大般涅槃經疏 16.15

16.15

「時佛讚言」下，二如來述歎，為三，謂述、釋、結。述如文。釋中法說開譬合譬。開善謂譬五時教，佛合牛，出十二部經指初教；修多羅指般若，言修多羅是法本，般若是行本故；方等指《淨名》、《思益》，稱歎菩薩故；般若是《法華》，法華明平等大慧，大慧只是般若；涅槃可解。又云。般若始在十二年中，終則隣於涅槃，乃在法華之後，引《釋論．畢竟品》為證。若爾，修多羅是《淨名》，方等即《法華》，般若即《般若》。招提云：前三明教，後二明理。前三教者，十二部即小乘藏，修多羅即雜藏，方等即菩薩藏，佛教不出此三故。後二理者，般若是因、涅槃是果，行般若因得涅槃果。興皇云：佛說法即是十二部經，學此十二即了修多羅，知諸法本即達方等，達方等故生於般若，般若生故能了涅槃。觀師云：此並從多之少、從廣至略。初歎十二部，十二部通於小大，此則是總。更別歎修多羅，修多羅又通，更別歎方等。方等未為希有，復別歎般若。於般若中更別歎涅槃一句佛性。如從牛出乳乃至醍醐，則涅槃為最。義皆不然。何者？十二部經通於大小，豈獨是小乘？又十二部謂是初者，小非初說，故不可用。復何故以修多羅為般若，餘經豈無長行耶？復何故以般若為《法華》，名不相應，義云何會？假使以般若隣於涅槃，般若則是第四時教，復違爾五時次第。招提三教兩理者，此文是述其歎教，何故喻理？縱如招提所說，乃歎他經，非歎今教。興皇所說乃生解次第，復非歎教。藏王云：「諸佛雖有無量功德，故不如是大般涅槃。」從教生解，非文所歎。若觀師所說，從廣至略而為最勝。文云「醍醐最上，一切諸藥悉入其中。」廣豈過此？既其是廣，可不被歎？諸師皆欲包括收攝，不覺咫尺，漏失正宗。邯鄲學步，兩無所獲（云云）。今但依經，即如藏王聞佛說於次第之別、不次第圓，次第之教能生漸行菩薩功德，不次第教能生一切諸佛功德。歡喜踊躍雙歎兩教，佛助其喜還述歎之。若次第相生，窮玄極妙更加稱美。牛者即涅槃教主，乳者戒聖行，酪者定聖行，生酥者四諦慧聖行，熟酥者二諦慧聖行，醍醐者一實諦慧聖行。如五味次第宗於醍醐，五行轉深極於一實，故言最勝最上，此即述其歎次第教。若單說實慧，一慧一切慧，慧為法界攝一切慧，不由次第。佛即醍醐，最上最妙，一切諸藥悉入其中，如來即是人醍醐也。一實諦者是法醍醐，醍醐之人說醍醐法。醍醐之法或醍醐人，人之與法一而無二，中間諸法無不醍醐。次第、一實，一而無二，歎五行之一實，即是歎一實之五行。作此釋者，次第歎教二義皆成。若望一期教次第者，從佛出十二部者即指華嚴，華嚴最初是十二部。修多羅者，即三藏中之一藏，物不堪大即為說小。方等之教，折小彈偏歎大褒圓。般若之教，三人同聞專歸一實，引小歸大接偏成圓，及住方便未證小果，許其通學摩訶衍道。大般涅槃尊極之教，已住小果斥廢三修說勝常樂。若爾，何以不說《法華》？《法華》破小果、滅化城，引入寶所，與《涅槃》同。又迦葉如來二萬燈明皆說《法華》以為極唱，不說《涅槃》。今此釋迦惡世垂迹，宜以異名顯於常樂。兩教同極，不言法華意在於此。又前番小熟者，以法華熟之；後番未熟，更以般若洮汰；今涅槃熟之。《釋論》云「般若至法華後」，即此義也。又歎此教與一期教亦不相乖。戒是聖行之首，又戒廣攝如文所說，與華嚴中初照義同；定聖行正與修多羅中定藏義合；四諦慧行以大涅槃三修斥小無漏之非，與方等彈訶義合；二諦慧行真俗相即，正與摩訶衍即色即空義合；一實諦慧行即涅槃教。可知一期一經次第皆成，義不相違。「以是義故」下，第三結歎。

From "Then the Buddha praised him, saying" onward, the second [part] is the Tathāgata's endorsement of the praise. It has three [sections]: endorsement, explanation, and conclusion. The endorsement is as in the text. In the explanation, the doctrinal exposition opens the metaphor and joins the metaphor. Kāishàn considers it to metaphorically represent the teachings of the five periods: the Buddha corresponds to the cow; producing the twelve divisions of scriptures refers to the initial teaching; the sūtras refer to the Prajñā[-pāramitā], stating that the sūtras are the root of the Dharma and prajñā is the root of practice; the Vaipulya refers to the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa and the Viśeṣacintibrahma-paripṛcchā, because they praise the bodhisattvas; prajñā refers to the Lotus Sūtra, since the Lotus Sūtra clarifies the great wisdom of equality, and great wisdom is simply prajñā; and nirvāṇa is understandable. He also says that prajñā begins during the twelve years and ends adjacent to nirvāṇa, coming after the Lotus Sūtra, citing the "Ultimate Chapter" of the Dazhidulun as proof. If so, then the sūtras are the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, the Vaipulya is the Lotus Sūtra, and prajñā is the Prajñā[-pāramitā]. Zhāotí says: The first three clarify the teachings, and the latter two clarify the principle. Regarding the first three as teachings: the twelve divisions are the Śrāvakayāna piṭaka, the sūtras are the miscellaneous piṭaka (saṃyukta-piṭaka), and the Vaipulya is the Bodhisattva piṭaka, for the Buddha's teachings do not go beyond these three. Regarding the latter two as principle: prajñā is the cause and nirvāṇa is the fruit; practicing the cause of prajñā attains the fruit of nirvāṇa. Xīnghuáng says: The Buddha's expounding of the Dharma is precisely the twelve divisions of scriptures; studying these twelve leads to understanding the sūtras; knowing the root of all dharmas reaches the Vaipulya; reaching the Vaipulya gives rise to prajñā; and because prajñā arises, one can understand nirvāṇa. Master Guān says: These all proceed