大乘義章 1

English (machine translation) 1

Language: English

Doctrinal matters are classified into five aggregates: (1) aggregate of teachings, (2) aggregate of meanings, (3) aggregate of defilements, (4) aggregate of purities, and (5) aggregate of miscellanea.

1.3

Within the aggregate of teachings, there are distinctively three gateways: (1) the meaning of the traces of the teachings across the scriptures, (2) the meaning of the Tripiṭaka, and (3) the meaning of the twelve divisions of scriptures.

1.4

The meaning of the traces of the teachings across the scriptures is distinguished into three gateways: (1) recounting divergent accounts, (2) assessing right and wrong, and (3) revealing the correct meaning.

1.5

Regarding divergent accounts: the divergent accounts are not just one. Liu Qiu, a hermit of Mount Wudu under the Jin, said: 'What the Tathāgata preached throughout his entire dispensation did not go beyond the sudden and the gradual. Scriptures such as the Avataṃsaka-sūtra are his sudden teaching, and the rest are termed gradual. Within the gradual there are five periods and seven stages. As for the five periods: first, when the Buddha first attained the Way, he preached for Trapuṣa and others the gateway of teaching for humans and devas consisting of the five precepts and ten virtues. Second, during the twelve years after the Buddha attained the Way, he proclaimed the differentiated teachings of the three vehicles: for those who sought to be śrāvakas he preached the four noble truths, for those who sought to be pratyekabuddhas he preached dependent origination, and for those who sought the Mahāyāna he preached the six pāramitās, as well as instituting the precepts and monastic rules, not yet preaching the principle of emptiness. Third, during the thirty years after the Buddha attained the Way, he proclaimed the Pañcaviṃśati-sāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra of the emptiness tradition, prajñā, the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa-sūtra, and the Viśeṣacintibrahma-paripṛcchā-sūtra, with the three vehicles sharing the same contemplation, not yet preaching the one vehicle that refutes the three to return to the one, nor having proclaimed that sentient beings possess the Buddha-nature. Fourth, after the Buddha had attained the Way for forty years, during an eight-year period he preached the Lotus Sūtra, clearly distinguishing the one vehicle that refutes the three to return to the one, but not having preached that sentient beings equally possess the Buddha-nature, only showing that the Tathāgata's past exceeds the sands of the Ganges and his future is twofold more, not clarifying the Buddha's eternity; this is an incomplete teaching. Fifth, when the Buddha was about to enter extinction, in one day and one night he preached the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, clarifying that all sentient beings possess the Buddha-nature and the dharmakāya is eternally abiding; this is his nītārtha [teaching]. These are the five periods.' As for the seven stages, the distinction among the three vehicles in the second period, combined with the rest, makes seven. (This is the first account.) Furthermore, Venerable Dan said: 'The Buddha's teachings are two: first, sudden, and second, gradual. The sudden teaching is the same as above. But regarding the gradual, one cannot fix it by those five periods; one needs only to know that what was preached in the past was entirely neyārtha, and the single proclamation at the Twin Trees is his nītārtha teaching.' (This is the second account.) Furthermore, Bodhiruci proclaimed that the Tathāgata responds to myriad capacities with a single voice, setting forth the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna together, so that they cannot be distinguished by sudden and gradual. (This is the third account.)

