俱舍論疏 1.6

1.6

四、會說不同者，問：若佛成道後，經於六月轉正法輪者，何故《出曜》、《方等大莊嚴經》云七七日，《因果》、《法華經》云三七日，《智度論》五十七日佛不說法。《方等大莊嚴經》二七日觀、二七日經行，《因果經》觀樹一七日，《法華經》觀樹行不言日也。《四分律》六七日，《五分律》八七日，《毘婆沙》四月。復有經說半年，《十二由延經》一年耶？答：自古經律論師皆云見聞異也。意說：佛在世時，隨眾生機威德不同，或見多日後轉法輪，或見少日後轉法輪。今詳不爾釋。如來八相成道，示有父母、妻子、生日、出家、成道，為五比丘轉法輪日，大小乘說理合皆同，如說經行、遠近、觀樹等事，容有異也。佛神境力入定之相事難知故。問：所以得知。答：略有五例，一舉時別故、二異本前後廣略不同、三生等日月同故、四同本前後說有異故、五傳者誤故。由上五緣，說有差別，根本事同。一、舉時別者，《四分律》六七日者，受解脫樂時。《法華經》三七日者，思惟法時。《出曜經》、《莊嚴經》七七日，《五分律》八七日等，通思惟法時。《智論》五十七日者，梵王請前。《婆沙》四月者，調五比丘根時。有經半年者，以六月故。《十二由經》一歲者，以經一夏，律及《受歲經》以夏為歲故。二、異本前後廣略不同者，律前廣後略，前別說受解脫樂、思惟法時，後略不說四月調機。《婆沙》前略不說梵王請前，後即廣說四月調機。以此二文互證，即知日數經於六月，方始說法。三、生等日月同者，以八相成道，父母、妻子、生及出家、成道等日，說皆是同，如何為五比丘轉法輪日有斯懸隔？故知根本是同，傳有廣略及有誤耳。四、同本前後說有異故者，《婆沙》一百八十二云「佛於菩提樹下三十四心得阿耨菩提，以佛眼遍觀一切世界，誰應最初聞我正法。」如前引文。准此，佛成道已即觀根機，中間略其受解脫樂，及思惟法、梵王請等，豈即無耶？故知諸本闕者亦是略也。若謂《婆沙》見聞不同，成道之後即觀機根，因何《婆沙》次下文云「彼初一人。佛成道後，若更五十七日，有餘命者應堪聞法。」此即佛成道後至觀根時五十七日，與《智論》同。又《智論》第一云「爾時菩薩捨苦行處，到菩提樹下，坐金剛座，降魔眾已，即得阿耨菩提。時梵天王等皆詣佛所，勸請世尊初轉法輪。」准此論文，即無食乳糜，即受解脫樂、思惟法時。佛成道後，即梵王請。若獨《智論》見聞異故即說無者，何故第八卷云「釋迦牟尼佛得道後，五十七日寧不說法。是時梵王等請。」諸文闕略，如第一卷略故，非見聞異也。五、傳譯誤者，如宋本《藥師》云「善信菩薩二十四戒。」唐、隋本菩薩四百戒。《正法華》六根各千二百功德，《妙法華》三根千二百、三根八百等。自餘不同，不可和會，皆如此類。根本是一，傳不同故。

