淨心歎佛實功德」，名序分；從「如來妙色」已下十五章經，為正說分；從「放勝光明」以下，為流通分。所以明三者，聖人說法必有由致，故有序分；由致既彰，正宗宜開，故有正說；如來大悲無限、眾生無窮，非止益當時，復欲遠傳遐代，故有流通分。又約時有初中後善，故開三分。又約法有體相用，故開三分。放光動地，表所說相；正說，顯諸法體；流通，明經有勢力，令聞者得利，故名為用。次約利有三，謂信、解、行。序分相，令未信者信；正說，令已信者解流通；歎教勸持，令已解者行。此皆大判也。三章各二，序中二者，一傳經序、二說經序；正中二者，一正說經宗、二勸信護法；流通二者，一勝鬘流通、二佛流通。初明二序，義有多門。一約人時有異，傳說不同，故立二序。人異者，所謂如來、阿難。時異者，謂當時、後代。如來自說，益於當時；阿難結集，在於後代。宗歸雖一，須立二序。但二序名不同，凡有四對：一從義以立名，謂通序、別序，眾經大同故名通序、發起事別稱為別序。二從時作名，謂經前序、經後序，別序謂經前序、通序謂經後序。三從人作名，即如來序、阿難序，如來說經、阿難傳經。四從義意作名，謂證信序、發起序。此皆大判也。言大判者，「如是我聞」一向是傳經序，良以說經之前未有此言，既經之後方有，故一向屬傳經序。「一時」已下可具二義：若阿難後之所立，屬傳經序；當佛說時實有化主時處，屬說經序。若依論所釋，化主時處屬說經序。《法華論》云「城山最勝，表經亦勝。」《十地論》言「此法勝故，在於初時及勝處說。」依此二論，即以化主時處屬說經序。依《智度論》，說時方人令生信故，屬傳經序。雖復不定，大判為言，如是等六事佛命令安故，總屬傳經序也。從「時波斯匿王」下，是發起序。釋此不定。有人言：從初至偈名之為序，從偈已下即屬正宗。今所明者，如前所說，初至「妙色身」前名為序說也。今略以六門釋之。一明數門，依江南諸師但明五事，以佛屬住處攝。次天親《燈論》以明六事，第四是教主。若依三藏，凡有七事，開「我聞」為二。今以六為定也。二明立六意門。一為證信故立六，如龍樹云：「說時方人令生信故」。二簡內外，外經以阿漚二字為首，內教以六事在初，三分經論不同，弟子之論，歸敬三寶；如來之經，明乎六事。三有無門，當佛說時實有六事，謂有信心及傳聞人、時節、教主、處所、同聞，而未立名字。此是體有文無，後之所立文體俱有。四具不具門，餘經具足六事，《金光明經》略無同聞。此經亦無同聞之文，至後當說。五前後門，《溫室》等經稱「我聞如是」，要前有傳法之人，方有所傳之法；二「如是我聞」，要有信心，方得入於佛法。六因緣門，阿難四問答，第四問答故，有此六事也。如三世諸佛證、如三世諸佛說，故言如是。問：稱如便足，何須言是？答：為欲簡相似言。是者，是三世諸佛說、是三世諸佛證，故言是也。故古注云：說得於理，文旨相扶為如；理說應解，徵信無昧為是。有人言：阿難遵佛所說之言，如於諸佛法說，理如理說、事如事說，因如因說、果如果說，如是一切如法之言，是當道理，故言如是也。良以乖法名之為非，故如法之言得稱如是。有人言：如是者，謂指牒法辭，如經中說「如是等功德、如是菩薩等」。今亦爾，如是所說教門我皆得聞，故云如是我聞。亦是印述之辭，如是如是，誠如聖教；如是如是，如汝所說。今亦爾，印定佛法使人生信，故言如是。有人言：依《智度論》意，如是者，是信義，要具三：一是所信之法、二明信心、三明信相。內心信可是法、口如是言、言是法稱合道理，故言如是。我聞者，古注云：明用表承宣，明其能虛己崇聽、祗納音旨也。有人言：阿難對彼未來眾生，陳己所說，故言我聞。問：阿難既是得理聖人，有何所以，同凡說我？答云：阿難雖復說我，不同凡夫。云何不同？說我有三：一者凡夫見使未亡，見心說我；二者學人見使雖除，慢使猶在，慢心說我；三無學人見慢已除，隨世流布宣說言我。然今阿難結集法時，身居無學，見慢已斷，隨世流布宣說我聞，故不同凡也。問：無我是勝，真諦所收；有我既著，世諦所攝。何不從勝宣說無我，從劣說我？答：化我眾生，法須如是。若不說我，何由可得標別彼此令人識？故知為別此彼令人識，故須說我也。乃至諸佛化我眾生，例皆同爾。我有三種：一佛性是主是常，是故名我；二八自在作用故名我；三統御名我。若就阿難，實得具有二我；今辨圓經，但用後我。問：三種阿難持於三藏，出何經耶？答：出《闍王懺悔經》。如《法華疏》說阿難有三種：一直阿難，翻為歡喜，持聲聞藏；二阿難跋陀，此云歡喜賢，持緣覺藏；三阿難伽羅，此云歡喜海，持菩薩藏。此是一人為三，亦是非三示三。又非三非一、能三能一，以其能三，故三人持三也。聞者，《智度論》云「耳根不壞、聲在可聞處、意欲聞，情塵和合，故耳識生。隨耳識即生意識，能分別種種因緣得聞。」《地持》亦云「聽所知言說，是名聞也。」 > Next is the clarification of the sectioning of the sūtra. Relying on India, there were two different ways: Nāgārjuna, in explaining the Prajñā\[pāramitā\], did not open chapter divisions, while Vasubandhu, in interpreting the Nirvāṇa, pre-divided the sections. The masters of China also had two traditions: for example, Kumārajīva and Sengzhao, in annotating the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, did not divide the text, whereas Dao-rong and Fa-lang, in interpreting the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka, provided chapters and passages. Now I say that whether to open divisions or not may be applied according to the occasion. Moreover, the Buddha's intention lies in awakening to the Way: as long as it brings about awakening, one applies it as appropriate to the time. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: "The teaching has no fixed characteristics; it is defined by its benefit. So long as it brings benefit, it accords with the Buddha's intention." The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: "All phenomena have no determined characteristics." Phenomena possess boundless expedient means, and the faculties and natures of sentient beings are likewise without limit; therefore, one applies them in response to capacities without giving rise to attachment. Yet in later generations, successors have mostly opened chapter divisions because chapter divisions demonstrate the beginning and end of a sūtra and distinguish the differences among categories of meaning. > > Now I briefly explain three theories: first, dividing into seven sections; second, opening into two chapters; third, opening into three divisions. > > As for the seven sections: first, the initial five sentences are the section on the origin and hidden import of the compilation; second, from "not long having believed the Dharma" onward is the section on reception and transformation according to the understanding of their lifespans; third, from "and spoke verses saying" onward is the section on revealing virtue through expedients to give rise to faith; fourth, from "speaking the great vows of subduing" onward is the section on the cultivation and accomplishment of practice according with principle; fifth, from "first contemplating the noble truths" onward is the section on explaining that the principle accorded with by practice is uncreated; sixth, from "Queen Śrīmālā" onward is the section on Śrīmālā as a true child who is certainly capable of continuing the noble lineage; seventh, from "the Jeta Grove" onward is the section on entrustment, propagation, and reverent practice. > > Some say this sūtra has two locations and two assemblies. Regarding the two locations: first, the location of Śrāvastī; second, the location of Ayodhyā. The location of Śrāvastī refers to the place of renunciants; Ayodhyā is the place of laypeople. Furthermore, Śrāvastī is the place where the Buddha abides, and Ayodhyā is the place where the bodhisattva abides. Furthermore, Śrāvastī is a place arisen from another's karma, meaning that Sudatta built it for the Buddha; Ayodhyā is a place induced by one's own karma. Expounding the Dharma with reference to these two locations thereby forms two assemblies, and each assembly contains three divisions. From the beginning up to "silently being mindful of inviting the Buddha" is the introductory division; the fifteen chapters of the sūtra form the main principle; and after the Buddha departs, Śrīmālā and the king's propagating this Dharma is the propagation division. The three divisions of the second assembly are: "at that time, the World-Honoured One entered the Jeta Grove" is named the introductory division; from "at that time, the World-Honoured One told the Lord of the Devas" onward, extensively expounding this sūtra clarifies the main principle; and from "having spoken, he told the Lord of the Devas" onward, praising, encouraging study, and entrusting forms the propagation division. > > According to ancient tradition, it is mostly opened into three divisions: namely, the introductory, the main, and the propagation divisions. From the beginning up to "all with pure minds praised the Buddha's true virtues" is named the introductory division; from "the Tathāgata's wondrous form" onward, the fifteen chapters of the sūtra are the main exposition division; and from "emitting a supreme radiance" onward is the propagation division. The reason for explaining three is that when a sage expounds the Dharma, there must be a reason, hence there is the introductory division; once the reason is revealed, the main principle should be opened, hence there is the main exposition; and the Tathāgata's great compassion is limitless and sentient beings are inexhaustible, so he does not merely benefit that time but also wishes to transmit it far into distant generations, hence there is the propagation division. Furthermore, in terms of time, there are the good in the beginning, middle, and end, hence three divisions are opened. Furthermore, in terms of the Dharma, there are essence, marks, and function, hence three divisions are opened. Emitting light and shaking the earth manifests the marks of what is expounded; the main exposition reveals the essence of all phenomena; and propagation clarifies that the sūtra has efficacy, enabling those who hear it to obtain benefit, hence it is called function. Next, in terms of benefit, there are three: namely, faith, understanding, and practice. The marks of the introductory division cause those who have not believed to believe; the main exposition causes those who have already believed to understand; and propagation, praising the teaching and encouraging upholding, causes those who have already understood to practice. These are all broad distinctions. > > The three chapters each have two aspects. The two in the introduction are: first, the preface of the