俱舍論疏 1.7

1.7

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.