1.6

Next is to assess their errors. Liu Qiu's assertion that the Buddha's teachings do not go beyond the two gateways of sudden and gradual does not exhaustively account for them. For the four Āgama sūtras and the Vinaya of the five schools preached by the Buddha must be known not to be subsumed under either the sudden or the gradual. Why is this so? That teaching was directed to the Hīnayāna, so it cannot be called sudden; its preaching spanned from beginning to end, and what was preached at the end was not for the sake of entering the Mahāyāna, so it cannot be called gradual. Furthermore, even assuming it was aimed at sentient beings at other times, if they heard the Hīnayāna, attained realization, and ultimately never entered the Mahāyāna, how could it be called gradual? Therefore, the sudden and gradual do not exhaustively subsume the teachings. (This is the first error.) Furthermore, the assertion of the five periods and seven stages is likewise erroneous and wild. If it is said that in the first period he preached the dharma of humans and devas for Trapuṣa and others without discussing world-transcending paths, on what textual basis does this rely? As for the gateway of teaching for humans and devas, throughout the Tathāgata's dispensation he preached it whenever it was appropriate for sentient beings; how could it be confined to the initial period? Moreover, the Trapuṣa-sūtra states that the 'I' and 'self' of all sentient beings are fundamentally pure; the fundamental purity of 'I' and 'self' is the emptiness of sentient beings. It also states that all dharmas return to fundamental non-being; the fundamental non-being of all dharmas is the emptiness of dharmas. Furthermore, when Trapuṣa repented for the assembly the five heinous sins and other transgressions, he awakened to and understood the fundamental purity of the four great elements and five aggregates; the fundamental purity of the aggregates and great elements is likewise the emptiness of dharmas. The two emptinesses are precisely the direct path of transcending the world; how could this be called a teaching gateway for humans and devas? Furthermore, when the Dharma was preached, Trapuṣa and Bhallika heard the Dharma and obtained the forbearance of non-arising of dharmas; at that time the Four Heavenly Kings obtained anulomikī-kṣānti; three hundred merchants achieved faith forbearance; three hundred dragon kings obtained the roots of faith forbearance; asuras and others gave rise to bodhicitta; mountain spirits, tree spirits, water and fire spirits, and so forth all obtained the ten virtues to practice the bodhisattva path; and two hundred merchants obtained the stage of srotāpanna. The forbearance of non-arising of dharmas is the anutpattika-dharma-kṣānti of the seventh ground and above. Anulomikī-kṣānti is the forbearance obtained from the fourth ground and above. Faith forbearance lies in the first, second, and third grounds, and the roots of faith forbearance should correspond to the culminating mind of understanding and practice. Bodhicitta is the beginning of understanding and practice. As for those said to obtain the ten virtues to practice the bodhisattva path, this should correspond to the lineage-nature stage and above, or it may be from the stage of the virtuous leaders onward. The srotāpanna is the first fruit of the Hīnayāna. Since all of these accomplish the correct world-transcending path, how could it be called a teaching gateway for humans and devas? Furthermore, the Lalitavistara clarifies that the Buddha bestowed a prediction upon the two men, Trapuṣa and Bhallika, that they would attain buddhahood, with the title Guptasiddhi. Hence it is clearly known that what was preached was not a teaching for humans and devas. Furthermore, after Trapuṣa and the other heard the Dharma, they departed and did not go to the Deer Park. Kauṇḍinya and the others had not yet participated in this gathering; how could this serve as the gradual [precursor] to what followed? This is exceedingly difficult to explain.

1.7

Regarding the second stage, it is claimed that during those twelve years, the Tathāgata only preached the differentiated teaching gateways of the three vehicles. Relying on what textual evidence is this asserted? The scriptures merely state that for those seeking to be śrāvakas he preached the four noble truths, for those seeking to be pratyekabuddhas he preached dependent origination, and for those seeking the Mahāyāna he preached the six pāramitās; when did they ever say this was confined to twelve years? Furthermore, if sentient beings at other times wished to hear this Dharma, or if at this time they wished to hear other dharmas, would the Buddha have refused to preach them? It is certain that no such principle exists. In reality, as for differentiated teachings, throughout the Tathāgata's dispensation he preached them whenever appropriate; it cannot be determined that they were restricted to twelve years. How is this known? Take the four Āgamas and the Vinaya of the five schools: these are Hīnayāna dharmas. The Prātimokṣa Sūtra states: 'During the twelve years, Śākyamuni Tathāgata briefly preached the precept scriptures for the saṃgha of no-affairs; from that time onward he explained them broadly and distinctively.' The Ekottarika-āgama also shares this statement. This makes it clearly known that the monastic precepts were instituted throughout from beginning to end. Furthermore, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra in the Dīrgha-āgama was only proclaimed when the Buddha was about to enter nirvāṇa; this makes it clearly known that the scriptural teachings were preached continuously throughout from beginning to end, and not merely within twelve years. Furthermore, within five years the Buddha preached the hundred thousand verses of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā clarifying the emptiness of all dharmas, and within seven years he preached the Pratyutpanna-samādhi-sūtra for all the bodhisattvas, likewise preaching that all dharmas of form and mind are empty. How can it be said that the principle of emptiness was not clarified within the twelve years? Verifying by this, what that person said is definitively mistaken.

1.8

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.

1.9

Regarding the fourth period, it is claimed that after forty years [the Buddha] preached the Lotus Sūtra, refuting the three and returning to the one, yet not elucidating the Buddha-nature; and furthermore, that [the lifespan of] the Tathāgata in the past exceeded the sands of the Ganges and in the future will be twice that number, which is still impermanence; hence it is considered gradual in relation to the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]. The sūtra indeed says that after the Buddha attained awakening and forty years had passed, he preached the Lotus Sūtra; however, the sequence between it and the Pañcaviṃśati is difficult to determine. Why is this so? Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna's commentary on the Pañcaviṃśati states: 'Subhūti heard the teaching in the Lotus Sūtra that raising a hand or bowing the head all lead to the realization of the Buddha Path, and therefore he now asks about the meaning of retrogression and non-retrogression.' Based on this textual evidence, the sequence is indeterminate. If one claims that the Lotus Sūtra is deeper than the Pañcaviṃśati because it refutes the three and returns to the one, this has already been refuted above. If one claims that the Lotus Sūtra is shallower than the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] because it has not yet taught the Buddha-nature, this interpretation is not correct. For as the sūtra says, the [Buddha]-nature is precisely the one vehicle; when the Lotus Sūtra clearly explains the one vehicle, how could that not be the nature? Furthermore, when Bodhisattva Sadāparibhūta in the Lotus Sūtra saw members of the fourfold assembly, he proclaimed aloud: 'You shall become Buddhas; I do not disparage you.' Because he knew that sentient beings have the Buddha-nature, he said they would all become [Buddhas]. Merely saying that all will become [Buddhas] manifests that they possess the nature. If one says that the Tathāgata in the past exceeded the sands of the Ganges and in the future will be twice that number, and so [the sūtra] does not elucidate permanence, this interpretation is also incorrect. One must know that it speaks of the response body seen by the bodhisattvas who welled up from the earth, which in the past exceeded the sands of the Ganges and in the future will be twice that number, without discussing the true body. If one discusses the true body, it is ultimately inexhaustible. How is it known to be the response body and not the true body? The sūtra states: 'Since I attained Buddhahood, I have taught the Dharma and converted the bodhisattvas who welled up from the earth'; and it further says: 'I am constantly on Vulture Peak and in other dwelling places, seen by gods and humans.' Thus we clearly know it is the response body. Why does this response body extend for twice that number in the future? Because the bodhisattvas who welled up from the earth whom he converted will all become Buddhas in future ages after twice that number of kalpas, no longer relying on the Buddha's conversion. At that time, the Tathāgata will withdraw the response and return to the true, and therefore it says 'twice that number'; but in principle and in reality, the Buddha's conversion is ultimately inexhaustible.