Fourth, reconciling the differing accounts. Question: If after the Buddha achieved awakening, six months passed before he turned the wheel of the true Dharma, why do the Udānavarga and the Lalitavistara say forty-nine days (seven times seven days); the Sūtra on Cause and Effect and the Lotus Sūtra say twenty-one days (three times seven days); the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says that the Buddha did not preach the Dharma for fifty-seven days; the Lalitavistara states two weeks gazing [at the tree] and two weeks walking; the Sūtra on Cause and Effect states one week gazing at the tree; while the Lotus Sūtra mentions walking and gazing at the tree without stating the number of days? The Dharmaguptaka-vinaya says six weeks (six times seven days); the Mahīśāsaka-vinaya says eight weeks (eight times seven days); the Vibhāṣā says four months; furthermore, some sūtras speak of half a year; and the Dvādaśayojana-sūtra speaks of one year? Answer: From ancient times, masters of the sūtras, vinaya, and śāstras have all said that this is due to differences in what was seen and heard. Their intended meaning is: while the Buddha was in the world, in accordance with the varying faculties and awe-inspiring virtues of sentient beings, some saw the wheel of the Dharma turned after many days, while others saw it turned after few days. Now, when closely examined, this explanation is incorrect. Regarding the Tathāgata's manifestation of the eight phases of attaining awakening—manifesting parents, wife and son, the birthday, leaving home, attaining awakening, and the day he turned the wheel of the Dharma for the five monks—the accounts in the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna ought logically to be entirely the same; matters such as walking, distance, gazing at the tree, and so forth may admit of differences, because the Buddha's supernatural powers and the marks of his entering absorption are matters difficult to comprehend. Question: How is this known? Answer: Briefly, there are five cases: first, because different time periods are cited; second, because earlier and later parts in different texts differ in breadth and brevity; third, because the month and day of birth and so on are the same; fourth, because earlier and later passages within the same text state differences; and fifth, because the transmitters made errors. Owing to the above five reasons, the accounts have differences, but the fundamental matter is the same. First, regarding different time periods being cited: The forty-two days (six times seven days) in the Dharmaguptaka-vinaya refers to the period of experiencing the bliss of liberation. The twenty-one days (three times seven days) in the Lotus Sūtra refers to the period of contemplating the Dharma. The forty-nine days (seven times seven days) in the Udānavarga and Lalitavistara, the fifty-six days (eight times seven days) in the Mahīśāsaka-vinaya, and so forth, include the period of contemplating the Dharma. The fifty-seven days in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa refers to the period before Brahmā's request. The four months in the Vibhāṣā refers to the period of taming the faculties of the five monks. The half-year in certain sūtras is because of the six months. The one year in the Dvādaśayojana-sūtra is because of passing one rains retreat (varṣā), since the Vinaya and the Varṣo-pagatā-sūtra treat a rains retreat as a year. Second, regarding earlier and later parts in different texts differing in breadth and brevity: The Vinaya is extensive in the earlier part and concise in the later part; earlier it separately explains the periods of experiencing the bliss of liberation and contemplating the Dharma, but later it concisely omits the four months of taming their faculties. The Vibhāṣā is concise earlier, not speaking of the period prior to Brahmā's request, but later it extensively explains the four months of taming their faculties. By using these two texts to mutually corroborate each other, one knows that the number of days amounted to six months before he finally began to preach the Dharma. Third, regarding the month and day of birth and so on being the same: Since in the eight phases of attaining awakening, the days of his parents, wife and son, birth, leaving home, and attaining awakening are all stated to be identical, how could there be such a vast discrepancy regarding the day he turned the wheel of the Dharma for the five monks? Therefore we know that fundamentally it is the same, and the transmissions merely vary in breadth and brevity or contain errors. Fourth, regarding earlier and later passages within the same text stating differences: Fascicle 182 of the Vibhāṣā says: "The Buddha, under the Bodhi tree, with thirty-four thought-moments attained anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi; with the Buddha-eye he surveyed all realms of the world to see who ought first to hear my true Dharma," as quoted previously. According to this, as soon as the Buddha achieved awakening, he examined their faculties, concisely omitting in the interim his experiencing the bliss of liberation, contemplating the Dharma, Brahmā's request, and so on; could it be that these did not exist at all? Therefore we know that where various versions have lacunae, this is also an abridgement. If one were to say that the Vibhāṣā reflects differences in what was seen and heard, and that he examined their faculties immediately after attaining awakening, why does a subsequent passage in the Vibhāṣā say: "That first person: after the Buddha achieved awakening, if fifty-seven more days had passed and he had any remaining life, he would have been capable of hearing the Dharma"? This means that fifty-seven days elapsed from the Buddha's attainment of awakening until he examined their faculties, which is identical to the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa. Furthermore, the first fascicle of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "At that time the Bodhisattva abandoned the place of ascetic practices, went beneath the Bodhi tree, sat on the vajrāsana, and having subdued the hosts of Māra, immediately attained anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. At that time Brahmā and the others all went to the Buddha's dwelling and urged the World-Honoured One to turn the wheel of the Dharma for the first time." According to this treatise, there would be no eating of milk-rice, nor the periods of experiencing the bliss of liberation and contemplating the Dharma: immediately after the Buddha achieved awakening, Brahmā made his request. If the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa alone claimed they did not exist because of differences in what was seen and heard, why does its eighth fascicle say: "After Śākyamuni Buddha attained the Path, how could he not have preached the Dharma for fifty-seven days? At that time Brahmā and the others made their request"? Thus the omissions and abridgements in various passages are just like the brevity in the first fascicle, not differences in what was seen and heard. Fifth, regarding errors in transmission and translation: For instance, the Song version of the Bhaiṣajyaguru-sūtra speaks of "twenty-four precepts for a bodhisattva of good faith," whereas the Tang and Sui versions speak of "four hundred precepts for a bodhisattva." The Zheng fahua jing speaks of twelve hundred virtues for each of the six faculties, whereas the Miaofa lianhua jing speaks of twelve hundred for three faculties and eight hundred for three faculties, and so forth. Other differences that cannot be reconciled are all of this kind. Fundamentally they are one, and the discrepancies are due to transmission.