大般涅槃經疏 10.29

10.29

從「如佛所說」去，是第八會通。昔依四法，今依四人。文有問答。問又二：先舉昔依、次請會。初昔依者，然《阿含》中出次第，依法不依人、依了義不依不了義、依義不依語、依智不依識，與今迦葉所列次第有異。梁武云：此文為定。諸法師云：今經出昔依，以《阿含》為定。或言出經者，誤。或言於昔雖了，望今未了，故了義在後。今且釋《阿含》次第者，昔人無常，故不可依；以法常故，故法可依。法有小大，大法了義，是故須依；語若生著，故不須依。了語下義，義體無著，是故須依；識著智解，是故依智。從如是四法非四種人，正請會通。次「佛言」下，答。又為二：先別會、後總會。所以別會者，正言今依人與昔依法二言相反，故偏須別會。文為四：初會人法，依法即是依人。二明昔不依人者，不依無法之人。三明今依人者，還是有法之人。四舉下況上。初依法即依人者，人法不異。興皇言：昔以法簡人，結還依智；今以人簡法，結還依人。昔人既破，昔法亦除；今人既存，今法須取。但今人法不二，昔人即聲聞緣覺，豈依此人？昔法即方便半字，若不悟者亦須破法，若了悟者不除此法。次「若復有」下，明昔不依無法之人。三「如上所說」下，明今依有法之人。又為四：一唱應依、二釋應依、三歎德、四釋歎。四「若有人能」下，舉下況上。明外凡能知佛常，不為利養所轉，尚復可依，況於四人而不依耶？次從「依法者即是法性」去，總會四依。又三：初就今教會、二舉今昔相對會、三結會。初文又二：先會、次結。初還依問次第會之，文自為四：初依法，為三雙：一雙標、二釋釋、三雙結。初依法者即妙有之法，不依聲聞之人，即雙標也。法性者即如來，聲聞者即有為，是雙釋也。雙結，可尋。次文二：初會依義者、覺了即般若、不羸劣即法身、滿足即解脫。昔教解脫具則無身智，身智在則解脫不滿，又不得是三寶。次「不依語」下又二：先明無理之語、後明亂正之語。初文者，「如佛所說貪求無厭」去，有二解：一云此是佛說外道經中之言；二解是佛自說經生凡夫之過，不得依此為行。次「又復唱言」下，是亂正之語。三釋依智不依識。若知法身是常即是真智，若言無常即是識著。四釋了義，為三：一標宗、二歷法、三辨宗。初約一大乘兩緣來望，為了不了。次「又聲聞」下，是歷法，有五雙相對。大小、常無常、大小所說、食不食、滅不滅，可尋。三「聲聞乘」下，辨宗。初辨小、後辨大，各有標、釋、結。次「如是」下，總結。「復次依義」下，第二今昔相對會，通釋前兩依。文句相涉，人謂但三。文為三：初兩依共釋、次釋第三、三釋第四。初共釋，為三：一釋依義兼明依法、次釋不依人、三釋不依語。此初第一，偏明依義。次此後即不明依語，但語勢相仍，仍明不依人。又明依義即是依法，是故無別依法之文，但有不依人，此即第一偏明依義法者。「名常」下，釋法也。後具結二種。「若有說言不可見」下，釋不依人。「若復有人」下，釋不依語。「依智者」下，二別釋第三依。依智不依識，所言識作識受無和合僧者，但有識著作因受識著之果，皆是生死，則無常住一體之僧。三依了義者，別釋第四依，明了不了。若言有四緣得畜八不淨，即是了義：一無檀越、二時饑、三建立、四淨施。解者不同：一云具此四緣方乃得畜；二云隨一皆得；三云前三一一皆得畜之，但須淨施。淨施一事既不可無，是則皆須二緣得畜；若說有時非時皆聽畜者，為不了義。三分即是三藏。「我為肉眼」下，第三結會也。或時肉天兩眼相對，則是障內外。或法慧相對，此論照真俗異。今以肉慧相對者，此論凡聖之殊。

From "As the Buddha has spoken" onward is the eighth section: Reconciliation. Formerly one relied on the four principles; now one relies on the four persons. The text contains questions and answers. The question also has two parts: first, adducing the former refuges; next, requesting reconciliation. In the first part on the former refuges, the order given in the Āgamas is: rely on the Dharma and not on the person; rely on the definitive meaning and not on the non-definitive meaning; rely on the meaning and not on the letter; rely on wisdom and not on consciousness. This differs from the order listed here by Kāśyapa. Emperor Wu of Liang said: This text should be taken as definitive. Various Dharma masters say: Since this sūtra cites the former refuges, the Āgamas should be taken as definitive. Some say that the version in this sūtra is an error. Others say that although it was definitive in the past, viewed from the present it was not yet definitive, so the definitive meaning comes last. Now, to briefly explain the order in the Āgamas: In the past, persons were impermanent, so they could not be relied upon; because the Dharma is permanent, the Dharma could be relied upon. The Dharma has the lesser and the greater; the great Dharma is definitive in meaning, and therefore must be relied upon. If letters give rise to attachment, they must not be relied upon; but understanding the meaning underlying the letters—the essence of the meaning being without attachment—it therefore must be relied upon. Consciousness attaches while wisdom understands; therefore one relies on wisdom. From "such four Dharmas and not four kinds of persons" properly requests reconciliation. Next, from "The Buddha said" onward is the answer. It is also divided into two: first, specific reconciliation; later, general reconciliation. As for why there is specific reconciliation: because the present reliance on persons and the former reliance on the Dharma are two contradictory statements, they especially require specific reconciliation. The text has four parts: First, reconciling person and Dharma: relying on the Dharma is none other than relying on the person. Second, explaining that former non-reliance on persons meant not relying on persons devoid of the Dharma. Third, explaining that present