俱舍論疏 1.7

1.7

二、學行次第者，一切萬行以聞法近善知識為初。《涅槃》二十五云「一切眾生以聽法因緣，得近大涅槃。一切眾生以聽法故，則具信根。得信根故，樂行布施、戒、忍、精進、禪定、智慧，得須隨洹果乃至佛果。是故當知，得諸善法皆是聽法因緣力故。」又云「信心因于聽法，聽法因于信心。如是二法亦因亦因因，亦果亦果果。」又《正理》五十八云「初業地中所習行儀極為繁廣，欲通解者，當於眾生所集觀行諸論中求。以要言之，初修行者應於解脫具深意樂，觀涅槃德、背生死過。先應方便親近善友，善友能為眾行本故。具聞等力，得善友名譬如良醫。」乃至廣說。又四預流支，一親近善友、二聽聞正法、三如理作意、四法隨法行。如是等文諸經皆有，聞而不信，猶勝不聞。故《法華》云「時若法眾聞不輕言：汝當作佛。雖謗不信，墮於地獄。以是因緣，值無量佛，後遇不輕皆發大心。」就三乘法中，皆須先學小乘有教，後乃可學大乘空教。所以得知，有多文證故。一、《十輪經》第六云「善男子！若諸眾生，於聲聞乘法、獨覺乘法，未作劬勞正勤修學。如是眾生根機下劣、精進微少，若有為說微妙甚深大乘正法，說聽二人俱獲大罪，亦為違逆一切諸佛。所以者何？若諸眾生，於聲聞乘、獨覺乘法未作劬勞，乃至而聽受大乘正法。如是眾生實是愚癡，自謂聰叡。乃至如是眾生所有罪報，皆為未求聽習聲聞、獨覺乘法，先求聽習大乘正法。如是愚癡斷滅論者下劣人身尚難可得，說當能成賢聖法器。乃至如是眾生所有過失，皆由未學聲聞、獨覺乘法，先入大乘。」二、《解深密》第二云「我為未種善根、未清淨障、未成就相續、未多修勝解、未積習福德智慧二種資糧，依生死自性定說諸法。彼聞隨分解了無常無恒等，令種善根等。」此指第一時小乘教已。「若已種善根，乃至已積習福德智慧資糧等，又依三種無自性性，說一切法皆無自性，依相無自性性等說一切法無生滅等。」此指第二時大乘教也。又下文云「若有眾生已積習上品善根，乃至上品福德智慧二種資糧，聞我善說無生滅等法中，信是佛說，善知取捨，即能速證無上菩提。若修下品五事，聞我此說，信是佛說，得無量功德。生自見取，謂一切法皆無生無滅，本來寂靜自性涅槃等。生自見取故，退失無量智慧。若不修五事，聞我此說，生大業障，誹謗不信。」准此經文，由聞有教修行五事，由有五事能信大乘。若不修五事即謗不信，故知亦定須先學小乘、後學大乘，由斯諸佛出世先說小乘、後說大乘。三、《大般若》四百六十五〈遍學品〉云「善現！若不遍學聲聞乘法、獨覺乘法，終不能得菩薩見道。」四、《涅槃經》云「譬如長者唯有一子，幼小未堪，且教半字，後漸長大方教滿字。」五、《菩薩戒本》云「菩薩受學菩薩戒者，若學小不學大，是犯、非染污；學大不學小，是犯亦染污。」六、《法華經》、《大智度論》、《四分律》等，皆云「眾生不堪聞大乘故，不如默然入於涅槃。因梵天王請，先說小乘。」准此等文，故知欲學大法須先學小乘法也。今詳，經說先學小乘後學大乘，略有四意：一、大乘深妙難信，即生謗故。《法華經》云「若但讚佛乘，眾生沒在苦，謗法不信故，墮於三惡道。」二、生斷滅見故。《十輪經》云「若諸眾生於聲聞乘、獨覺法乘，未作劬勞正勤修學，根機未熟、根機下劣、精進微少，而便聽受微妙深甚大乘正法。如是眾生實是愚癡，自謂聰叡，陷斷滅邊，墮顛狂想，執無因論。」三、不學小乘唯學大乘。自謂學大乘者，於聲聞乘若人及法輕毀誹謗，招大苦報。故《十輪》云「或小聽受無上乘法，便於諸佛共所護持聲聞乘法、獨覺乘法，誹謗毀呰、障蔽隱沒不令流布，為求名利唱如是言：『我是大乘、是大乘黨，唯樂聽習受持大乘，不樂聲聞、獨覺乘法，亦不親近學二乘人。』如是詐稱大乘人等，由自愚癡憍慢勢力，乃至修學二乘法人誹謗毀辱令無威勢。」又云「若於三乘隨輕毀一品至一頌，不應親近或與交遊、或共住止、或同事業；若有親近或與交遊，及共住止、或同事業，俱定當墮無間地獄，乃至受大苦惱難有出期。何以故？善男子！我於過去修菩薩行，精勤求證無上智時，或為求請聲聞乘法下至一頌，乃至棄捨自身手足、血肉皮骨、頭目髓腦（餘二亦爾）。」四、若不先學有教精習善根等，即當多諸障難不能信解。問曰：若爾，何故諸大乘經，多分毀學小乘，讚學大乘是究竟行？答：《十輪經》自會釋云「是故三乘皆應修學，不應憍傲妄號大乘，謗毀聲聞、獨覺乘法。我先唯為大乘法器堅修行者說如是言，唯修大乘法能得究竟。是故今昔說不相違。」《梵網經》等皆准此會釋。若爾，豈無大乘種姓，不假積習、唯聞大乘而能信解？答：三乘種姓要因先習善根，無有法爾本性三乘差別。故《優婆塞戒經》第一云「不以性故名為菩薩。眾生有界名為欲心，心如是欲善業因緣、發菩提心，名菩薩姓。」如是等文非唯一二。又小乘法有二：一小乘法，謂說有教苦、空、無常及緣起等。二者發小乘心，此說依其有教積習善根，方能信大；不說先發二乘心，後方學大乘。不發二乘心發大乘心者，雖學小乘，不名不定，名菩薩性。今應反難。若爾，不因遇緣積習善根方能信大，遇說而能生其信者，先佛應已度盡，何為至今猶有般涅槃性者墮三惡道？而論中說地獄成就三無漏根？問：有立云若有法爾涅槃種姓及一乘根機等，即有異相，謂性自然於厭生死、愛樂涅槃，薄小煩惱，不行麁惡斷善根等。廣翻無性之相，此說為是為非？答：此說非也。問：所以得知？答：違理、教故。言違理者，無始已來能厭生死、愛樂涅槃，薄少煩惱、不行麁惡，漸漸熏修，並應先已般涅槃界，時無始故。因何《莊嚴論》說「一向行惡並斷善根，善因不具，名時邊無性。」今猶有也。又若有本性即有印相者，普斷善根一向行惡，與無種姓相有何別，而知是菩薩及一乘人？言違文者，《善戒經》、《瑜伽論》、《地持》等言「菩薩細性無因而得」，共許此是菩薩本性。經論之中唯有二印相：一細性印相、二具二性相。細性印相唯佛能知，如何凡夫輒說相別，具二種性有六印相，一切眾生知。凡可知相非本相，如何有相可知是本性相？又《瓔珞經》云「善財王子等，六住已前退斷善根，墮無間獄，無惡不造。」此等何相知是菩薩？又《唯識論》等，皆云《瑜伽》五十二真如所緣緣種，是菩薩本性。《瑜伽論》云「一切皆有真如所緣緣。」以皆有故，就障分性。因既平等，相云何異？故知就人說相有無不同，定非本性。若言法爾無性有相可知，除〈聲聞地〉，有何文證？今時能信大乘法者，皆是先世曾種善根。故《般若》云「若於此經生一念淨信者，當知是人不於一佛二佛、三四五佛所種諸善根，已於無量千萬佛所種諸善根。」唯上所明，此論彼機通其五性，一切萬行之根本故。

Second, concerning the sequence of study and practice: among all myriad practices, listening to the Dharma and drawing near to good spiritual friends are the very beginning. Fascicle twenty-five of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] states: "It is by the cause and condition of listening to the Dharma that all sentient beings are able to draw near to great nirvāṇa. Because all sentient beings listen to the Dharma, they are endowed with the faculty of faith. Because they obtain the faculty of faith, they delight in practicing giving, morality, patience, vigor, dhyāna, and wisdom, and attain the fruit of srotāpanna up to the fruit of Buddhahood. Therefore, one should know that attaining all wholesome dharmas is entirely due to the power of the causes and conditions of listening to the Dharma." It also states: "Faith has its cause in listening to the Dharma; listening to the Dharma has its cause in faith. Such two dharmas are both cause and the cause of a cause, both fruit and the fruit of a fruit." Furthermore, fascicle fifty-eight of the Nyāyānusāra states: "The behaviors and practices cultivated in the stage of initial karma are exceedingly extensive. Those who wish to understand them thoroughly should seek them in the various treatises on contemplative practice compiled for sentient beings. To state the essential: a beginner in practice should possess a deep aspiration