from the many to the few, from the broad to the brief. First praising the twelve divisions: the twelve divisions apply to both the Small and Great [Vehicles], so this is the general. Further praising the sūtras specifically: the sūtras also apply broadly, so he further praises the Vaipulya specifically. The Vaipulya not yet being rare, he again praises prajñā specifically. Within prajñā, he further praises the single phrase of nirvāṇa, the buddhadhātu, specifically. Just as from a cow milk is produced, up to ghee, so nirvāṇa is supreme. None of these interpretations is correct. Why is that? The twelve divisions of scriptures apply to both the Great and Small [Vehicles]; how could they be solely the Hīnayāna? Furthermore, regarding the twelve divisions being the beginning: the Small [Vehicle] was not the initial preaching, so this cannot be adopted. Furthermore, why make the sūtras prajñā? Do other sūtras lack prose sections? Why also make prajñā the Lotus Sūtra? The names do not correspond; how could their meanings harmonize? Even if prajñā were adjacent to nirvāṇa, prajñā would then be the teaching of the fourth period, which again contradicts your sequence of the five periods. As for Zhāotí's three teachings and two principles: this text endorses his praise of the teaching; why would it use metaphors for principle? Even as Zhāotí explains it, it would be praising other sūtras, not praising the present teaching. What Xīnghuáng says is merely the sequence of generating understanding, which again is not praising the teaching. King of the Treasury says: "Although the Buddhas possess immeasurable merits, they are still not equal to this Great Mahāparinirvāṇa." Generating understanding from teaching is not what the text praises. As for what Master Guān says about proceeding from broad to brief and being the most supreme: the text says, "Ghee is supreme; all medicinal herbs enter into it." How could breadth surpass this? Since it is broad, could it not be praised? The various masters all wish to encompass and subsume [the meaning], yet failing to notice what is right before their eyes, they lose the essential宗旨. Imitating the stride of Handan, they attain neither (and so forth). Now, relying solely on the sūtra: just as the King of the Treasury heard the Buddha speak of the sequential distinct and non-sequential perfect [teachings], where the sequential teaching can produce the merits of bodhisattvas of gradual practice, and the non-sequential teaching can produce the merits of all Buddhas. Rejoicing and leaping with joy, he praised both teachings, and the Buddha assisted his joy by endorsing and praising it in turn. If they arise in sequence, exhausting the profound and reaching the ultimate subtlety, they are praised all the more. The cow is the master of the Nirvāṇa teaching; the milk is the noble practice of moral discipline; the curd is the noble practice of meditation; the raw butter is the noble practice of the wisdom of the four truths; the clarified butter is the noble practice of the wisdom of the two truths; the ghee is the noble practice of the wisdom of the single real truth. Just as the five flavors sequentially culminate in ghee, so the five practices deepen progressively, culminating in the single reality; therefore it is said to be the most supreme and highest—this endorses his praise of the sequential teaching. If one speaks solely of real wisdom, one wisdom is all wisdom; wisdom as the dharmadhātu gathers all wisdom, not relying on a sequence. The Buddha is