reliance on persons still means persons possessing the Dharma. Fourth, using what is lower to illustrate what is higher. In the first part, relying on the Dharma being none other than relying on the person: person and Dharma are not different. Master Xīnghuáng said: Formerly, using the Dharma to discriminate persons concluded in returning to reliance on wisdom; now, using persons to discriminate the Dharma concludes in returning to reliance on persons. Once the former persons are refuted, the former Dharma is also removed; since present persons are affirmed, the present Dharma must be accepted. But now person and Dharma are not two: the former persons were śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas—how could one rely on such persons? The former Dharma was the expedient half-letter teaching; if one is not awakened, this Dharma must also be refuted, but if one has completely awakened, this Dharma is not eliminated. Next, from "If there are further" onward clarifies that formerly not relying on persons meant not relying on persons devoid of the Dharma. Third, from "As explained above" onward clarifies that presently relying on persons means relying on persons possessing the Dharma. This also has four parts: 1. proclaiming that one should rely; 2. explaining why one should rely; 3. praising their virtues; 4. explaining the praise. Fourth, from "If someone is able" onward uses what is lower to illustrate what is higher. It explains that ordinary persons outside the path who can know that the Buddha is eternal and are not swayed by offerings of gain are already fit to be relied upon; how much more so the four persons—how could one not rely on them? Next, from "Relying on the Dharma means the dharmatā" onward generally reconciles the four refuges. It also has three parts: first, reconciling in terms of the present teaching; second, reconciling by contrasting present and past; third, concluding the reconciliation. The first text also has two parts: first reconciling, then concluding. First, it reconciles according to the order of the question, and the text itself has four parts: First, relying on the Dharma has three pairs: 1. a pair of headings; 2. a pair of explanations; 3. a pair of conclusions. In the first, relying on the Dharma refers to the dharma of wondrous existence, and not relying on the person of a śrāvaka constitutes the pair of headings. The dharmatā is the Tathāgata, and the śrāvaka is the conditioned—this is the pair of explanations. The pair of conclusions can be examined. Next, the text has two parts: First, reconciling reliance on meaning: awakening is prajñā, non-debility is the dharmakāya, and fulfillment is liberation. In the former teaching, if liberation was complete, then the body and wisdom were absent; if the body and wisdom were present, then liberation was incomplete, and moreover they could not constitute the Three Jewels. Next, from "not relying on the letter" onward also has two parts: first, explaining words lacking principle; later, explaining words that confuse the correct. In the first text, from "As the Buddha said, 'craving and seeking without satiation'" onward has two explanations: one says these are words the Buddha spoke in non-Buddhist scriptures; the second explanation is that the Buddha himself spoke of the faults of ordinary beings born of scripture, and one must not rely on this as practice. Next, from "and again proclaims" onward are words that confuse the correct. Third, explaining relying on wisdom and not relying on consciousness: If one knows that the dharmakāya is permanent, this is true wisdom; if one says it is impermanent, this is attachment of consciousness. Fourth, explaining the definitive