for liberation, contemplating the virtues of nirvāṇa and turning away from the faults of saṃsāra. One should first use skillful means to draw near to a good friend, because a good friend is the root of all practices. One who possesses the power of hearing and so forth obtains the name 'good friend', like a skilled physician"—and so on at length. Furthermore, the four limbs of stream-entry (srotāpanna-aṅga) are: first, drawing near to good friends; second, listening to the correct Dharma; third, proper mental attention (yoniśo manaskāra); fourth, practice in accordance with the Dharma. Such passages are found in all sūtras; to hear yet not believe is still better than not hearing at all. Thus the Lotus [Sūtra] states: "If at that time the multitude of dharmas heard the words of Sadāparibhūta: 'You will all become Buddhas,' although they slandered him and did not believe, falling into hell, by this cause and condition they met immeasurable Buddhas, and later encountering Sadāparibhūta, they all gave rise to the great aspiration [for awakening]." Regarding the doctrine of the Three Vehicles, one must in all cases first study the teaching of existence of the Hīnayāna, and only thereafter may one study the teaching of emptiness of the Mahāyāna. How is this known? Because there is abundant textual evidence. First, fascicle six of the Daśacakra-sūtra states: "Good sons! If sentient beings have not yet toiled and exerted diligent effort to cultivate and study the teachings of the Śrāvaka Vehicle and the Pratyekabuddha Vehicle—such sentient beings have inferior faculties and little vigor—if one expounds the subtle, profound, correct Dharma of the Mahāyāna to them, both speaker and listener commit a great offense and also run counter to all Buddhas. Why is this? If sentient beings have not yet toiled in the Śrāvaka Vehicle and the Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, up to listening to and receiving the correct Dharma of the Mahāyāna, such sentient beings are truly foolish, though they consider themselves wise... All the retribution for the offenses of such sentient beings is because, without having sought, listened to, and practiced the teachings of the Śrāvaka and Pratyekabuddha Vehicles, they first sought to listen to and practice the correct Dharma of the Mahāyāna. Such foolish nihilists will find even an inferior human body difficult to obtain, let alone being able to become a vessel for the noble Dharma! Up to: all the faults of such sentient beings arise because they have not studied the teachings of the Śrāvaka and Pratyekabuddha Vehicles and have entered the Mahāyāna first." Second, fascicle two of the Saṃdhinirmocana states: "For those who have not planted roots of virtue, have not purified their hindrances, have not perfected their mental continuities, have not extensively cultivated superior resolve, and have not accumulated the two provisions of merit and wisdom, I rely on the intrinsic nature of saṃsāra to definitively explain all dharmas. When they hear this, they understand according to their capacity impermanence, non-eternity, and so forth, causing them to plant roots of virtue and so on." This refers to the Hīnayāna teaching of the first period. "If they have already planted roots of virtue, up to having already accumulated the provisions of merit and wisdom, then relying on the three kinds of non-nature-ness, I teach that all dharmas are without intrinsic nature; relying on the non-nature-ness of characteristics and so forth, I teach that all dharmas are without arising and ceasing, and so forth." This refers to the Mahāyāna teaching of the second period. Furthermore, a later passage states: "If there are sentient beings who have accumulated superior roots of virtue, up to the superior two provisions of merit and wisdom, when they hear me well explaining the dharma of non-arising and non-ceasing and so forth, they believe that this is spoken by the Buddha, know well what to accept and what to reject, and are able to quickly realize unsurpassed