勝鬘寶窟 1.23

1.23

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."