俱舍論疏 1.13

1.13

五、此論緣起者，世親菩薩，健馱羅國人也。先於一切有部出家，因即受持彼部三藏。後學經部，將為當理，於有部義時懷取捨。菩薩更欲往迦濕彌羅國，研檄有部考定是非，恐彼諸師情懷忌憚，遂改本名潛往尋究。時經四載，有部三藏文義無遺，數以經部異義難破有宗。時有羅漢名塞建陀，唐言悟入，即是眾賢之本師也。此阿羅漢頻被詰問，怪其神異，遂入定觀，知是世親。密告之曰：「此部眾中有未離欲者，恐當致害。長老！可速還本國耳。」因即歸還，制此論頌，使人齎往迦濕彌羅國。時彼國王及諸僧眾聞皆歡喜，嚴幢幡等出境而迎，摽頌於香象，前後引從，至國尋讀。咸誦世親弘我宗義。時彼悟入告眾言曰：「此非專弘有部宗也。頌置傳說，似為不信。如其不爾，請釋即知。」於是國王及諸僧眾發使往請。菩薩奉珠珍，論主受請為釋本文，凡八千頌，還使寄往。果如悟入之所言也。世親論主意無朋執，依第一時制造此論，同第一時。依第二時造《般若論》說諸法皆空，同第二時意。依第三時釋《攝論》等，旨趣同其《解深密》意。依第四時述《法華論》。明二乘無滅。與前三教別。依《如來藏》、《無上依經》等諸大乘經述《佛性論》，會經中說一分決定無涅槃法，以為不了。依《涅槃經》造《涅槃論》云「《法華》前經總為一教，云以生死度眾生為船。《法華經》為一教，以萬行為船。《涅槃經》為一教，以無生滅為船。」依前後教述六種論，隨經義別而無朋執。此論既依四諦，旨歸同於初說。三乘實滅，識唯有六，心外有境。就初法輪分二十部，此論多據《婆沙》以制頌，長行中唯以理勝為宗，非偏一部，然於中間多以經量為正義也。又正理破此名《俱舍雹》，眾賢論師欲定宗趣，菩薩能仁避而不對。眾賢寄盡謝過，并附《俱舍雹》屈菩薩，評定云：若其無理，請便火焚。若有行當，願為流傳。論主披檢將為有理，改《俱舍雹》名《順正理》。准此，菩薩豈有偏執？故知此中理長為是，非定一宗。

Fifth, the circumstances of the origin of this treatise: Bodhisattva Vasubandhu was a native of the country of Gandhāra. He initially went forth in the Sarvāstivāda school and accordingly received and upheld that school's Tripiṭaka. Later he studied the Sautrāntika, took it to be in accord with reason, and repeatedly felt hesitation over accepting or rejecting the Sarvāstivāda tenets. Wishing further to travel to the country of Kaśmīra to investigate the Sarvāstivāda and examine the right and wrong, the Bodhisattva feared that those masters would harbor suspicion and wariness, so he changed his original name and went covertly to investigate. After four years had passed, there was nothing lacking in his grasp of the text and meaning of the Sarvāstivāda Tripiṭaka, and he frequently used the divergent tenets of the Sautrāntika to challenge and refute the Sarvāstivāda tenets. At that time there was an arhat named Skandhila (rendered into Chinese as 'Awakened Entry' [Wuru]), who was the original teacher of Saṅghabhadra. Having been repeatedly questioned by him and marveling at his extraordinary brilliance, this arhat entered samādhi to observe and knew that it was Vasubandhu. He secretly warned him, saying: "Among the assembly of this school there are those who have not yet abandoned desire; I fear they may cause you harm. Elder, you should quickly return to your native country." Thereupon he returned home and composed the verses of this treatise, dispatching an envoy to carry them to the country of Kaśmīra. At that time, hearing of this, the king of that country and the saṅgha were all rejoiced; they adorned banners and pennants, went outside the borders to welcome them, placed the verses upon a fragrant elephant, and with escorts before and behind, brought them into the country to read and study. All recited: "Vasubandhu is propagating our school's tenets!" At that time, that [Arhat] Skandhila addressed the assembly, saying: "This does not solely propagate the tenets of the Sarvāstivāda school. Where the verses insert 'it is said' (kila), it seems he does not believe it. If this is not so, request an explanation and you will know." Thereupon the king and the saṅgha dispatched an envoy to make the request. The Bodhisattva was presented with precious jewels; the Treatise Master accepted the invitation and composed a commentary on the root text totaling eight thousand verses, and sent it back with the envoy. It indeed turned out just as Skandhila had said. Treatise Master Vasubandhu had no partisan attachments in mind. Relying on the first period, he composed this treatise, concurring with the first period. Relying on the second period, he composed the Prajñā-śāstra, stating that all dharmas are empty, concurring with the intent of the second period. Relying on the third period, he commented on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and so forth, its import concurring with the intent of the Saṃdhinirmocana. Relying on the fourth period, he expounded the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa, clarifying that the two vehicles do not have extinction, which is distinct from the preceding three teachings. Relying on Mahāyāna scriptures such as the Tathāgatagarbha and the Anūnatvāpūrṇatvanirdeśa, he expounded the Buddha-Nature Treatise, harmonizing the scriptural statement that a segment of beings definitely lack the dharma of nirvāṇa, taking it to be provisional. Relying on the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, he composed the Nirvāṇa-śāstra, stating: "The scriptures prior to the Lotus Sūtra collectively form one teaching, saying that crossing sentient beings over saṃsāra serves as the boat; the Lotus Sūtra forms one teaching, taking the myriad practices as the boat; the Nirvāṇa-sūtra forms one teaching, taking non-arising and non-ceasing as the boat." Relying on the earlier and later teachings, he expounded six kinds of treatises, following the differences of scriptural meaning without partisan attachment. Since this treatise relies on the four truths, its doctrinal orientation concurs with the initial teaching: the three vehicles attain actual extinction, consciousness is only sixfold, and there are external objects outside of mind. Following the initial turning of the wheel of Dharma, twenty schools divided. This treatise mostly relies on the Vibhāṣā to compose its verses, but in the prose commentary it takes solely what is superior in reason as its doctrine, without bias toward any single school; yet in the middle, it mostly takes the Sautrāntika as the correct tenet. Furthermore, the Nyāyānusāra refuted this, calling it 'Kośa Hailstones'. Treatise Master Saṅghabhadra wished to determine their doctrinal tenets, but the Bodhisattva Muni avoided meeting him. Saṅghabhadra sent his final words apologizing for his faults, and attached the 'Kośa Hailstones', deferring to the Bodhisattva to appraise it, saying: "If it is without reason, please burn it with fire; if it is worthy of implementation, may you circulate it." The Treatise Master examined it, considered it to possess reason, and changed the name 'Kośa Hailstones' to 'Nyāyānusāra' (Conforming to the Correct Principle). Judging by this, how could the Bodhisattva have had any biased attachment? Hence we know that herein, whatever has superior reason is accepted as correct, rather than fixing upon any single school.