金光明經玄義 2.28

2.28

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.