transmission of the sūtra; second, the preface of the expounding of the sūtra. The two in the main part are: first, directly expounding the principle of the sūtra; second, encouraging faith and protecting the Dharma. The two in propagation are: first, Śrīmālā's propagation; second, the Buddha's propagation. > > First, in explaining the two prefaces, there are many approaches of meaning. First, according to person and time being distinct, transmission and expounding are not the same, hence two prefaces are established. The distinction in person refers to the Tathāgata and Ānanda. The distinction in time refers to that time and subsequent generations. When the Tathāgata spoke it himself, it benefited that time; when Ānanda compiled it, it was in subsequent generations. Although their ultimate intent is one, two prefaces must be established. However, the names of the two prefaces differ, having altogether four pairs: first, establishing names from the meaning, termed the common preface and the specific preface—because the various sūtras are broadly the same, it is called the common preface, and because the initiating events are specific, it is called the specific preface; second, making names from time, termed the preface before the sūtra and the preface after the sūtra—the specific preface refers to the preface before the sūtra, and the common preface refers to the preface after the sūtra; third, making names from the person, which are the Tathāgata's preface and Ānanda's preface—the Tathāgata expounded the sūtra, and Ānanda transmitted the sūtra; fourth, making names from the intention of the meaning, termed the preface attesting faith and the initiating preface. These are all broad distinctions. > > Speaking of broad distinctions: "Thus have I heard" belongs exclusively to the preface of transmission, for truly before the sūtra was spoken these words did not exist, and only after the sūtra did they appear, hence they belong exclusively to the preface of transmission. From "at one time" onward, it can possess two meanings: if established subsequently by Ānanda, it belongs to the preface of transmission; when the Buddha expounded it, there were actually the teaching master, the time, and the place, so it belongs to the preface of expounding. If relying on what the treatises explain, the teaching master, time, and place belong to the preface of expounding. The Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa says: "The city and mountain are the most supreme, manifesting that the sūtra is also supreme." The Daśabhūmika-śāstra says: "Because this Dharma is supreme, it was expounded at the primary time and in a supreme place." Relying on these two treatises, the teaching master, time, and place belong to the preface of expounding. Relying on the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, because stating the time, place, and person gives rise to faith, they belong to the preface of transmission. Although it is not fixed, speaking by broad distinction, because the Buddha commanded these six items to be placed \[at the beginning\], they collectively belong to the preface of transmission. From "at that time, King Prasenajit" onward is the initiating preface. Explanations of this vary. Some say that from the beginning up to the verses is named the preface, and from the verses onward it directly belongs to the main principle. What is clarified now is as stated before: from the beginning to before "the wondrous form body" is named the introductory exposition. > > Now I briefly explain it with six gates: First, the gate clarifying number. According to the masters south of the Yangtze, they only clarified five items, subsuming the Buddha under the dwelling place. Next, Vasubandhu's Pradīpa-śāstra clarifies six items, the fourth being the lord of the teaching. If relying on the Tripiṭaka master, there are altogether seven items, opening "I have heard" into two. Now we