1.10

Question: If you say that exceeding the sands of the Ganges in the past refers to the response body and not the true body, why does the treatise explain it as the reward Buddha? Answer: This is because it reveals the real by means of the manifest. Since the manifestation has lasted for a long time, it clarifies that the true has existed for long indeed. Since it speaks of the response extending twice that number into the future, how can this [manifestation] be equated with the reward, giving rise to doubts that the true is neyārtha? Furthermore, the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] praises the Great Nirvāṇa Sūtra as having great benefit, just as in the Lotus Sūtra eight thousand śrāvakas received the prediction [of Buddhahood] and achieved the great fruition. Since the benefits obtained are equal, how could what they elucidate differ? As Nāgārjuna truly said: 'The Lotus Sūtra is the most profound, because it preaches that śrāvakas attain Buddhahood. Therefore, the other sūtras were all entrusted to Ānanda, whereas the Lotus Sūtra alone was entrusted exclusively to bodhisattvas.' Examining this text for verification, one cannot say it is shallow.

1.11

Regarding the fifth period, it is claimed that when the Tathāgata was on the verge of the end, he preached the Great Nirvāṇa, which was uniquely the proclamation of the ultimate, nītārtha teaching. In reality, however, though the Nirvāṇa was spoken on the verge of the end, what was spoken on the verge of the end is not necessarily exclusively nītārtha. For before the Twin Trees, he preached the Śrīmālādevī, Laṅkāvatāra, Mahābherī, Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra, Aṅgulimālīya, Ratnastrikā, and so forth, all of which are complete, ultimate, and nītārtha; why should the Nirvāṇa alone be exclusively nītārtha? For instance, in his first year the Buddha preached the Ratnastrikā and the Nirgrantha; in his second year he preached the *Vipulaviśuddha; in his fifth year he preached the Mahāprajñā; in his seventh year he preached the Pratyutpanna-samādhi; in his ninth year he preached the Aṅgulimālīya and the Mahābherī-sūtra; and in his tenth year he preached the Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra. Sūtras such as these are all complete, ultimate, and nītārtha; why should the Nirvāṇa alone be exclusively nītārtha? The words of Master Tan regarding sudden and gradual are refuted in their meaning just as above. Throughout the Buddha's career of conversion, whenever there were sentient beings who ought to enter the Mahāyāna, he immediately preached it for them; in accordance with what was preached, although the particular gates differed, none failed to be ultimate; why should the Nirvāṇa alone be exclusively nītārtha? Bodhiruci said: 'The Buddha responds to the myriad capacities with a single voice; definitively there is neither gradual nor sudden.' This is also not the case. Although the Tathāgata responds to the myriads with a single voice, according to the various sentient beings, it is not without gradual and sudden. Sentient beings themselves exist who rely on the shallow to advance to the distant, for whom the Buddha gradually preaches; or sentient beings exist who leap over in a single step to understand the great, for whom the Buddha suddenly preaches. How could there be no sudden and gradual? The discernment should not be like that.