bodhi. If they cultivate the inferior five matters, and hear this teaching of mine, they believe it is spoken by the Buddha and obtain immeasurable merit, yet they give rise to clinging to their own views, saying that all dharmas are without arising and without ceasing, fundamentally quiescent, intrinsically nirvāṇa, and so forth. Because they give rise to clinging to their own views, they fall away from immeasurable wisdom. If they do not cultivate the five matters, when they hear this teaching of mine, they generate great karmic hindrances, slandering and disbelieving it." According to this sūtra text, it is by hearing the teaching of existence that one cultivates the five matters, and by having the five matters one is able to believe in the Mahāyāna. If one does not cultivate the five matters, one will slander and disbelieve; therefore, one definitely must first study the Hīnayāna and later study the Mahāyāna. For this reason, when Buddhas appear in the world, they first teach the Hīnayāna and later teach the Mahāyāna. Third, chapter 465, "The Chapter on Universal Learning," of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā states: "Subhūti! If one does not universally study the Dharma of the Śrāvaka Vehicle and the Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, one will ultimately never be able to attain the Bodhisattva's path of seeing (darśanamārga)." Fourth, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra states: "It is like an elder who has only one son; because the child is young and incapable, he first teaches him the half-word [alphabet], and later, as he gradually grows up, only then does he teach him the full words." Fifth, the Bodhisattvaprātimokṣa states: "Among bodhisattvas who undertake and study the bodhisattva precepts, if one studies the small and does not study the great, it is an infraction, but not a defiled one; if one studies the great and does not study the small, it is an infraction and also defiled." Sixth, the Lotus Sūtra, the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, the Dharmaguptaka-vinaya, and so on all state: "Because sentient beings are incapable of hearing the Mahāyāna, it is better to remain silent and enter into nirvāṇa. Due to the entreaty of the god Brahmā, the Buddha first taught the Hīnayāna." Based on these passages, one knows that if one wishes to study the great Dharma, one must first study the Hīnayāna Dharma. We now consider that the sūtras explain studying the Hīnayāna first and the Mahāyāna later for roughly four reasons: First, because the Mahāyāna is deep and subtle, difficult to believe, and people will immediately give rise to slander. The Lotus Sūtra states: "If I were only to praise the Buddha Vehicle, sentient beings, submerged in suffering, would slander the Dharma and not believe, thereby falling into the three evil destinies." Second, because they would give rise to nihilistic views. The Daśacakra-sūtra states: "If sentient beings have not toiled and exerted diligent effort to cultivate and study the teachings of the Śrāvaka and Pratyekabuddha Vehicles, their faculties being immature, inferior, and with little vigor, yet they immediately listen to and receive the subtle and profound correct Dharma of the Mahāyāna—such sentient beings are truly foolish, though they consider themselves wise; they fall into the extreme of annihilation, fall into deranged conceptions, and grasp at the doctrine of causelessness." Third, if one does not study the Hīnayāna and only studies the Mahāyāna, claiming oneself to be a student of the Mahāyāna, one will slight and slander the Śrāvaka Vehicle—both its persons and its teachings—incurring great painful retribution. Therefore the Daśacakra states: "Or, having listened slightly to the Unsurpassed Vehicle's teaching, they slander, revile, obstruct, and conceal the teachings of the Śrāvaka Vehicle and the Pratyekabuddha Vehicle—which are protected by all Buddhas together—preventing them from circulating; and seeking fame and gain, they make such a proclamation: 