大乘義章 19.48

19.48

次第五門寄對顯德。通而論之，佛一切德皆勝一切。隨相別分，彼四無畏多對外道，十力對魔，十八不共對於二乘。此義如彼《地論》中說。何故無畏偏對外道？外道邪智，難佛無德。彼四無畏，彰己有德，翻彼邪難，故四無畏偏對外道。何故十力偏對諸魔？魔生垢弊，壞人善根。十力堅固，不為魔壞，故偏對之。故《地持》云「於一切魔，捨離得勝，名之為力。」何故十八不共之法偏對二乘？二乘小德，上濫如來，故說不共。簡別二乘，故偏對之。問曰：前說外道邪智難佛無德，佛四無畏而翻對之。外道何因難佛無德？如來云何而為釋通？釋言：外道執迹為難，如來顯實而為釋通。外道何因難佛如來無一切智？如來有時言迹之中似不具足一切種智，故彼難之。是義云何？如來或時，有諸弟子從遠方來，佛便問之：「彼方何以住止安樂、道路清泰、四大安穩？」佛經中說「若人至其城邑聚落，問其名字，我說是人非一切智。」佛為前問，似若無智。外道執此，所以為難。佛對報之，我隨世間安慰之義共相慰問。弟子遠來，不可默住，所以問之，非是不知。世間亦有知而故問，而非無智。佛亦如是。報此難時，於他不懼，是故宣說一切智無畏。外道何因難佛如來諸漏不盡？如來有時言迹之中似漏不盡，所以難之。是義云何？如來或時愛語羅云，似有貪使；呵罵調達，似有瞋使。或時自歎人華人象，似有慢使。復教弟子，善持我法如持油鉢，似有見使。外道執此，故難如來諸漏不盡。佛對釋之，我無煩惱，隨化故爾。或有眾生軟言受法，以是義故愛語羅云，非是有貪。或有眾生麁言從律，以是義故呵罵調達，非謂有嗔。欲令眾生起念佛心，是故自歎人花人象，非是有慢。又佛如來德多嘆少，所以非慢。隨世流布，說持我法如持油鉢，非謂有見。世間亦有無煩惱人言似煩惱，佛亦如是。釋此難時，於他不怯，是故宣說漏盡無畏。外道何因難佛如來不能說障？現見如來諸聖弟子猶有煩惱，明佛如來不善說障令其斷除。又佛如來雖說貪等能遮聖道，須陀洹等常行貪欲而得聖道，明知如來說障道法不能障道，不障道故佛說不能。外道執此，所以為難。佛對釋之，我能說障，令人斷除；但諸弟子力未堪斷，非我不能。又我說障實能障道，故論說言：若欲在心，道法不與。要先除欲，然後得道。但諸煩惱所障各異，彼須陀等所行煩惱，障於修道、不遮見解。不遮見故，不妨得道。障修道故，我說障法實能障道。實障道故，我說是能。釋此難時，於他不怯，故立能說障道無畏。外道何因難佛不能說盡苦道？現見如來諸聖弟子須陀洹等，雖得聖果，猶有人天生死之苦，明知如來說盡苦道不能盡苦，不盡苦故佛說不能。外道執此，所以為難。佛對釋之，我說聖道實能盡苦，但諸弟子修之少故，諸苦不盡，非道不能。譬如蘇藥性能破熱，服之少故熱病不除，非蘇不能。所說如是，以道實能盡諸苦故，我說是能。釋此難時，於他不怯，故立能說盡苦道無畏。寄對如是（此五門竟）。

