大乘起信論義記 1.14

1.14

問：此二所說，既各聖教互為矛楯，未審二說可和會以不？答：此有二義，謂無會、無不會。初、無會者，既並聖教隨緣益物，何俟須會？即是《智論》四悉檀中各各為人悉檀，是故雖有相違而不可會。亦是《攝論》四意趣中眾生樂欲意趣，於一法中或讚或毀，是故二說不須和會。二、無不會者，通論此二所設教門，了與不了有其二門：一、約攝生寬狹、言教具闕，以明了不了。二、約益物漸次、顯理增微，以明了不了。初中有二：先約攝生寬狹者，依《解深密經》「初時唯為發趣聲聞乘說，第二時中唯為發趣大乘者說。此二各唯攝一類機，攝機不盡，故各非了。第三時中普為發趣一切乘者說，此中攝機普該諸乘，故云普為一切乘說。攝機周盡，方為了義。」二、約言教具闕者，約機取教，則初時唯說小乘，第二唯說大乘，第三具說三乘。前二各互闕教不具，故非了義。後一具三乘，教滿為了義。由此等義，是故第三方為了義。戒賢所立依此門判。第二門內亦二：初、約益物漸次者，謂初時所說唯令眾生得小乘益，益未究竟，故非了義。第二時中雖益通大小，然不能令趣寂二乘亦得大乘，是故此說亦非盡理。第三時中普皆令得大乘之益，縱入寂者亦令迴向大菩提故。是故，經云「唯此一事實，餘二則非真。」又云「若以小乘化，我則墮慳貪，此事為不可。」是故，此說方為了義。二、約顯理增微者，初說緣生以為實有，次說緣生以為假有，後說緣生方是性空。前二所說顯理未周、會緣未盡，故非了義；後一顯理至究、會緣相盡，故為了義。由此等義，是故第三方為究竟了義大乘。亦即初唯小乘，次具三乘，後唯一乘故也。智光所立依此門判。由有如此二種門故，是故聖教各依一勢以明權實，互不相違。

Question: Since what these two have taught both [rely on] the sacred teachings yet are mutually contradictory, we do not know whether the two explanations can be harmonised or not? Answer: There are two meanings to this: namely, non-harmonisation and non-disharmonisation. First, regarding non-harmonisation: since both are sacred teachings that benefit beings according to conditions, why wait for a need to harmonise them? This is precisely the individual [benefiting] siddhānta among the four siddhāntas in the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa*; therefore, although there is contradiction, they cannot be harmonised. It is also the intentionality regarding beings' inclinations among the four intentionalities in the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha*, wherein within one single dharma there is praise or disparagement; therefore, the two explanations do not require harmonisation. Second, regarding non-disharmonisation: broadly examining the teaching approaches established by these two, the definitive and non-definitive have two approaches: 1. clarifying the definitive and non-definitive in terms of the breadth or narrowness of gathering beings and the completeness or deficiency of spoken teachings; 2. clarifying the definitive and non-definitive in terms of the gradual progression in benefiting beings and the prominence or subtleness in revealing principle. Within the first, there are two: first, in terms of the breadth or narrowness of gathering beings, according to the *Saṃdhinirmocanasūtra*, 'The initial period was spoken solely for those setting forth in the śrāvaka vehicle; in the second period it was spoken solely for those setting forth in the Mahāyāna. These two each gather only one class of capacity and do not gather capacities exhaustively; therefore, each is non-definitive. In the third period it was spoken universally for those setting forth in all vehicles; herein gathering capacities universally encompasses the various vehicles, hence it is said to be spoken universally for all vehicles. Gathering capacities completely is only then the definitive meaning.' Second, in terms of the completeness or deficiency of spoken teachings, taking the teachings according to capacity, then the initial period teaches only the Hīnayāna, the second teaches only the Mahāyāna, and the third fully teaches the three vehicles. The former two each mutually lack teachings and are incomplete, hence they are not the definitive meaning. The latter one is complete with the three vehicles; the teaching is full, so it is the definitive meaning. Due to meanings such as these, the third is only then the definitive meaning. That established by Śīlabhadra is classified relying on this approach. Within the second approach there are also two: first, in terms of the gradual progression in benefiting beings, that taught in the initial period causes beings to obtain only the benefit of the Hīnayāna; the benefit is not yet ultimate, hence it is not the definitive meaning. In the second period, although the benefit extends to both great and small, nevertheless it cannot cause the two vehicles tending toward quiescence to also attain the Mahāyāna; therefore, this explanation also does not exhaust the principle. In the third period, it universally causes all to attain the benefit of the Mahāyāna, because even those who have entered quiescence are caused to direct [themselves] toward great bodhi. Therefore, a sūtra says: 'Only this one matter is real; the other two are not true.' It also says: 'If I were to transform [them] by the Hīnayāna, I would fall into miserliness; this matter is inadmissible.' Therefore, this teaching is only then the definitive meaning. Second, in terms of the prominence or subtleness in revealing principle, initially it taught that arising from conditions is substantially existent; next, it taught that arising from conditions is nominally existent; and finally, it taught that arising from conditions is itself empty of nature. What was taught in the former two did not comprehensively reveal principle and did not exhaustively integrate conditions, hence they are not the definitive meaning; the latter one reveals principle to the utmost and completely integrates the marks of conditions, hence it is the definitive meaning. Due to meanings such as these, the third is only then the ultimate definitive-meaning Mahāyāna. That is also because the first is only the Hīnayāna, the second is complete with the three vehicles, and the third is solely the One Vehicle. That established by Jñānaprabha is classified relying on this approach. Because there are these two kinds of approaches, the sacred teachings each rely on one perspective to clarify the provisional and the real, and they do not contradict one another.