meaning has three parts: 1. stating the tenet; 2. going through the dharmas; 3. distinguishing the tenets. First, viewing it from the perspective of the one Mahāyāna with its two conditions, it is considered definitive or non-definitive. Next, from "Furthermore, the śrāvaka" onward goes through the dharmas, with five pairs of contrasts: great and small, permanent and impermanent, what is spoken by the great and small, eating and not eating, extinction and non-extinction, which can be examined. Third, from "The śrāvaka vehicle" onward distinguishes the tenets. First it distinguishes the lesser, and later the greater, each having heading, explanation, and conclusion. Next, from "such" onward is the general conclusion. From "Furthermore, relying on meaning" onward is the second part: reconciling by contrasting present and past, which comprehensively explains the first two refuges. Because the phrases intertwine, people think there are only three. The text has three parts: first, explaining the two refuges together; next, explaining the third; third, explaining the fourth. The first, explaining them together, has three parts: 1. explaining reliance on meaning while additionally clarifying reliance on the Dharma; next, explaining not relying on the person; third, explaining not relying on the letter. In this first part, it specifically clarifies relying on meaning. Next, after this, it does not clarify relying on the letter, but merely following the momentum of the words, continues by clarifying not relying on the person. It also clarifies that relying on meaning is none other than relying on the Dharma; therefore there is no separate text on relying on the Dharma, but only not relying on the person—this is the first part specifically clarifying relying on meaning and Dharma. From "named permanent" onward explains the Dharma. Later it fully concludes both kinds. From "If someone says it cannot be seen" onward explains not relying on the person. From "If there is another person" onward explains not relying on the letter. From "Relying on wisdom" onward is the second part, separately explaining the third refuge: relying on wisdom and not relying on consciousness. What is meant by "consciousness acting, consciousness receiving, without a harmonious Saṅgha" means that merely having consciousness-attachment as the cause and receiving the fruit of consciousness-attachment are all saṃsāra, so there is no permanently abiding Saṅgha of single essence. Third, relying on the definitive meaning separately explains the fourth refuge, clarifying the definitive and non-definitive. If one says that under four conditions one may keep the eight impure things, this is the definitive meaning: 1. having no dānapati; 2. a time of famine; 3. building and establishing; 4. pure donation. Commentators differ: one says one must possess all four conditions before one may keep them; a second says any one condition allows it; a third says for each of the first three one may keep them, but pure donation is strictly required. Since pure donation cannot be dispensed with, two conditions are always required to keep them. If one says that whether it is the proper time or not, keeping them is always permitted, this is non-definitive meaning. The three parts are none other than the Tripiṭaka. From "I, for the physical eye" onward is the third part: concluding the reconciliation. Sometimes the physical and divine eyes are paired, which concerns within and outside hindrances. Sometimes Dharma and wisdom eyes are paired, which discusses the difference in illuminating the real and conventional truths. Here, pairing the physical and wisdom eyes discusses the distinction between ordinary beings and sages.