1.12

Next, the correct doctrine is revealed, which contains two sections: first, dividing the sacred teachings; second, determining the distinctions among the central themes. Although the sacred teachings are manifold, in essence there are only two: first, the worldly; second, the transworldly. The wholesome dharmas of the three realms of existence are called worldly; the three vehicles' path of transcendence is called transworldly. Within the transworldly, there are again two kinds: first, the śrāvaka canon; second, the bodhisattva canon. What is taught for śrāvakas is called the śrāvaka canon; what is taught for bodhisattvas is called the bodhisattva canon. Hence the Bodhisattvabhūmi states: 'Among the twelve divisions of scripture, the Vaipulya division alone is the bodhisattva canon; the remaining eleven divisions are the śrāvaka canon.' That text further says: 'The Buddha taught the sūtras for the śrāvakas and bodhisattvas to practice the path out of suffering; those who compiled the scriptures gathered them into two canons: what was practiced by śrāvakas is the śrāvaka canon, and what was practiced by bodhisattvas is the bodhisattva canon.' Nāgārjuna also says: 'Kāśyapa and Ānanda compiled the Tripiṭaka at Rājagṛha, making the śrāvaka canon; Mañjuśrī and Ānanda compiled the Mahāyāna at the Iron Ring Mountains, making the bodhisattva canon.' Through the clear testimony of the sacred teachings, the meaning is evident indeed. These two are also called the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna, or the semi-complete and complete teachings. The teachings of the śrāvaka canon, being narrow and inferior, are called 'lesser'; being not yet exhaustive, they are called 'semi-complete'. The teachings of the bodhisattva canon, being broad and vast, are called 'great'; being consummate and ultimate, they are called 'complete'. Such are the distinctions among the teachings.

1.13

Regarding the determination of the central themes: the divisions of the various sūtras differ, and their central themes and aims also vary. Although the central themes and aims are manifold, in essence there are only two kinds: first, what is taught; second, what is expressed. 'What is taught' refers to the virtues of practice. 'What is expressed' refers to their jointly expressing the Dharma; but because the Dharma is difficult to display, it is manifested by relying on virtues. The gates of virtue that manifest the Dharma are immeasurable, which is why the central themes and aims of the various sūtras differ from one another. For example, sūtras such as the Sūtra on Generating the Bodhicitta take generating the mind as their central theme; sūtras such as the Sūtra on the Warm Bathhouse take giving as their central theme; sūtras such as the Viśuddhi-vinaya and the Upāsaka-śīla take morality as their central theme. The Avataṃsaka, Lotus, Anantanirdeśa, and so forth take samādhi as their central theme; the Prajñā sūtras and so forth take wisdom as their central theme; the Vimalakīrti-sūtra and so forth take liberation as their central theme; the Suvarṇaprabhāsa and so forth take the dharmakāya as their central theme; the Vaipulya sūtras are like a gate of tathatā; sūtras such as the Tathāgatotpattisaṃbhava take dhāraṇī as their central theme; the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra and so forth take the one vehicle as their central theme; the Nirvāṇa-sūtra and so forth take the Buddha's wondrous fruit of perfect quiescence as their central theme. What is elucidated in sūtras such as these differs individually, yet what they teach is in every case the conditioned arising, virtues of practice, and ultimate, nītārtha meaning of the Mahāyāna. Graduated stages should not be casually asserted. The meaning of the traces of the teachings is summarily stated thus.

1.14

The meaning of the Tripiṭaka distinguished through seven sections (1. Explaining the names; 2. Discerning the characteristics; 3. Opening, uniting, broad, and brief; 4. Establishment; 5. Presence or absence in Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna; 6. Sequence of the Tripiṭaka; 7. Evaluating the broad and the narrow).