Next is the fifth section, revealing virtues by reference to opponents. Discussing them comprehensively, all of the Buddha's virtues surpass all else. Distinguishing them according to their specific aspects, those four fearlessnesses mostly face non-Buddhists, the ten powers face Māra, and the eighteen unshared attributes face the two vehicles. This meaning is as stated in that Daśabhūmikā-śāstra. Why do the fearlessnesses specifically face non-Buddhists? Non-Buddhists possess heterodox wisdom and challenge the Buddha as lacking virtue. Those four fearlessnesses demonstrate that he himself possesses virtues and refute their heterodox challenges; therefore the four fearlessnesses specifically face non-Buddhists. Why do the ten powers specifically face the Māras? Māras generate defilements and flaws, destroying people's wholesome roots. The ten powers are firm and solid, not to be destroyed by Māra; therefore they specifically face them. Hence the Bodhisattvabhūmi says: "Renouncing and triumphing over all Māras is called power." Why do the eighteen unshared attributes specifically face the two vehicles? The lesser virtues of the two vehicles might mistakenly be conflated with the Tathāgata above; therefore they are called "unshared." To distinguish him from the two vehicles, they specifically face them. Question: Earlier it was said that non-Buddhists possess heterodox wisdom and challenge the Buddha as lacking virtue, and the Buddha's four fearlessnesses counter them. On what grounds do non-Buddhists challenge the Buddha as lacking virtue? How does the Tathāgata resolve and explain it? Answer: Non-Buddhists grasp at external traces to raise challenges, while the Tathāgata reveals the reality to resolve and explain them. On what grounds do non-Buddhists challenge the Buddha, the Tathāgata, as not possessing omniscience? In the Tathāgata's words and traces at times, it appears as though he is not fully endowed with the wisdom of all modes; hence they challenge it. What does this mean? Sometimes, when disciples come from afar, the Tathāgata asks them: "Why do people in that region dwell in comfort, are the roads clear and safe, and are the four great elements in equilibrium?" The Buddha's sūtra says: "If a person reaches a town or village and asks for its name, I say that this person is not omniscient." When the Buddha asked the previous questions, it appeared as though he lacked wisdom. Non-Buddhists grasped at this to raise their challenge. The Buddha replied to them: "I conform to the worldly convention of offering solace to exchange greetings. When disciples come from afar, I cannot remain silent; therefore I inquire of them, not because I do not know. In the world, too, there are cases where one knows and yet intentionally asks, yet this is not lacking wisdom. The Buddha is also like this." When answering this challenge, he had no fear before others; therefore he proclaimed the fearlessness of omniscience. On what grounds do non-Buddhists challenge the Buddha, the Tathāgata, as not having exhausted all outflows? In the Tathāgata's words and traces at times, it appears as though his outflows are not exhausted; therefore they challenge it. What does this mean? At times the Tathāgata spoke loving words to Rāhula, appearing to have the latent defilement of greed; he scolded and rebuked Devadatta, appearing to have the latent defilement of anger. At times he praised himself as a human flower and a human elephant, appearing to have the latent defilement of pride. Furthermore, he instructed his disciples: "Uphold my Dharma well, as if carrying a bowl of oil," appearing to have the latent defilement of views. Non-Buddhists grasped at this, and therefore challenged the Tathāgata as not having exhausted all outflows. The Buddha answered and explained: "I have no afflictions; it is only so in accordance with conversion. Some sentient beings accept the Dharma through gentle speech; for this reason I spoke loving words to Rāhula, not because of greed. Some sentient beings comply with the vinaya through harsh words; for this reason I scolded and rebuked Devadatta, not meaning that I had anger. Wishing to cause sentient beings to give rise to mindfulness of the Buddha, I therefore praised myself as a human flower and a human elephant, not because of pride. Furthermore, the Buddha Tathāgata's virtues are vast and his self-praise rare, which is why it is not pride. Conforming to worldly dissemination, I spoke of upholding my Dharma like carrying a bowl of oil, not meaning that there is a view [of self]. In the world, there are also persons free from afflictions whose words resemble afflictions; the Buddha is also like this." When explaining this challenge, he was not intimidated before others; therefore he proclaimed the fearlessness of the exhaustion of outflows. On what grounds do non-Buddhists challenge the Buddha, the Tathāgata, as being unable to speak of the obstructions? They observe that the Tathāgata's holy disciples still possess afflictions, which indicates that the Buddha, the Tathāgata, is not skilled in speaking of the obstructions to cause them to be eliminated. Furthermore, although the Buddha Tathāgata said that greed and so forth can obstruct the noble path, srotāpannas and others constantly engage in sensual desire and yet attain the noble path; thus one clearly knows that the obstructive dharmas spoken of by the Tathāgata cannot obstruct the path. Because they do not obstruct the path, the Buddha's speech is incapable. Non-Buddhists grasped at this to raise their challenge. The Buddha answered and explained: "I am capable of speaking of obstructions to cause people to eliminate them; however, the disciples' strength is not yet capable of eliminating them, not that I am incapable. Furthermore, what I speak of as obstructions can truly obstruct the path. Therefore a treatise says: If desire resides in the mind, the dharmas of the path do not accompany it. One must first remove desire, and only then attain the path. However, the hindrances posed by the various afflictions are each different: the afflictions engaged in by srotāpannas and others obstruct the path of cultivation, but do not block vision and understanding. Because they do not block vision, they do not hinder attaining the path. Because they obstruct the path of cultivation, I say that the obstructive dharmas can truly obstruct the path. Because they truly obstruct the path, I say that I am capable." When explaining this challenge, he was not intimidated before others; therefore the fearlessness of being able to speak of the obstructive dharmas was established. On what grounds do non-Buddhists challenge the Buddha as being unable to speak of the path that exhausts suffering? They observe that the Tathāgata's holy disciples, such as srotāpannas, although having attained holy fruition, still undergo the suffering of birth and death among humans and devas; thus one clearly knows that the path of the exhaustion of suffering spoken of by the Tathāgata cannot exhaust suffering. Because it does not exhaust suffering, the Buddha's speech is incapable. Non-Buddhists grasped at this to raise their challenge. The Buddha answered and explained: "The noble path I speak of can truly exhaust suffering; however, because the disciples cultivate it little, their sufferings are not exhausted, not that the path is incapable. For example, the nature of ghee medicine can dispel fever, but because one takes only a little of it, the febrile illness is not cured, not that the ghee is incapable. What was said is just like this: because the path can truly exhaust all suffering, I say that I am capable." When explaining this challenge, he was not intimidated before others; therefore the fearlessness of being able to speak of the path of exhausting suffering was established. Revealing virtues by reference to opponents is like this (this completes the fifth section).