[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大乘義章](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1851) › 1.8 # 大乘義章 1.8 大乘義章 1.8 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1851.1.8) 第三階云三十年中宣說《大品》空宗般若《維摩》、《思益》，未曾破三以歸一，又未宣說眾生有佛性，言義未了，是故彼《法華》為漸。然《般若經》佛成道已五年便說，云何定言在三十年？又《大品經．往生品》中，諸比丘等聞說般若讚歎檀度，遂脫三衣以用布施。龍樹釋言「佛制三衣，不畜得罪。何故不重尸波羅蜜，犯戒行施？以此在於十二年前，佛未制戒，是故不犯。」以是證文，非局在於三十年中。《維摩》、《思益》三十年者，依何文證故知？但是妄情安置時分且爾。若言《般若》說三同觀淺《法華》者，《涅槃經》中亦言「此經出聲聞，故名聲聞藏。出辟支佛，故名緣覺藏。出菩薩，故名菩薩藏。」又〈師子〉中說「十二緣，下智觀故聲聞菩提，中智觀故緣覺菩提，上智觀故菩薩菩提，上上智觀阿耨菩提。」彼經亦說三乘同觀，應淺《法華》。又《勝鬘》中說「摩訶衍出生一切聲聞緣覺，世及出世間一切善法。」彼經亦應淺於《法華》。彼既是深，《大品》同觀何為獨淺？若言《般若》不破三乘淺《法華》者，《大品經》中舍利弗問：「若都不退、空復不異，何故得有三乘差別，不唯一乘？」須菩提答：「無二無三。若聞不怖，能得菩提。」此與《法華》無二無三，其言何別，而言非是破三歸一？又龍樹云：「當知《般若》於《華手經》、《法華經》等無量經中最以為大。」云何言淺？若言《般若》不說佛性淺於《涅槃》者，經說「佛性，亦名般若波羅蜜，亦名第一義空。」《大品》所說般若及空即是佛性，云何說言不明佛性？又《大品》中宣說真如、實際、法性，龍樹釋言「法名涅槃，不戲論法。性名本分，猶如黃石金性白石銀性，一切眾生有涅槃性。」此與佛性有何差別，而言不說佛性？既齊淺深之言，無宜暫施。又《維摩經》以不思議解脫為宗，斯乃十解脫中初解脫門，當知此是頓教法輪，云何言是不了義經？《思益》亦爾。 > Regarding the third stage, it is claimed that during the thirty years he proclaimed the Pañcaviṃśati-sāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra of the emptiness tradition, prajñā, the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa-sūtra, and the Viśeṣacintibrahma-paripṛcchā-sūtra, never refuting the three to return to the one, nor proclaiming that sentient beings possess the Buddha-nature, meaning its sense was neyārtha, and that for this reason the Lotus Sūtra served as gradual. However, the Prajñāpāramitā-sūtra was preached five years after the Buddha attained the Way; how can it be definitively said to be in the thirty years? Furthermore, in the 'Chapter on Rebirth' of the Pañcaviṃśati-sāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra, when all the bhikṣus heard the preaching of prajñā praising the pāramitā of giving, they immediately took off their three robes to practice giving. Nāgārjuna explained: 'The Buddha instituted the three robes, and failure to keep them incurs an offense. Why did they not respect the śīlapāramitā and violate the precepts to practice giving? Because this was prior to the twelve years, before the Buddha had instituted the precepts; therefore, there was no violation.' By this textual evidence, it was not restricted to the thirty years. As for the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa-sūtra and Viśeṣacintibrahma-paripṛcchā-sūtra being in the thirty years, relying on what textual evidence is this known? It was merely a deluded sentiment arranging periods arbitrarily. If it is said that the Prajñāpāramitā's preaching of the three sharing the same contemplation is shallower than the Lotus Sūtra, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra also states: 'Because this scripture brings forth śrāvakas, it is called the śrāvaka piṭaka. Because it brings forth pratyekabuddhas, it is called the pratyekabuddha piṭaka. Because it brings forth bodhisattvas, it is called the bodhisattva piṭaka.' Furthermore, the chapter 'Siṃhanāda' states: 'Regarding the twelve links of dependent origination: by contemplation with inferior wisdom, there is śrāvaka bodhi; by contemplation with middling wisdom, there is pratyekabuddha bodhi; by contemplation with superior wisdom, there is bodhisattva bodhi; by contemplation with supreme wisdom, there is anuttara bodhi.' Since that scripture also speaks of the three vehicles sharing the same contemplation, it too should be shallower than the Lotus Sūtra. Furthermore, the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra states: 'The Mahāyāna gives birth to all śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, and all worldly and world-transcending wholesome dharmas.' That scripture should likewise be shallower than the Lotus Sūtra. Since those are profound, why should the Pañcaviṃśati's shared contemplation alone be shallow? If it is said that the Prajñāpāramitā does not refute the three vehicles and is thus shallower than the Lotus Sūtra, in the Pañcaviṃśati-sāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra Śāriputra asked: 'If none regress and emptiness is furthermore not different, why is there a distinction of three vehicles rather than only one vehicle?' Subhūti answered: 'There are no two and no three. If one hears this and is not terrified, one is able to attain bodhi.' How does this differ in wording from the 'no two and no three' of the Lotus Sūtra, such that one claims it does not refute the three to return to the one? Furthermore, Nāgārjuna said: 'One should know that the Prajñāpāramitā is the greatest among immeasurable scriptures such as the Kuśalamūla-saṃparigraha-sūtra and the Lotus Sūtra.' How could it be called shallow? If it is said that the Prajñāpāramitā does not preach the Buddha-nature and is thus shallower than the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, the scripture states: 'The Buddha-nature is also called prajñāpāramitā, and also called ultimate emptiness.' The prajñā and emptiness preached in the Pañcaviṃśati-sāhasrikā are precisely the Buddha-nature; how can it be said that it does not clarify the Buddha-nature? Furthermore, the Pañcaviṃśati-sāhasrikā proclaims tathatā, bhūtakoṭi, and dharmatā. Nāgārjuna explained: '"Dharma" is named nirvāṇa, the dharma free from conceptual proliferation. "Nature" is named intrinsic endowment; just as yellow stone possesses the nature of gold and white stone possesses the nature of silver, all sentient beings possess the nature of nirvāṇa.' How does this differ from the Buddha-nature, such that one says it does not preach the Buddha-nature? Since they are identical, talk of shallow and profound should not be applied even for a moment. Furthermore, the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa-sūtra takes inconceivable liberation as its essential tenet, which is the initial gateway of liberation among the ten liberations; one should know that this is the wheel of the sudden teaching. How could it be called a neyārtha scripture? The Viśeṣacintibrahma-paripṛcchā-sūtra is likewise. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1851.1.7) - [Next: 1.9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1851.1.9) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1851.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1851~en-mt.1.8) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1851.1.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1851.1.8) · Pramāṇa