1.15

First, explaining the names. As for the "three piṭakas," they are the sūtra, the vinaya, and the abhidharma. Sūtra is a word of the Central Country (India); commentators here in this land have translated it in more than one way: some call it "the root of dharmas" (fāběn), some translate it as "speech of direct explanation" (zhēnshuō yǔyán), some call it "tallying scripture" (qìjīng), and some translate its name as "thread" (xiàn). The reason people have translated it as "the scripture root" is simply based on the *Benevolent Kings Sūtra* and the *Śataśāstra*. For instance, in the *Benevolent Kings Sūtra*, the Buddha told the Great King: "From scripture roots, verse scriptures, up to treatises, all are suchness." Because that sūtra names the sūtra "scripture root," people thereupon took hold of this and used it as a translation of the name. Again, in the *Śataśāstra*, it names its scripture root xiū-dù-lù (sūtra) or says "scripture root," and people also took hold of this and fixed it as the translation of the name. This is merely naming the corpus of scripture according to its meaning, not a correct translation of the name. What is the meaning of "root" (běn)? The meaning of "root" has four aspects: First, matching principle against teaching, the teaching is the root of the principle; hence it is called "root." Second, matching scriptures against treatises within the teaching, the scriptures are the root of the treatises; hence they are called "root." Third, within the scriptures themselves there are root and branch, and "root" itself has three meanings: 1. the general is the root of the particular; 2. the initial is the root of the subsequent; 3. the condensed is the root of the extensive. What is the meaning of this? Within sūtras there are three distinctions of meaning: 1. The general sūtra, which encompasses the twelve [divisions] so that none are not formed into one sūtra; thus the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra* says: "Beginning from 'Thus [have I heard]' down to 'practised [it],' everything like this is called a sūtra." 2. The particular sūtra: opening and dividing eleven [divisions] out of the aforementioned general, whatever is not included in the rest is gathered back into the sūtra [division], which is termed "particular." 3. The condensed sūtra: in the twelve divisions, everything is initially marked and raised in condensed form, all universally named sūtra; afterwards it is explained extensively and taught as twelve. For instance, when one speaks of "matter" (rūpa), this is the fundamental condensed sūtra division; saying "eleven kinds, blue, yellow, and other colours" is its extensive explanation as a sūtra division. As in the parabolic sūtra, "Suppose an elder had a great mansion," this is a condensed sūtra of parabolic teaching, while "the mansion was decayed," etc., is its extensive explanation, belonging to the avadāna scriptures. Everything is like this. Among these three kinds, when the general sūtra looks toward the particular twelve, the general is the root of the particular; hence it is called "root." When the particular sūtra looks toward those geyas (verses of repetition) and looks toward avadānas and upadeśas, the initial is the root of the subsequent; hence it is called "root," while looking toward the rest it is not the root. When the condensed sūtra looks toward the extensive twelve, the condensed is the root of the extensive; it is designated as "root." Fourth, within treatises themselves there are root and branch. There are two kinds: 1. The condensed is the root of the extensive, as the treatise composed by Kātyāyana is the root for the extensive *Vibhāṣā* treatise; 2. The extensive is the root of the condensed, as the *Vibhāṣā* serves as the root for the *Abhidharmasaṃgīti* and the *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya*. Such is the meaning of "root." That which is called "root" in the *Benevolent Kings Sūtra* is spoken with respect to scripture: the general is the root of the particular, hence called "root"; the initial is the root of the subsequent and the condensed is the root of the extensive, which are also called "root." In the *Śataśāstra*, it is spoken with respect to treatises: the condensed is the root of the extensive, hence called "root." These are merely supplementary renderings following the sense, not correct translations of the name. Further, as to why people have translated it as "direct speech," they made this interpretation relying on the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra*. That text says: "A sūtra is speech of direct explanation." People thereupon took hold of this and considered it the translation of the name. That was merely its language of distinction and explanation, not a correct translation of the name. Harivarman composed his treatise to explain the twelve divisions of scripture; setting them against those geya and gāthā verse scriptures, he therefore pointed to the prose and said that sūtras are direct speech, just like saying "that which is hot is fire"—how could that be a translation of the name? Why set it exclusively against geya and gāthā? Because these two are wholly distinct [verses]. Further, as to why people translated the name as "tallying scripture" (qìjīng), they immediately made this interpretation relying on the preface to the *Ekottarika-āgama*. It says: "Tallying scriptures are the first piṭaka, vinaya the second, and abhidharma the third." From this one clearly knows that the tallying scripture is sūtra. Moreover, relying on the text of the "Chapter on Karma" in the *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya*, that text says: "Restraint from non-virtue is as [taught in] the chapter on tallying scriptures." That which it refers to is the "Chapter on Sūtra"; people immediately took hold of this and considered it the translation of the name. This is merely naming the scripture according to its meaning, not a translation of the name. Because the holy teaching corresponds to human feelings and tallies with the characteristics of phenomena, a designation was established from its meaning and called "tallying." Since this [sūtra] is a foreign word, why use private inclinations to make diverse conjectures? If translated correctly, its name is "thread" (xiàn). How is this known? Here we will now explain it by three approaches: 1. standardising by the foreign vernacular; 2. explaining by meaning; 3. demonstrating by textual evidence. Standardising by the foreign vernacular: foreigners precisely designate the thread used by ordinary people to sew clothes as "sūtra"; how could there be a different translation? As for explaining by meaning: the various dharmas are scattered through the dharmadhātu like an array of stars; that which manifests principle in sequential order in the world without falling away or being lost is truly because the holy teaching strings them together. Its capacity to string together dharmas is like a thread stringing flowers; hence it is called "thread." As for textual evidence: as stated in the Vinaya, "Just as various flowers scattered on a table will fall when the wind blows—why? Because there is no thread stringing them together—in the same way, when persons of various names, various clans, and various families leave home, they cause the Buddha's Dharma quickly to perish and not remain long—why? Because they do not gather together the dharmas with scriptural teachings." Therefore the holy teaching is designated as a thread. The Buddha's Dharma is like the flowers; the three types of karma of the sentient beings whom it covers are like the table; committing faults is like the wind. Because of faults the Dharma perishes, just as flowers fall away. If there were no verbal teachings to record and maintain those dharmas, the Dharma would disappear. It is truly because verbal teachings record and maintain it in the world that even though people commit faults, the Dharma constantly remains unextinguished. Possessing this capacity, it is therefore said to be like a thread. Again, the *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya* says: "Sūtra is named 'garland', able to string together all dharmas." Stringing together dharmas is precisely the meaning of a thread.

