[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) › [三彌勒經疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1774) › 1.46 # 三彌勒經疏 1.46 三彌勒經疏 1.46 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.46](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1774.1.46) 問：若見弗沙佛時在僧祇位，云何得云歎弗沙佛故修相好業中超九劫？答：縮時節相融為論也。文備師云：「釋迦菩薩後乃發心，而逢本師釋迦時超十九劫，雪山童子時超十二劫，歎弗沙佛時超九劫，證果時與彌勒在同劫成道。」引證會文皆同秦說也。雖有三說，皆不盡理。謂基師有何失？經俱言身投飢虎前，而不言超十一劫故。又摩納仙人布髮時，但言得授記，而不言超八劫。是故此二說皆義無可准。爾所超故，唯有虛語也。秦解有何失？且彼言弗沙佛後有四大劫中佛出世，第三劫佛不生。若既如是者，既言弗沙佛沒亦更逢見真理佛，云何可說弗沙佛是第三僧祇最後佛？最後佛語，必表更無後故。又藏論云「毘婆尸佛百大劫始佛，後說弗沙佛故。」明知弗沙佛第三僧祇最後佛，非也。備師何失？經但云逢本師釋迦發種種願，而未曾說超十九劫，是故唯有虛語也。又總難諸師解有二失：一宗趣乘別失。謂諸師皆言：歎弗沙佛故超修相好業百大劫故，是小乘經說。三僧祇後更百劫修相好業，而大乘必無此義。若不爾，便違《智度論》廣破百劫修相好業故。又《優婆塞戒經》云「始從燃燈佛終至迦葉，名第三僧祇滿」故。既爾，云何與小乘其同？二聖教不通失。謂尋拾諸經，釋迦超劫非唯三四時。故《增一經》第三十一云「彌勒菩薩應三十劫當成無上正覺。我以精進力，超越成佛。」《智光仙人經》云「我為求法不惜身命，投於火坑以身供養故，便得超九百萬億劫生死罪，彌勒先成佛道。」如是等諸經，皆說釋迦由精進力超多劫，先於彌勒得成正覺。若如前三說，云何唯超三十劫二菩薩在一劫成道？是故今更作一解，謂釋迦發心，後於彌勒其過四十餘劫。若不爾，釋迦以精進力超多劫故，莊嚴劫中應成菩提。然《佛本行經》云「三十劫者約大劫數」，若兼小劫通此故。《彌勒所問經》等，諸小劫積數為語，故說四十二劫。二劫即應小劫故。《起塔因緣經》身投飢虎越九劫。《增一經》超三十劫。《智光經》、《大集經》、《悲華經》等都無劫數，不可輒定。待慈氏身可決疑納也。謂諸經由精進力超多劫故，離不通聖教失；歎弗沙佛超第三劫行故，無不別宗趣失也。大聖善權應機非一，不可如言取義為定量，是故《悲華經》第一云「彌勒！汝於過去十大劫，若欲成無上菩提者，汝速成無上菩提、入無餘涅槃。彌勒！汝久住生死，以本願故，所以不成以待時。」《彌勒所問經》云「菩薩以四事不取正覺：一淨國土、二護國土、三淨一切、四護一切。彌勒求佛時，以此四事故不取佛。」《佛地論》云「是故如來底沙佛時曾與慈氏同為弟子，佛觀釋迦所化有情善根先熟、慈氏所化有情善根後熟，又觀慈氏因行先滿、釋迦後滿，遂於一處入火光定令釋迦見，七日七夜不下一足、一頌讚歎，令超慈氏在前成佛」。 > Question: If the time he saw Puṣya Buddha was at the stage of the asaṃkhyeyas, how can it be said that because he praised Puṣya Buddha, he leaped over nine kalpas during the cultivation of the karma of the marks and characteristics? Answer: It is argued by condensing the time periods and harmonizing them. Master Wenbei says: "Śākyamuni Bodhisattva generated the mind later, but when encountering his fundamental teacher Śākyamuni, he leaped over nineteen kalpas; at the time of the Snowy Mountains Youth, he leaped over twelve kalpas; at the time of praising Puṣya Buddha, he leaped over nine kalpas; and when realizing the fruit, he attained the Path in the same kalpa as Maitreya." The citations of proof and harmonization of texts are all the same as Master Qin's explanation. Although there are three explanations, none of them exhausts the principle. What is Master Ji's error? The sūtras all say that he threw his body before a hungry tigress, but do not say that he leaped over eleven kalpas. Furthermore, when the ṛṣi Māṇava spread his hair, they only say that he received the prophecy, but do not say that he leaped over eight kalpas. Therefore, these two explanations have nothing to be verified in meaning. Because of leaps of that kind, these are merely empty words. What is the error in Master Qin's interpretation? Moreover, he says that after Puṣya Buddha, Buddhas appeared in four great kalpas, and in the third kalpa no Buddha appeared. If it is already like this, since it is said that after Puṣya Buddha passed away he also further encountered the Buddha Jianzhenli, how could it be said that Puṣya Buddha was the last Buddha of the third asaṃkhyeya? The phrase "the last Buddha" necessarily indicates that there is none after him. Furthermore, the Piṭaka treatises say: "Vipaśyin Buddha was the first Buddha of the hundred great kalpas, and afterwards they spoke of Puṣya Buddha." Thus we clearly know that \[the claim that\] Puṣya Buddha was the last Buddha of the third asaṃkhyeya is incorrect. What is Master Bei's error? The sūtras only say that encountering his fundamental teacher Śākyamuni he made various vows, but never said that he leaped over nineteen kalpas; therefore, these are merely empty words. Moreover, generally refuting the explanations of these masters, there are two errors: First, the error of failing to distinguish between doctrinal tenets and vehicles. That is, the masters all say that because he praised Puṣya Buddha he leaped over the one hundred great kalpas of cultivating the karma of the marks and characteristics, which is an exposition of the Hīnayāna sūtras. That after the three asaṃkhyeyas one further cultivates the karma of the marks and characteristics for one hundred kalpas definitely does not exist as a principle in the Mahāyāna. If it were not so, it would contradict the \*Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa\*'s extensive refutation of cultivating the karma of the marks and characteristics for one hundred kalpas. Furthermore, the \*Upāsakaśīla Sūtra\* says: "Beginning from Dīpaṃkara Buddha and ending with Kāśyapa is called the completion of the third asaṃkhyeya." Since it is so, how could it be identical with the Hīnayāna? Second, the error of failing to harmonize the holy teachings. That is, if one searches the various sūtras, Śākyamuni's