大乘義章 1.33

1.33

問曰：若使修多羅中統攝餘別，令修多羅具餘別部，合為十二。就涅槃中開分四相，何不總別合為五相？如是類難，法門非一。釋言：齊類亦得無傷。但經論中彰法不同，不可一類。云何不同？不同有六：一唯總門。如說一乘一實諦等，統攝三乘以為一乘，統收二諦為一實諦，故名為總。如是一切。二唯別門。如陰界入、十二因緣、四真諦等。三總別通門，如六度等。如《大品》說六波羅蜜，一一為主，皆收餘五，故通名總；分相各異，故皆名別。總別之義彼此齊有，是故名為總別通門。大乘行德，多皆同爾。四總別異門。如經中說「眾生佛性，不即六法、不異六法。」言六法者，五陰及我。我唯是總，五陰唯別。又如三諦，一實唯總，二諦唯別。總別不通，故名異相。如是一切。五亦總亦別及一向別門。如彼十力五眼、六通三聚戒等，於十力之中是處非處，亦總亦別，餘九唯別。五眼之中，佛眼一種亦總亦別，餘四唯別。至佛之時統收四眼皆名佛眼，名之為總。分出餘四，唯取見實為佛眼者，名之為別。六通之中，神通一種亦總亦別，餘五唯別。三聚戒中，律儀戒者亦總亦別，餘二唯別。是等門中，並有斯義，是故名為亦總亦別及一向別。如是一切。六非總別門。廢詮亡對以論道理，理非總別、體非假集，是故非總；更無所成，是以非別。如上所說涅槃四相，乃是第二一向別門。今此所論十二部經，乃是第五亦總亦別及一向別門。法門不同，有此差異，寧可一類？

Question: If the sūtra genre completely subsumes the remaining distinct [genres], making the sūtra genre contain the remaining distinct genres to combine into twelve, then regarding nirvāṇa, where four characteristics are divided, why not combine comprehensive and distinct into five characteristics? Objections of this kind regarding doctrinal categories are manifold. Explanation: Equating them is also permissible without harm. However, the revelation of dharmas in the sūtras and treatises is not uniform; they cannot be treated as of one single type. How are they not uniform? There are six types of difference: First is the purely comprehensive approach. For example, speaking of the one vehicle, the one real truth, and so forth: completely subsuming the three vehicles to make the one vehicle, completely gathering the two truths to make the one real truth; therefore it is called comprehensive. All such cases are like this. Second is the purely distinct approach. For example, the aggregates, realms, and sense fields; the twelve links of dependent origination; the four true realities; and so forth. Third is the universally shared comprehensive-and-distinct approach, such as the six pāramitās and so forth. As the Large Prajñāpāramitā states, each of the six pāramitās acts as primary and gathers the remaining five, so universally they are called comprehensive; yet their differentiated characteristics are each distinct, so all are called distinct. The meanings of comprehensive and distinct are equally possessed by one and all; therefore it is called the universally shared comprehensive-and-distinct approach. Most virtues of Mahāyāna practice are like this. Fourth is the mutually different comprehensive-and-distinct approach. For example, the sūtra states: "The Buddha-nature of sentient beings is neither identical with nor different from the six dharmas." The "six dharmas" refers to the five aggregates and the self. The self is purely comprehensive; the five aggregates are purely distinct. Again, as in the three truths: the one reality is purely comprehensive; the two truths are purely distinct. Comprehensive and distinct are not interchangeable; therefore they are called differentiated characteristics. All such cases are like this. Fifth is the approach of both-comprehensive-and-distinct alongside strictly-distinct. For example, the ten powers, five eyes, six supernormal knowledges, three sets of precepts, and so forth. Among the ten powers, the knowledge of what is possible and impossible is both comprehensive and distinct, while the remaining nine are strictly distinct. Among the five eyes, the single Buddha-eye is both comprehensive and distinct, while the remaining four are strictly distinct: at the point of attaining buddhahood, completely gathering the four eyes, all are called the Buddha-eye, which is called comprehensive; dividing out the other four and taking only the vision of reality as the Buddha-eye is called distinct. Among the six supernormal knowledges, the single supernatural power is both comprehensive and distinct, while the other five are strictly distinct. Among the three sets of precepts, the precept of restraint (saṃvara-śīla) is both comprehensive and distinct, while the other two are strictly distinct. All such approaches contain this principle; therefore it is called the approach of both-comprehensive-and-distinct alongside strictly-distinct. All such cases are like this. Sixth is the approach that is neither comprehensive nor distinct. Dismissing verbal formulation and abandoning dualities in order to discuss the underlying principle: the principle is neither comprehensive nor distinct; its essence is not a composite aggregation, therefore it is not comprehensive; and nothing further is produced from it, therefore it is not distinct. The four characteristics of nirvāṇa mentioned above belong to the second approach of strictly distinct. The twelve genres of scripture discussed here belong to the fifth approach of both-comprehensive-and-distinct alongside strictly-distinct. Because doctrinal categories are not uniform and have these differences, how could they be treated as of one single type?