'I belong to the Mahāyāna, I am of the Mahāyāna faction; I only delight in listening to, practicing, and upholding the Mahāyāna, and do not delight in the teachings of the Śrāvaka and Pratyekabuddha Vehicles, nor do I draw near to those who study the Two Vehicles.' Such people falsely claiming to be of the Mahāyāna, driven by the power of their own foolishness and arrogance, go so far as to slander, revile, and humiliate those who cultivate and study the teachings of the Two Vehicles, stripping them of authority." It also states: "If one disparages even a single chapter down to a single verse of the Three Vehicles, one should not draw near to them, nor socialize with them, nor live together with them, nor engage in common endeavors with them. If anyone draws near to them or socializes with them, lives together with them, or shares common endeavors, both will definitely fall into the Avīci hell, experiencing great suffering with hardly any time of escape. Why is this? Good sons! When I cultivated the bodhisattva practices in the past, diligently seeking to realize unsurpassed wisdom, even for the sake of requesting the teachings of the Śrāvaka Vehicle down to a single verse, I went so far as to abandon my own hands and feet, flesh and blood, skin and bones, head, eyes, marrow, and brain (and the same applies to the other two [vehicles])." Fourth, if one does not first study the teaching of existence and thoroughly practice roots of virtue and so on, there will be many obstacles and difficulties, and one will be unable to believe and understand. Question: If so, why do most Mahāyāna sūtras disparage studying the Hīnayāna and praise studying the Mahāyāna as the ultimate practice? Answer: The Daśacakra-sūtra resolves and explains this itself, stating: "Therefore all Three Vehicles should be cultivated and studied; one should not arrogantly and falsely claim the Mahāyāna, slandering and reviling the teachings of the Śrāvaka and Pratyekabuddha Vehicles. Previously, only for the sake of those who are vessels of the Mahāyāna Dharma and firmly practicing, did I state that only cultivating the Mahāyāna Dharma can attain the ultimate. Therefore what was said previously and what is said now do not contradict each other." The Brahmajāla-sūtra and others are all to be resolved according to this. [Question:] If so, is there not a Mahāyāna spiritual lineage (gotra) that, without relying on gradual accumulation, can believe and understand simply upon hearing the Mahāyāna? Answer: The gotras of the Three Vehicles must rely on previously accumulated roots of virtue; there is no naturally established original nature that differentiates the Three Vehicles. Therefore, fascicle one of the Upāsaka-śīla-sūtra states: "It is not by virtue of nature that one is called a bodhisattva. Sentient beings have an element called the mind of desire; when the mind desires in this way through the causes and conditions of wholesome karma and gives rise to the bodhicitta, it is called the bodhisattva gotra." Passages like this are not just one or two. Furthermore, the Hīnayāna Dharma is twofold: first, the Hīnayāna teaching, which refers to the teaching of existence expounding suffering, emptiness, impermanence, dependent origination, and so forth; second, generating the Hīnayāna resolve. This [explanation] says that one relies on its teaching of existence to accumulate roots of virtue and only then can one believe in the Mahāyāna; it does not say that one first generates the resolve of the Two Vehicles and only afterward studies the Mahāyāna. One who does not generate the resolve of the Two Vehicles but generates the Mahāyāna resolve, even while studying the Hīnayāna, is not called indeterminate, but is called having the bodhisattva nature. Now one should counter-challenge: If one does not need to accumulate roots of virtue upon meeting conditions to be able to believe in the Mahāyāna, but can generate faith simply upon encountering the teaching, then the previous Buddhas should have already fully delivered