三論玄義 1.14

1.14

Next, explaining specifically the conditions that gave rise to the composition of the treatises: The reason for composing the treatises is, as explained above, that the Tathāgata preached sūtras because [beings] lost the Way, while the treatise masters composed treatises because [beings] were confused about the sūtras. Preaching sūtras because [beings] lost the Way concerns the root loss; the treatise masters composing treatises because [beings] were confused about the sūtras concerns branch-and-leaf losses. Furthermore, the Buddha preaching sūtras for those who lost the Way refers to an initial loss; the treatise masters composing treatises because [beings] were confused about the sūtras refers to giving rise to further loss within loss. Why is this so? Being confused about the Way is one loss; the Tathāgata preached sūtras to cause them to enter the Way, yet they were again confused about the sūtras, and therefore this is loss within loss. The initial loss refers to people of sharp faculties who awaken upon hearing the sūtras. The loss within loss refers to people of dull faculties. Question: Who are the people confused about the sūtras? Answer: They are the diverse tenets of the various schools. Regarding the 'diverse tenets of the various schools': there are either two schools, or five schools, or eighteen schools, or twenty schools, or five hundred schools. Regarding the 'two schools': on the fifteenth day of the second month the Tathāgata entered nirvāṇa, and on the fifteenth day of the fourth month the noble disciples compiled the Tripiṭaka in the Gṛdhrakūṭa mountain at Rājagṛha. At that time, there were already the names of two schools: first, the Sthaviravāda (Elder School), which took Kāśyapa as the elder. Kāśyapa was senior to Ājñāta-Kauṇḍinya by one summer retreat; because the Buddha entrusted the Dharma to Kāśyapa, it was called the Sthaviravāda. Those led by Kāśyapa numbered only five hundred persons, or one thousand according to the *Dàzhìdù lùn*. Second, the Mahāsāṃghika (Great Assembly School), namely the great assembly outside the boundary, which numbered in the tens of thousands, with the arhat Vāṣpa as their leader. This [name] means 'shedding tears'; he was always sorrowful over suffering sentient beings and shed tears. He was one of the five monks and was older than Kāśyapa; he taught the great assembly outside the boundary. This is why there were two assemblies. Kāśyapa had five hundred arhats who first entered inside the boundary to compile the Tripiṭaka; later, many people arrived to compile the Tripiṭaka, and Kāśyapa did not permit any of them. There were two reasons: first, because the five hundred were all wise men; second, because the karman had already been completed. According to the *Dàzhìdù lùn*, King Ajātaśatru only provided food for one thousand people, and therefore the remaining people could not come. From then until one hundred and sixteen years after the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa, there were only the names of the two schools, without diverse tenets. Beyond one hundred and sixteen years, there was a merchant’s son named Mahādeva, upright and intelligent, who committed three inexpiable offenses and later entered the Buddha's Dharma. In all, there were two matters: First, he took various Mahāyāna sūtras and placed them within the Tripiṭaka to explain them. When the arhats compiled the treasury of Dharma, they had already set this meaning aside; the Mahāsāṃghika used this meaning, while the Sthaviravāda did not use it. Because of this, dispute arose, and they subsequently formed two schools. Second, Mahādeva personally composed a verse: 'Tainted by others’ garments / Ignorance, doubt, and crossing over through others / The noble path is revealed through words / This is the true teaching of the Buddhas.' He placed this one verse after the precepts; after reciting the precepts at the poṣadha, he would also recite this one verse. This verse contains five points: First, 'tainted by others' garments': Mahādeva discharged impurity, which soiled his robes, and he deceived his disciples, saying: 'I am an arhat and truly have no impurity; it is only that daughters of celestial Māras have soiled the arhat’s robes with impurity.' Hence he said, 'tainted by others' garments.' Yet this statement has both the false and the true. In reality he was an ordinary person, and in deceiving his disciples he spoke the above matter; therefore it was false. Māra's daughters can indeed soil an arhat’s robes with impurity; therefore it was true. The assembly disputed whether what he said was false or true, and therefore split into two schools. Second, regarding 'ignorance': an