leaping over kalpas was not merely at three or four times. Thus the thirty-first fascicle of the \*Ekottarika Āgama\* says: "Maitreya Bodhisattva should have attained unsurpassable right awakening in thirty kalpas. Through the power of my vigorous exertion, I leaped over \[him\] and accomplished Buddhahood." The \*Jñānaprabhā-ṛṣi Sūtra\* says: "Because for the sake of seeking the Dharma I did not spare my body and life, threw myself into a fire pit and made an offering of my body, I was able to leap over nine hundred thousand koṭis of kalpas of sins of saṃsāra, and become a Buddha before Maitreya." Various sūtras like these all say that Śākyamuni, through the power of vigorous exertion, leaped over many kalpas and attained right awakening before Maitreya. If it were as in the former three explanations, how could it be that by leaping over only thirty kalpas, the two bodhisattvas attained the Path in the same kalpa? Therefore, now we make another explanation: Śākyamuni's generation of the mind was more than forty kalpas later than Maitreya's. If not so, because Śākyamuni leaped over many kalpas through the power of vigorous exertion, he should have accomplished bodhi in the Vyūhakalpa. However, the \*Buddhacarita-sūtra\* says: "Thirty kalpas refers to the number of great kalpas"; if one combines small kalpas, this is harmonized. Sūtras such as the \*Maitreya-paripṛcchā-sūtra\* speak in terms of the accumulated count of various small kalpas, and therefore speak of forty-two kalpas. Two kalpas correspond to small kalpas. The \*Sūtra on the Causes and Conditions of Erecting Stūpas\* says he threw his body before a hungry tigress and leaped over nine kalpas. The \*Ekottarika Āgama\* says he leaped over thirty kalpas. The \*Jñānaprabhā Sūtra\*, the \*Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra\*, the \*Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka Sūtra\*, and others do not mention the number of kalpas at all, so it cannot be rashly determined. Awaiting the person of Maitreya himself, doubts may be resolved and accepted. Saying that through the power of vigorous exertion in the various sūtras he leaped over many kalpas avoids the error of failing to harmonize the holy teachings; saying that by praising Puṣya Buddha he leaped over the practice of the third kalpa avoids the error of failing to distinguish doctrinal tenets. The Great Sage's skillful means in responding to capacities are not singular; one cannot take the meaning according to the literal words as the definitive standard. Therefore, the first fascicle of the \*Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka Sūtra\* says: "Maitreya! In the past ten great kalpas, if you had wished to accomplish unsurpassable bodhi, you would have swiftly accomplished unsurpassable bodhi and entered nirvāṇa without remainder. Maitreya! You have long abided in saṃsāra because of your fundamental vow; you did not accomplish it because you were awaiting the time." The \*Maitreya-paripṛcchā-sūtra\* says: "Bodhisattvas do not seize right awakening on account of four matters: first, purifying the land; second, protecting the land; third, purifying everything; fourth, protecting everything. When Maitreya sought Buddhahood, on account of these four matters he did not seize Buddhahood." The \*Buddhabhūmyupadeśa\* says: "Therefore, at the time of Tiṣya Buddha, the Tathāgata was once a fellow disciple with Maitreya. The Buddha observed that the wholesome roots of the sentient beings to be converted by Śākyamuni would ripen first, while the wholesome roots of the sentient beings to be converted by Maitreya would ripen later; he also observed that Maitreya's causal practices would be completed first, while Śākyamuni's would be completed later. Thereupon, in one place he entered the fire-light samādhi, causing Śākyamuni to see it; for seven days and seven nights without putting down his foot, praising him with one verse, he caused him to leap over Maitreya and accomplish Buddhahood before him." > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.45](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1774.1.45) - [Next: 1.47](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1774.1.47) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1774.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1774~en-mt.1.46) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [佛地經論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.sanskrit.mahayanasutra.dharma.buddhabhumisutra!buddhabhumisutrasastra*zh-xuanzang.7.57) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1774.1.46](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1774.1.46) · Pramāṇa