1.16

Regarding "vinaya," there are four different names: first, vinaya; second, mokṣa; third, śīla; fourth, lǜ (discipline/rules). "Vinaya" is a foreign word; here it is translated as "extinction" (miè). When foreign lands speak of extinction, there are three kinds in all: first, nirvāṇa; second, nirodha, which is the name of the truth of cessation among the four noble truths; third, vinaya. What is the difference among these three? If discussed generally, their essence is one and their names are different, like different words for "eye." In the language of foreign lands, one dharma may have ten names; these three are precisely numbers among the ten. If distinguished specifically, they are not without difference. What are the differing characteristics? Nirvāṇa and nirodha are named according to their intrinsic essence; how do these two differ? There are three interpretations of their meaning: The first interpretation says: That which they extinguish is different, as the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra* explains: "The extinction of the fire of afflictions is called extinction-deliverance; this is nirodha extinction, while transcendence of all vitarka and vicāra is called nirvāṇa." The second interpretation says: They differ in being broad or restricted. The extinction of nirvāṇa specifically refers to the fulfilled stage, whereas the meaning of nirodha extinction applies to both cause and fruit; therefore the truth of cessation includes all extinctions. The third interpretation says: They are divided by being general or particular. Extinction particular to individual matters is spoken of as nirvāṇa; the three extinctions of general characteristics are named nirodha. Being correlated to different grades of afflictions is called "particularity to matters"; the four meanings of cessation (nirodha), pacification (śānta), excellence (praṇīta), and escape (niḥsaraṇa) are broad and universal, and are named "general characteristics." Although these two differ, their intrinsic essence is extinction. If one considers vinaya, its essence is not extinction; it is conditioned active virtue capable of extinguishing something, hence it is called "extinction"; furthermore, it can realise the fruit of quiescent extinction, hence it is spoken of as "extinction." Why is the practice of the precepts named vinaya? There are two meanings: 1. The practice of the precepts can extinguish wrongful karma; hence it is called "extinction." 2. It can attain that ultimate fruit of extinction; hence it is called "extinction." Why does the teaching of the vinaya receive the name vinaya? There are also two meanings: 1. It can express the practice of vinaya; following that which it expresses, it is designated "vinaya." 2. It can generate the active virtue of vinaya; following that which it generates, it is called "vinaya." As for "mokṣa," here it is called "liberation." Liberation has two kinds: first, unconditioned; second, conditioned. Unconditioned liberation is simply named mokṣa; conditioned liberation is named vimokṣa. Therefore the *Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra* says: "Nirvāṇa liberation is named mokṣa; the fivefold dharmakāya, being conditioned liberation, is named vimokṣa." Why is the practice of the precepts called liberation? There are two meanings: 1. The practice of the precepts can free one from wrongful karma; hence it is called liberation. 2. It can attain that fruit of liberation; hence it is called liberation. Therefore the scripture says: "The precepts are the root of directly according with liberation"; hence it is called prātimokṣa. Why is the teaching of the vinaya named liberation? The explanation has two meanings: 1. It can express the active virtue of liberation; hence it is called liberation. 2. It can generate the active virtue of liberation; hence it is called liberation. As for "śīla," here it is called "coolness" (qīngliáng), and is also called "precepts" (jiè). The blazing wrongs of the three karmas burn the practitioner, in a manner just like heat; precepts can guard against and quell this, hence they are called "coolness." The name "coolness" is the direct translation of it. Because they can prevent and forbid, they are called "precepts." Why is the vinaya teaching called precepts? There are also two meanings: 1. It expresses the practice of precepts, hence it is spoken of as precepts; 2. It can generate precepts, hence it is spoken of as precepts. As for the word "lǜ" (discipline), the foreign name is upalakṣa (or uparakṣa), which is translated here as lǜ. There are two explanations: 1. discussing it in terms of teaching; 2. distinguishing it in terms of practice. If in terms of teaching, expressing and measuring is named lǜ; if in terms of practice, subduing is named lǜ. The teaching of the vinaya expresses this practice of lǜ; hence it is called lǜ; further, it generates the practice of lǜ; hence it is also named lǜ.

1.17

Regarding "abhidharma," there are four different names: first, upadeśa; second, abhidharma; third, mātṛkā, also called mātārikā—this is actually one name, transmitted with differing pronunciations; fourth, mātṛ (māyí). Upadeśa is properly called "treatise" (lùn) here, because it treats of all dharmas. As for abhidharma, the correct translation in this land is "incomparable dharma" (wúbǐ fǎ): a- means "without," bhi- means "comparison," and dharma means "phenomena/dharma." The explanation has two aspects: 1. discussing it in terms of the teaching; 2. distinguishing it based on practice. As for discussing it in terms of the teaching: among the three piṭakas, the abhidharma is supreme in analytical distinction; hence it is called "incomparable." As for discussing it in terms of practice: the abhidharma expresses wisdom (prajñā), and the practice of wisdom is most supreme; hence it is called "incomparable." The teaching of the abhidharma expresses this supreme practice; hence it is named "incomparable." Furthermore, it can generate that incomparable wisdom; hence it is called "incomparable." Mātṛkā: the correct translation in this land is "sphere of practice" (xíng jìngjiè). Making clear the deportment of practice and serving as the basis from which practice arises is named "sphere of practice." As for "māyí" (mātṛ): here it is called "mother of practice" (xíngmǔ). Because it distinguishes and explains the dharmas of practice and can give birth to practice, it is named "mother of practice." Its meaning is similar to the preceding "sphere." Among these three [collections], each contains and accumulates [teachings], which is called a "piṭaka" (treasury/basket). The names and meanings of the three piṭakas are thus roughly sketched.