take six as determined. > > Second, the gate clarifying the purpose of establishing the six: First, they are established to attest faith; as Nāgārjuna says: "Because stating the time, place, and person gives rise to faith." Second, to distinguish inner and outer: non-Buddhist texts take the two syllables A and Oṃ as their head, whereas the inner teaching places the six items at the beginning; the three parts of sūtras and treatises differ: treatises by disciples take refuge in and revere the Three Jewels, whereas sūtras of the Tathāgata clarify the six items. > > Third, the gate of existence and non-existence: When the Buddha expounded it, there actually were the six items—namely, the mind of faith, the person transmitting what was heard, the season, the lord of the teaching, the location, and fellow hearers—yet the names had not been established. This is having the actuality but lacking the text; when established later, both text and actuality were present. > > Fourth, the gate of completeness and incompleteness: Other sūtras are complete with the six items, but the Suvarṇaprabhāsa-sūtra briefly omits the fellow hearers. This sūtra also lacks the text of fellow hearers, as will be explained later. > > Fifth, the gate of sequence: Sūtras like the Wen-shi \[Sūtra on Bathing the Sangha in the Bathhouse\] state "I have heard thus"—there must first be a person transmitting the Dharma before there can be a Dharma transmitted; secondly, "thus have I heard"—there must be a mind of faith before one can enter into the Buddha-Dharma. > > Sixth, the gate of causes and conditions: Due to Ānanda's four questions and answers, specifically the fourth question and answer, these six items exist. > > As realized by the Buddhas of the three periods, as spoken by the Buddhas of the three periods, hence it says "thus" (rushi). Question: Stating "ru" (as) would be sufficient; why is it necessary to say "shi" (this/so)? Answer: It is to distinguish from words of resemblance. "Shi" means it is what the Buddhas of the three periods spoke, it is what the Buddhas of the three periods realized; hence it says "shi". Therefore ancient commentaries say: when the exposition captures the principle, with text and import supporting each other, that is "ru"; when the exposition of principle should be understood, with verified faith free from delusion, that is "shi". Some say: Ānanda complied with the words spoken by the Buddha, expounding them as the Dharma of the Buddhas—expounding principle as principle, expounding fact as fact, expounding cause as cause, expounding effect as effect; all such words conforming to Dharma are fitting to principle, hence it says "rushi". Truly, because deviating from Dharma is called wrong (fei), words conforming to Dharma can be termed "rushi" (thus/right). Some say: "rushi" refers to phrasing that indicates and enumerates phenomena, as the sūtras say "such merits, such bodhisattvas". Here it is also like this: the teaching approaches expounded like this, I have all heard; hence it says "thus have I heard". It is also phrasing of approval and recitation: "So it is, so it is, truly as the noble teaching says; so it is, so it is, as you have spoken." Here it is also like this: confirming the Buddha-Dharma to cause people to give rise to faith, hence it says "rushi". Some say: according to the intent of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, "rushi" means faith, which must be complete with three: first, the Dharma that is believed; second, clarifying the faithful mind; third, clarifying the mark of faith. The inner mind believes and accepts this Dharma, the mouth speaks thus, and saying this Dharma accords with principle; hence it says "rushi". > > Regarding "I have heard" (wo wen), ancient commentaries say: it clarifies the function of expressing transmission, showing his ability to empty himself, esteem listening, and reverently receive the voice and