everyone. Why is it that up to the present day there are still those with the nature to attain parinirvāṇa who fall into the three evil destinies? And why do the treatises say that those in hell possess the three anāsrava faculties? Question: Some posit that if there is an inherently existent nirvāṇa-gotra and the capacity for the One Vehicle, there must be distinctive signs: namely, that by nature they spontaneously feel revulsion toward saṃsāra and delight in nirvāṇa, have slight defilements, do not commit coarse evil deeds, do not sever roots of virtue, and so on—broadly turning around the characteristics of lacking gotra. Is this assertion correct or incorrect? Answer: This assertion is incorrect. Question: How is this known? Answer: Because it contradicts both reason and scripture. As for contradicting reason: if from beginningless time they were able to feel revulsion toward saṃsāra, delight in nirvāṇa, have slight defilements, not commit coarse evil, and gradually cultivate and perfume [their minds], they all should have already entered the realm of parinirvāṇa long ago, since time is beginningless. Why then does the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra say: "Constantly committing evil and severing roots of virtue, being incomplete in wholesome causes, is called being devoid of gotra for a time"? Yet such persons still exist today. Furthermore, if having an original nature entails having visible signs, then when one completely severs roots of virtue and exclusively commits evil, what difference is there between such a sign and that of lacking gotra, such that one could know they are a bodhisattva or a person of the One Vehicle? As for contradicting scripture: the Bodhisattva-śīla Sūtra, Yogācārabhūmi, Bodhisattvabhūmi, and so forth state that "the subtle nature of a bodhisattva is obtained without a cause," and it is universally accepted that this is the original nature of a bodhisattva. In the sūtras and treatises there are only two kinds of signs: first, the sign of the subtle nature; second, the sign of possessing both natures. The sign of the subtle nature can only be known by a Buddha; how could an ordinary person rashly speak of distinguishing these signs? Possessing the two natures has six signs, which all sentient beings can know. Any sign that is knowable by ordinary beings is not the original sign; how could there be a knowable sign that is the sign of the original nature? Furthermore, the Mālā-sūtra states: "Prince Sudhana and others, prior to the sixth dwelling stage, retrogressed and severed their roots of virtue, falling into the Avīci hell, leaving no evil uncommitted." By what signs could these people be known as bodhisattvas? Furthermore, the Vijñaptimātratāsiddhi and others all state that the seeds of the objective condition (ālambanapratyaya) of Suchness in fascicle fifty-two of the Yogācāra are the original nature of a bodhisattva. The Yogācārabhūmi states: "All have the objective condition of Suchness." Because all possess it, gotra is distinguished on the basis of hindrances. Since the cause is equal, how could the signs differ? Therefore one knows that signs being spoken of as present or absent differently according to persons definitely does not pertain to the original nature. If one says that an inherently existent lack of gotra has knowable signs, aside from the Śrāvakabhūmi, what textual evidence is there? Those who are capable of believing in the Mahāyāna Dharma in the present age have all planted roots of virtue in past lives. Thus the Prajñā[pāramitā] states: "If anyone generates a single thought of pure faith in this sūtra, you should know that this person has planted roots of virtue not merely under one Buddha, two Buddhas, three, four, or five Buddhas, but has already planted roots of virtue under immeasurable thousands of myriads of Buddhas." Based only on what has been clarified above, this treatise applies to those capacities, accommodating the five gotras, because it is the foundation of all myriad practices.