1.18

In the second section, regarding their intrinsic nature: the three baskets all take doctrinal teachings (deśanā) as their intrinsic nature. What is teaching? It is vocal sound, phonemes, and sentences corresponding to the Dharma; this constitutes teaching. Vocal sound is the sound sense-base, which among the three aggregates of dharmas is subsumed under physical matter (rūpa). Regarding names, phonemes, sentences, and so forth, the various treatises differ. According to the Abhidharma, they belong to the mental-object sense-base (dharmāyatana) and are subsumed under the non-physical, non-mental unassociated formations (citta-viprayukta-saṃskāra) among the three aggregates of dharmas. What is the difference among the three: phonemes, names, and sentences? The long, short, curved, straight, high, and low [vocal articulations] are called phonemes (akṣara). Collecting phonemes to express a referent is called a name (nāma). Binding names together in mutual connection to form continuous text and verses is called a sentence (pada). If merely vocal sound were sufficient to express the Dharma, what need would there be for phonemes and the like? If there were only vocal sound not merged in harmony with the principle of phonemes, it would not form speech and would be no different from the sound of wind or bells. It must combine with phonemes before it can become speech. Even if it combines with phonemes and becomes speech, if it does not correspond with the principle of names, it cannot thereby express and designate the referent. Precisely because it corresponds with the principle of names, it is said to express the Dharma. Even though it can express the Dharma, if it does not correspond with the principle of sentences, the names will be dispersed and will not form continuous text or verses. Precisely because it corresponds with the principle of sentences, it collects phonemes and the like to form continuous text, verses, and distinct lines. According to the "Unassociated Formations Chapter" of the Tattvasiddhi, this earlier position is extensively refuted: that treatise does not teach that apart from vocal sound there exist distinct non-physical, non-mental phonemes and so on to be found; it states that phonemes and the like are the nature of vocal sound itself, and that the activity of expressing and designating upon that vocal sound is called phonemes and the like. In principle they are not separate: vocal sound is always real, while phonemes and the like are always conventional—just as with the distinction between physical form and physical action. The entity itself is physical form; continuous movement upon physical form is action; the nature of physical form is always real, while action is always conventional. By analogy with this, the meaning can be understood, without laboring over the number of rhymes and tones. What is the difference among these three? Taking the vocal modulation and inflection upon vocal sound itself is called a phoneme; designating a referent is called a name; a multiplicity of names is called a sentence. In the Mahāyāna Dharma, the phonemes and so on established are identical to the Tattvasiddhi. Thus the Bodhisattvabhūmi says: "Phonemes are the sounds such as a and ā"; it does not state that apart from sound there exist distinct non-physical, non-mental phonemes and the like. Furthermore, the "Chapter on the Meaning of Sentences" in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "According to the grammar of India, a multiplicity of phonemes forms a word, and a multiplicity of words forms a sentence; phonemes, sentences, and words differ through increase and decrease. Vocal sound itself is words; phonemes and the like differ from words by increase and decrease." How could they be different from vocal sound? The intrinsic nature of the three baskets is briefly distinguished in this way.

1.19

In the third section, the extensive and abridged divisions are not fixed. Sometimes they are spoken of as one, namely, all the teachings of the three baskets are collectively called the "inner treatise" (naitara-śāstra). Sometimes they are divided into two, namely, sūtras and treatises. All original teachings are collectively called sūtras; those that conform to and explain them are called treatises. If distinguished according to persons, they are also divided into two, namely, the śrāvaka-piṭaka and the bodhisattva-piṭaka. Sometimes they are divided into three, and there are three approaches to three: First, the distinction of the three baskets, namely, sūtra, vinaya, and abhidharma. Second, the distinction of the three vehicles, namely, all dharmas of the three vehicles. Third, the distinction according to large and small, gradual and sudden, namely, the restricted teaching, the gradual teaching, and the sudden teaching. All lesser teachings are called the restricted teaching; entering the great from the small is called the gradual teaching; the great not proceeding from the small is called the sudden teaching. Sometimes they are divided into four, and there are two approaches to four: First, sūtra, vinaya, abhidharma, and the miscellaneous basket (saṃyukta-piṭaka). Divided into four kinds: when the three trainings are treated separately, they make three; when the three trainings are expounded in combination, it is called the miscellaneous basket. Second, dividing into four according to persons, namely, the three vehicles and the teachings for ordinary beings. Sometimes they are divided into five, namely, sūtra, vinaya, abhidharma, the miscellaneous basket, and the bodhisattva basket: the first four are Hīnayāna, and the last one is Mahāyāna. Sometimes they are divided into six: the Mahāyāna has three baskets, and the Hīnayāna also has three. Sometimes they are divided into eight: within the Hīnayāna there are sūtra, vinaya, abhidharma, and the miscellaneous basket, and likewise for the Mahāyāna. Sometimes they are divided into twelve, namely, the twelve divisions of scriptures. As the Bodhisattvabhūmi says: "Within the Mahāyāna there is only the extensive scripture (vaipulya); the Hīnayāna has eleven." Treating both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna together, there are twelve. The implicit and explicit [aspects] of Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna are fully explained as in the twelve divisions of scripture. Sometimes they are divided into eighteen: the Hīnayāna has nine, and likewise for the Mahāyāna. The nine of the Hīnayāna are those among the twelve divisions excluding prophecy (vyākaraṇa), unprompted exposition (udāna), and extensive scripture (vaipulya). The nine of the Mahāyāna are those among the twelve divisions excluding causal narrative (nidāna), parable (avadāna), and doctrinal debate (upadeśa). Each having nine for Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, there are thus eighteen. The reasons for their presence and absence are extensively explained as in the twelve divisions of scripture. Or again, they are divided into twenty-four divisions: the Mahāyāna has twelve, and likewise for the Hīnayāna. Or again, they are divided into eighty-four thousand: when extensively discussed according to their distinct parts, their number is inexhaustible. The meaning of opening and combining is briefly distinguished in this way.

