[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) › [金光明經玄義](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1783) › 2.28 # 金光明經玄義 2.28 金光明經玄義 2.28 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.28](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1783.2.28) 第五、判教相者。舊明此經非會三、非褒貶、非無相、不列同聞眾，不在五時次第而明常住者，是偏方不定教。是義不然。若不列同聞非次第者，列同聞眾應是次第。《鴦掘摩羅》列同聞，與眾經不異。論褒貶，與《維摩》意同。論家何故不預次第？若列眾不列眾皆非次第者，亦應列眾不列眾俱是次第（云云）。若言未應明常而明常是偏方不定者，《陀羅尼》云「王舍城、波羅奈、祇陀林三處，與聲聞記。」此亦是未應會三而會三，得為次第；未應明常而明常，何故不定耶？又《法華》、《般若》、《淨名》方等，咸論常住，得是次第。此經明常，獨居不定，何耶？又一師言：此經與《法華》同，是第四時，山斤海滴與塵沙義齊故。是義不然。新本云「舍利繫縛色。如來常住身，無有舍利事。」何得山海而翳金光、塵沙而蔽寶所？真諦三藏云：此經是法華之後、涅槃之前九十日說。引《涅槃》云「佛告波旬：『却後三月吾當涅槃。』」信相聞斯，故知八十應滅。是義亦不然。唱滅之旨非獨告魔定在三月。《法華》云「如來不久當般涅槃」，《普賢觀》亦云「當般涅槃」。諸經唱滅非但一文，何必九十日耶。縱令三月，為屬第四時、為屬第五時？若屬第四時，法華已捨方便，此中何得更許三乘同懺？若屬第五時，何得復言在前三月。進退無據，兩楹不攝（云云）。今既不同舊，若為判教？若安無相而時異，若入會三而未別案。下文云「曾聞過去空閑之處，有一比丘，讀誦如是方等大乘。」既言方等，豈非文耶？方等之教通於三乘。新本云「欲生人天、欲得四果支佛、欲得佛，皆應懺悔滅除業障。」安處方等，其義無疑。而難者言：新本云「法界無異乘」，此害於通義。然方等滿字，通別通圓，此旨非妨。難者以不列同聞為疑。胡本尚多，何必止四卷七軸，或其文未度爾。如此斟酌，五味明義，則第三生酥攝。若四藏明義，則雜藏攝。四教明義，則通教攝。通教之中，即得論帶別明圓也。 > Fifth, determining the doctrinal characteristics. The old \[masters\] explained: this sūtra does not converge the three \[vehicles\], does not praise \[the Great\] and disparage \[the Small\], does not \[expound\] marklessness, and does not list the assembly of common hearers; since it clarifies permanence without fitting into the sequence of the five periods, it is an indeterminate teaching of a particular region. This meaning is not so. If not listing the common hearers means it is out of sequence, then listing the assembly of common hearers ought to mean it is in sequence. The \*Aṅgulimālīya-sūtra\* lists the common hearers, no different from the other sūtras. As for praising and disparaging, its intent is identical with the \*Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa\*. Why did the treatise masters not include it in the sequence? If both listing the assembly and not listing the assembly mean it is not in sequence, then both listing the assembly and not listing the assembly ought also to mean it is in sequence (and so forth). If one says that clarifying permanence when permanence should not yet be clarified makes it an indeterminate teaching of a particular region, the \*Dhāraṇī\[-sūtra\]\* states, 'In three places—Rājagṛha, Vārāṇasī, and the Jetavana—\[the Buddha\] bestowed predictions upon the śrāvakas.' This is also converging the three when the three should not yet be converged, yet it is allowed to be within the sequence; why then is clarifying permanence when permanence should not yet be clarified deemed indeterminate? Furthermore, the \*Lotus\*, the \*Prajñāpāramitā\*, the \*Vimalakīrti\*, and the vaipulya \[sūtras\] all discuss permanence, and they are allowed to be in the sequence. Why should this sūtra alone, in clarifying permanence, reside in the indeterminate? Moreover, one master says: this sūtra is identical to the \*Lotus\*, belonging to the fourth period, because \[its metaphors of\] the weight of mountains and drops of the sea are equal in meaning to the sands of the Ganges. This meaning is not so. The new translation states, 'Relics are bound to form. The Tathāgata's permanently abiding body has nothing to do with relics.' How could mountains and oceans overshadow the golden light, or sand and dust obscure the treasure house? Tripiṭaka Master Paramārtha said: this sūtra was preached ninety days after the \*Lotus\* and before the \*Nirvāṇa\*. He cited the \*Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra\*: 'The Buddha told Māra: "After three months I shall enter nirvāṇa."' Ruciraketu heard this and thus knew that \[the Buddha\] should enter extinction at eighty. This meaning is also not so. The proclamation of extinction was not exclusively told to Māra as definitively occurring in three months. The \*Lotus\* states, 'The Tathāgata before long shall enter parinirvāṇa,' and the \*Contemplation of Samantabhadra\* also states, 'He shall enter parinirvāṇa.' The proclamation of extinction across various sūtras is not limited to a single passage; why must it be ninety days? Even granting it were three months, would it belong to the fourth period or the fifth period? If it belonged to the fourth period, since the \*Lotus\* had already discarded expedient means, how could the three vehicles still be permitted here to repent together? If it belonged to the fifth period, how could it again be said to be three months before? Advancing or retreating, it lacks grounds, fitting neither of the two pillars (and so forth). Now, since we differ from the old \[views\], how are the doctrinal characteristics to be determined? If we place it in marklessness, the period differs; if we include it in converging the three, it has not yet distinguished them. A lower passage states, 'I once heard that in a tranquil place in the past, there was a monk who recited such vaipulya Mahāyāna.' Since it says 'vaipulya', how is that not the text \[itself\]? The teaching of the vaipulya is shared by the three vehicles. The new translation states, 'Those who wish to be born as humans or devas, those who wish to attain the four fruits or pratyekabuddhahood, and those who wish to attain buddhahood, all should repent and eradicate karmic obstacles.' Placing it within the vaipulya leaves its meaning beyond doubt. Yet challengers object: the new translation states, 'In the dharma realm there are no different vehicles,' which undermines the shared meaning. However, the complete-letter \[doctrine\] of the vaipulya connects to the distinct and connects to the perfect; this purport presents no obstacle. Challengers raise doubts because it does not list the common hearers. The Indic manuscripts are still numerous; why must it be limited to four scrolls or seven fascicles? Perhaps those passages have merely not yet been translated. Deliberating in this way, if we clarify its meaning by the five flavors, it is subsumed under the third, raw curd. If we clarify its meaning by the four canons, it is subsumed under the miscellaneous canon. If we clarify its meaning by the four teachings, it is subsumed under the shared teaching. Within the shared teaching, it is also admissible to discuss its carrying along the distinct to clarify the perfect. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.27](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1783.2.27) - [Next: 2.29](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1783.2.29) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1783.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1783~en-mt.2.28) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1783.2.28](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1783.2.28) · Pramāṇa