purport. Some say: Ānanda, facing those future sentient beings, declared what he expounded, hence he said "I have heard". Question: Since Ānanda was a sage who had attained the principle, for what reason did he speak of "I" along with the common world? The answer states: although Ānanda spoke of "I", it was not the same as ordinary people. How was it not the same? Speaking of "I" has three types: first, ordinary people whose proclivities of view have not perished speak of "I" with a mind of view; second, learners (śaikṣa) whose proclivities of view have been eliminated but whose proclivities of pride still remain speak of "I" with a mind of pride; third, those beyond learning (aśaikṣa) whose views and pride have already been eliminated, complying with worldly convention, proclaim and say "I". Now, when Ānanda compiled the Dharma, he was established in the stage beyond learning, with views and pride already severed; complying with worldly convention he proclaimed "I have heard", hence he was not the same as ordinary people. Question: Selflessness is supreme, subsumed under absolute truth; having a self is already attachment, subsumed under conventional truth. Why did he not follow the supreme to proclaim selflessness, but followed the inferior to speak of "I"? Answer: For transforming sentient beings who cling to a self, the Dharma must be like this. If he did not say "I", by what means could one designate and distinguish this from that so that people would recognize it? Therefore know that in order to distinguish this from that to cause people to recognize it, he had to say "I". Up to the Buddhas transforming sentient beings who cling to a self, all are alike in this. There are three types of "I": first, the buddhadhātu is master and eternal, therefore named "I"; second, on account of the eight sovereign functions, it is named "I"; third, governance is named "I". With respect to Ānanda, he actually possessed two types of "I"; now in analyzing the perfect sūtra, we only employ the latter "I". > > Question: From what sūtra does the notion that three kinds of Ānanda uphold the three piṭakas derive? Answer: It derives from the Ajātaśatru-kaukṛtya-vinodana-sūtra. As the Commentary on the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka explains, Ānanda has three kinds: first, simple Ānanda, translated as Joy, who upholds the Śrāvakapiṭaka; second, Ānandabhadra, here called Joyful Worthy, who upholds the Pratyekabuddhapiṭaka; third, Ānandasaṃgara, here called Joyful Ocean, who upholds the Bodhisattvapiṭaka. This is one person acting as three, and also not three displaying three. Furthermore, he is neither three nor one, able to be three and able to be one; because he is able to be three, three persons uphold the three. Regarding "heard", the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "When the ear faculty is undamaged, sound is in a hearable location, and the mind desires to hear, sense organ and sense dust harmonize, hence ear-consciousness arises. Following ear-consciousness, mental consciousness immediately arises, able to distinguish various causes and conditions to obtain hearing." The Bodhisattvabhūmi also says: "Listening to words of what is to be known is named hearing." > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.22](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.1.22) - [Next: 1.24](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.1.24) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744~en-mt.1.23) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (2) - [大智度論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.prajnaparamita.pancavimsatisahasrika!mahaprajnaparamitopadesa*zh-kumarajiva.1.175) — Classical Chinese - [大般涅槃經義記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1764.1.24) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.1.23](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1744.1.23) · Pramāṇa