1.20

In the fourth section, there are three distinctions: first, according to the root and branch of the teachings; second, distinguishing differences with reference to dharmas; third, dividing them with reference to practice. Regarding root and branch: sūtra and vinaya are the root, while treatises are the branch. Within the root, there is the division into sūtra and vinaya. Within the branch, there are also two, namely, abhidharma and mātṛkā. Broadly explaining the characteristics of dharmas is called abhidharma; setting forth and proclaiming behavioral decorum is called mātṛkā, also termed māyī, because it generates practice. Root and branch are like this; within them, there are three distinctions according to meaning: First, what is expounded in the teaching of transformation is called sūtra; what is expounded in the teaching of practice is called vinaya. Broadly proclaiming principles and phenomena, cause and effect, right and wrong is the teaching of transformation; clarifying behavioral decorum is the teaching of practice. Within the branch, that which explains the sūtras is called abhidharma; that which explains the vinaya is called mātṛkā, also termed māyī. Second, with respect to both teachings of transformation and practice: on the side of gathering good, it is called sūtra; on the side of abandoning evil in both teachings of transformation and practice, it is called vinaya. That which explains whatever is the teaching of transformation within these two is called abhidharma; that which explains whatever is the teaching of practice within these two is called mātṛkā. Third, directly taking the teaching of practice that gathers good as sūtra; taking the teaching of practice that abandons evil as vinaya; broadly analyzing the meaning of restraint and performance within these two in order to give rise to understanding in sentient beings is called abhidharma; distinguishing their modes of cultivation in order to arouse the resolve for practice is called mātṛkā. (This concludes the first section.)

1.21

Regarding reference to dharmas: as the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra says, "The three baskets are all the original teachings of the Tathāgata." Within them, they are divided into three according to dharmas: If one speaks of hearing the Dharma, taking refuge in the Three Jewels, and cultivating all practices, such meaning is called sūtra. Distinguishing the gravity and lightness, observing and transgressing, gain and loss of all moral practices—such meaning is called vinaya. Distinguishing all delusions and truths, unreality and reality, the differences among the truths, the characteristics of conditioned co-arising, the five fields of knowledge, and other boundless doctrinal approaches—this is called abhidharma. (This concludes the second section.)

1.22

Regarding reference to practice: practice has three divisions, namely, moral discipline, samādhi, and prajñā. The teaching that explains samādhi is called sūtra; the teaching that explains moral discipline is called vinaya; the teaching that explains prajñā is called abhidharma. Since all three trainings are clarified in each of the three baskets, why are they specifically matched with the three practices in this way? In the Vibhāṣā, two explanations are given: First, division by meaning. Within all the sacred teachings, any meaning that explains samādhi is subsumed under sūtra; any meaning that explains moral discipline is taken as vinaya; any meaning that explains prajñā is judged to be abhidharma. Second, implicit and explicit mutually assist and complete each other. Although moral discipline and prajñā are clarified in the sūtras, they assist in completing the practice of samādhi; although samādhi and prajñā are clarified in the vinaya basket, they assist in completing the practice of moral discipline; although moral discipline and samādhi are clarified in the abhidharma basket, they assist in completing the practice of prajñā. Based on conforming to the explicit over the implicit, this determination is made. Although their distinguished characteristics are thus, the meaning is still difficult to understand. Why is this so? Because the sūtras directly reveal the essence of dharmas so that the mind dwells correctly, the meaning of generating samādhi is strong, and hence they are said to explain samādhi. The abhidharma broadly opens up the meaning of dharmas so that the mind illuminates and understands, and the meaning of generating wisdom is strong, hence it is said to explain prajñā. That the vinaya explains moral discipline is understandable in principle.

First 22 of 136 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

大乘義章 — Classical Chinese