大般涅槃經疏 20.6

20.6

「何等為十」下，第二是歷別解釋，先徵起、次正釋，即為十章。舊分此不同。冶城為兩周：初功德不聞而聞，從淺至深，至第六功德金剛三昧為一周；第七功德又始發心，至第十功德修三十七品見佛性為一周。開善作三周：初周如前；第七第八為二周，謂從善友生即是外緣；第九第十為一周，由信心得即是因由。今謂若望《法華》明三周義，初法、次譬、後因緣，皆重說前義，故言三周。今之功德名義永異，豈同三周？今但為十。初文為三：先明五事、次論義、三結。初文又三：先標五章、次列、三別解。舊明五事為三慧：初一聞慧、次一思慧、後三是修慧。有云：初兩是聞思二慧，中間二是聞思功用，後一是修慧。興皇以初一是本，後四相成，由聞得益，益故斷疑，疑除故直，直故知祕。今明不然。三慧似道，此文明證，修大涅槃得十功德，真證炳然。尚不得以別真道釋，何用小共似道釋之？去文逾遠。興皇以五法相由。是亦不然，夫入證在懷，非復前後說非行時，何況證時猶在次第。文明證得而作修解，文明不共而作共解，文明不聞聞而作從他聞解，文明不思議作思議解，文明祕密作顯露解，文明圓備作偏缺解，文明驚怪作尋常解，文明無差作差別解，文明中道作邊窮解。若依文者，無十過失，不知何故拒抗佛經（云云）？私諮後學，請觀初德五法之文，不聞而聞猶參因相，聞已利益等四全是果上之名。初既多立果名，餘九縱似修因，亦是正中之行。章安置多少之言，意亦如是，乃至細尋九句之文，皆悉順於若修若證。故知凡諸釋經，若尋文取義、若依義判文，不然則罔象消文，必招眾失。三解五法，文自為五。初釋不聞聞為三：標、釋、結。標不聞聞者，乃是圓證妙悟，發解稱聞，非他邊領。若從他聞，即是聞聞，何得是不聞聞？

From "What are the ten?" downwards is the second [major division], which is the section-by-section explanation. First [the question] is raised, and next comes the main explanation, forming ten chapters. The older masters differed in dividing this. [Master] Yěchéng made it into two cycles: the first virtue is hearing what has not been heard, going from shallow to deep, with the sixth virtue, the vajrasamādhi, constituting one cycle; the seventh virtue begins with generating the mind anew, up to the tenth virtue, which is practicing the thirty-seven factors [of awakening] and seeing the buddhadhātu, constituting another cycle. Kāishàn made it into three cycles: the first cycle is as before; the seventh and eighth form the second cycle, meaning that arising from a good friend is the external condition; the ninth and tenth form the third cycle, meaning that obtaining through faith is the cause. We now say: if we look at the meaning of the three cycles explained in the Lotus Sūtra—first the Dharma, next the parables, and later the causes and conditions, all repeating the earlier meaning, hence called three cycles—here the names and meanings of the virtues are perpetually different, so how could they be like the three cycles? We take them simply as ten [distinct virtues]. The initial passage has three parts: first, clarifying the five matters; next, debating their meanings; third, the conclusion. The initial passage also has three parts: first, listing the five headings; next, enumerating them; third, the detailed explanation. The older masters explained the five matters as the three wisdoms: the first is the wisdom of hearing, the second is the wisdom of contemplation, and the latter three are the wisdom of cultivation. Some say: the first two are the two wisdoms of hearing and contemplation, the middle two are the functions of hearing and contemplation, and the last one is the wisdom of cultivation. [Master] Xīnghuáng took the first one as the root and the latter four as mutually completing it: through hearing, benefit is gained; due to benefit, doubts are severed; because doubts are eliminated, [the mind] becomes upright; because it is upright, it knows the secret. We now clarify that this is not so. The three wisdoms belong to the semblance path, whereas this text clearly discusses realization: by cultivating the great nirvāṇa, one gains the ten virtues, and the true realization is brilliantly clear. One cannot even explain it using the separate, true path, so why explain it using the semblance path shared with the lesser [vehicle]? That departs even further from the text. Xīnghuáng took the five dharmas as depending on one another in succession; this too is not so. Now, when entering realization in the mind, it is no longer a matter of before and after, nor of a time of non-practice, let alone still having a sequence at the time of realization! Where the text clearly speaks of realization, they interpret it as cultivation; where the text clearly speaks of the unshared, they interpret it as shared; where the text clearly speaks of hearing what was unheard, they interpret it as hearing from another; where the text clearly speaks of the inconceivable, they interpret it as conceivable; where the text clearly speaks of the secret, they interpret it as manifest; where the text clearly speaks of the complete and consummate, they interpret it as partial and deficient; where the text clearly speaks of astonishment and wonder, they interpret it as ordinary; where the text clearly speaks of non-differentiation, they interpret it as differentiated; where the text clearly speaks of the middle way, they interpret it as the exhaustion of the extremes. If one relies on the text, there are not these ten faults; one does not know why they resist the Buddhist sūtra (and so on). I privately inquire of later scholars: please look at the text of the five dharmas of the first virtue. "Hearing what has not been heard" still partakes somewhat of the mark of the cause, but the four beginning with "having heard, one attains benefit" are entirely terms belonging to the fruit. Since the first predominantly establishes names of the fruit, even if the remaining nine resemble cultivating causes, they are nonetheless practices within the central [realization]. When Zhāng'ān laid down the words about "more and less," his intention was also like this, up to a close examination of the text of the nine lines, which all accord with both cultivation and realization. Therefore we know: in all commentaries on sūtras, whether one examines the text to draw out the meaning, or determines the text based on the meaning, if it is otherwise, then one will vaguely interpret the text and inevitably incur many errors. The detailed explanation of the five dharmas itself comprises five parts. The initial explanation of "hearing what has not been heard" has three parts: the presentation, the explanation, and the conclusion. Presenting "hearing what has not been heard" refers to the marvelous awakening of perfect realization; giving rise to understanding is called "hearing," not receiving it from another. If it were hearing from another, that would be hearing what is heard—how could it be hearing what has not been heard?