大乘義章 20.57

20.57

次第二門辨定是非。十八不共，有三種說：一說如前。二迦栴延尼子所說，如來十力、四無所畏、即為十四；大悲十五；加三念處，合為十八。此之一說，龍樹非之。由作此說，是故名為迦栴延子說，若釋子說則不如是。佛德如海，無量無邊，云何還說如來十力四無畏等為不共法？又論說言「羅漢辟支及諸菩薩，亦能知於是處非處乃至漏盡，云何宣說十力功德為不共法？」問曰：若言十力功德餘人分齊非不共者，身無失等，二乘之人亦有少分，云何說之為不共法？論自釋言「我不宣說身無失等為不共法，我說身等常無過失為不共法，是故聲聞緣覺無之。」三《大智論》中更有一說：一者如來具一切智，所知寬廣。二具無量功德。三具大悲心。四智慧自在，所知無礙。五禪定自在。六變化自在。七能授又無量記莂。八所記不虛。九言無失。十慧無減，所知不退。十一常行捨心。十二知時非時，謂知眾生應受化時，及知眾生未可化時。十三念無失。十四無煩惱習。十五無能如法出其過失。十六無能見其頂者。十七足下柔濡，眾生遇者即得受樂。十八得神通力，轉眾生心令易化度。是為十八。此之一說，龍樹亦非，言此是非三藏中說，斯乃聲聞諸論師等，撰錄經中讚佛之言為此十八。其言無失及念無失、智慧無減、常行捨心，此於大乘不共法中取以為論。無見頂相、足下柔濡，是佛相好，若說此等為不共法，不共眾多，何止十八？此三說中，初說為是，後二為非。是非如是。

Next is the second gate, evaluating what is correct and incorrect. Regarding the eighteen unshared attributes, there are three expositions. The first exposition is as explained above. The second is that stated by Kātyāyanīputra: the Tathāgata's ten powers and four fearlessnesses constitute fourteen; great compassion is fifteen; adding the three applications of mindfulness makes eighteen in all. Nāgārjuna rejects this single exposition. Because he made this exposition, it is therefore called the exposition of Kātyāyanīputra; an exposition by the sons of the Śākya [clan] would not be like this. The Buddha's virtues are like an ocean, immeasurable and boundless; why should one turn around and state that the Tathāgata's ten powers, four fearlessnesses, and so forth are unshared attributes? Furthermore, the treatise states: "Arhats, pratyekabuddhas, and bodhisattvas are also capable of knowing what is possible and impossible up to the exhaustion of defilements; why declare the virtues of the ten powers to be unshared attributes?" Question: "If it is said that the virtues of the ten powers are not unshared because other persons share a portion of them, then two-vehicle persons also possess a small portion of the absence of fault in the body and so forth; why are they spoken of as unshared attributes?" The treatise itself explains: "I do not proclaim that the absence of fault in the body and so forth are unshared attributes; I say that the body and so forth being constantly without fault is the unshared attribute. Therefore śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas do not possess them." Third, within the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa*, there is yet another exposition: 1. the Tathāgata is endowed with omniscient knowledge, which is expansive; 2. he is endowed with immeasurable virtues; 3. he is endowed with a mind of great compassion; 4. he has mastery of wisdom, knowing without obstruction; 5. he has mastery in dhyāna; 6. he has mastery in transformations; 7. he can bestow countless prophecies; 8. what he prophesies is not in vain; 9. his speech is without fault; 10. his wisdom does not decrease, and his knowledge does not regress; 11. he constantly practices an attitude of equanimity; 12. he knows what is timely and untimley—that is, knowing the time when sentient beings ought to receive conversion, and knowing the time when sentient beings cannot yet be converted; 13. his mindfulness is without fault; 14. he has no traces of afflictions; 15. no one can legitimately point out his faults; 16. no one can see the crown of his head; 17. the soles of his feet are soft, and sentient beings who encounter them immediately obtain joy; 18. he obtains supernatural powers to transform the minds of sentient beings, causing them to be easily converted. These are the eighteen. Nāgārjuna also rejects this single exposition, stating that this is not taught in the Tripiṭaka, but rather that various śrāvaka treatise masters selected and recorded the scriptures' words of praise for the Buddha to make these eighteen. His speech being without fault, mindfulness without fault, wisdom without decrease, and constantly practicing equanimity are taken from the Mahāyāna's unshared attributes to construct this discussion. The mark of an invisible crown and the softness under the soles of the feet are physical marks of the Buddha; if such things are called unshared attributes, unshared attributes would be numerous, so why stop at eighteen? Among these three expositions, the first is correct, and the latter two are incorrect. The evaluation of correct and incorrect is as such.