precisely ghee, the highest and most wonderful, and all medicinal herbs enter into it; the Tathāgata is the ghee among persons. The single real truth is the ghee of Dharma; the person of ghee expounds the Dharma of ghee. The Dharma of ghee delivers the person of ghee; person and Dharma are one and non-dual, and the intermediate dharmas are all nothing but ghee. The sequential and the single real are one and non-dual; praising the single reality of the five practices is precisely praising the five practices of the single reality. When this interpretation is made, both meanings—the sequence and the praise of the teaching—are established. If viewed in terms of the sequence of the teachings of an entire lifetime: emerging from the Buddha as the twelve divisions refers to the Avataṃsaka, for the Avataṃsaka was originally the twelve divisions. The sūtras are one of the baskets within the Tripiṭaka; because beings could not bear the great, he preached the small for them. The Vaipulya teaching refutes the small, criticizes the biased, praises the great, and extols the perfect. The Prajñā teaching has the three persons hear it together and exclusively return to the single reality, leading the small to return to the great, connecting the biased to become the perfect, and granting those dwelling in expedients who have not yet realized the small fruit permission to universally study the Mahāyāna path. The Great Mahāparinirvāṇa is the supreme, ultimate teaching; for those who already dwell in the small fruit, it rejects and abandons the three cultivations and preaches the superior permanence and bliss. If so, why does it not mention the Lotus Sūtra? The Lotus Sūtra shatters the small fruit, extinguishes the conjured city, and leads into the treasure trove, which is identical with the Nirvāṇa. Furthermore, the two myriad Dīpaṅkara Tathāgatas and Kāśyapa Tathāgatas all expounded the Lotus Sūtra as the ultimate song and did not preach Nirvāṇa. Now, this Śākyamuni manifested his traces in an evil age; it was fitting to reveal permanence and bliss under a different name. The two teachings are identically ultimate; the intention in not mentioning the Lotus lies here. Moreover, those of the earlier group whose small capacity had ripened were matured by the Lotus; those of the later group who were not yet ripe were further cleansed by Prajñā; and now they are matured by Nirvāṇa. The treatise says, "Prajñā extends to after the Lotus," which is precisely this meaning. Furthermore, praising this teaching does not contradict the teachings of an entire lifetime either. Moral discipline is the foremost of the noble practices; moreover, moral discipline broadly subsumes, as the text states, which matches the meaning of the initial illumination in the Avataṃsaka. The noble practice of meditation corresponds precisely to the basket of meditation within the sūtras. The wisdom practice of the four truths uses the three cultivations of the Great Nirvāṇa to censure the errors of the small undefiled state, which matches the reprimands of the Vaipulya. The wisdom practice of the two truths takes the real and conventional as identical, matching precisely the Mahāyāna principle that form is identical to emptiness. The wisdom practice of the single real truth is precisely the Nirvāṇa teaching. Thus it can be known that the sequence across the entire lifetime and within the single sūtra are both established, their meanings not contradicting each other. From "For this reason" onward, the third [section] concludes the praise.