arhat lacks the ignorance that leads to taking birth in the three realms, yet still has the ignorance of the vāsanā of non-knowing; hence it is called 'ignorance.' The assembly at the time either said that arhats have ignorance or said that they lack ignorance; because of this dispute arose, and therefore they split into two schools. Third, regarding 'doubt': those with the fruit of srotāpanna are without doubt regarding the three gates of liberation, yet have doubt regarding external matters; hence it is called 'doubt.' Fourth, 'crossing over through others': those of dull faculties who attain the first fruit do not know themselves that they have attained the first fruit, and ask a good friend. The good friend explains to them that being without doubt regarding the Three Jewels and the Four Noble Truths is the mark of the first fruit. Examining themselves, they only then know that they have attained the first fruit; hence it is called 'crossing over through others.' Fifth, 'the noble path is revealed through words': when attaining the noble path, it is also revealed through words. For example, when Śāriputra recited a verse with his own mouth, he immediately attained the first fruit; hence it is said to be 'revealed through words.' The assembly at the time disputed whether these five points were right or wrong, and therefore formed two schools. Question: What different tenets did these two schools uphold? Answer: The doctrinal differences are indeed many; here we briefly explain one. The Mahāsāṃghika held that saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are both prajñapti; the Sthaviravāda held that saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are both real. In the course of two hundred years, another three schools emerged from the Mahāsāṃghika. At that time, because Mahādeva had been privately ordained, the Mahāsāṃghika lived in Aṅguttarāpa, which is north of Rājagṛha. This school mixed Mahāyāna sūtras such as the *Avataṃsaka* and *Prajñāpāramitā* into the Tripiṭaka to explain them. Among the people of that time, some believed and some did not believe; therefore two schools were formed. Those who did not believe solely said: 'The Tripiṭaka recited by the three masters such as Ānanda is credible; all the Mahāyāna sūtras outside of the Tripiṭaka are not credible.' Those who believed in the Mahāyāna did so for three reasons: first, at that time there were still those who had personally heard the Buddha preach the Mahāyāna Dharma, and therefore it was credible; second, through their own reasoning they inferred that there must be a Mahāyāna, and therefore it was credible; third, because they had faith in their teacher, it was credible. Regarding the three schools: 1. The Ekavyāvahārika (One Utterance School). This school held that saṃsāra and nirvāṇa are both prajñapti; hence it was called 'One Utterance.' 2. The Lokottaravāda (Transmundane Utterance School). This school said: mundane dharmas produce karma from inversion, and karma produces fruits; therefore they are unreal. Transmundane dharmas do not arise from inversion; therefore they are real. 3. The Bāhuśrutīya or Kaukkulika (Ashen Mountain School). The former two received their names from the tenets they upheld; this one was named after their dwelling place (this mountain had stone capable of being made into ash; this school dwelt in that mountain to practice the Way, hence the name). They held that the Abhidharma is the real teaching, while sūtras and vinaya are provisional teachings. They cited a verse from a sūtra: 'Covering the body as appropriate, eating and drinking as appropriate, dwelling as appropriate, quickly sever defilements.' 'Covering the body as appropriate' means that if one has three robes, the Buddha also permits it; if one lacks three robes, the Buddha also permits it. 'Eating and drinking as appropriate' means that eating at the proper time the Buddha permits, and eating at improper times he also permits. 'Dwelling as appropriate' means that dwelling inside a delineated boundary is permitted, and not delineating a boundary is also permitted. 'Quickly sever defilements' means that the Buddha's intention is only to have one quickly sever defilements. This school was extremely vigorous, surpassing other people. In the course of two hundred years, another school emerged from within the Mahāsāṃghika, named the Bahuśrutīya (Much-Hearing School). The Mahāsāṃghika only propagated shallow meanings and discarded profound meanings. When the Buddha was in the world, there was an ascetic who encountered the Buddha and attained arhatship, constantly following the Buddha to other worlds and the heavens to listen to the Dharma. When the Buddha entered nirvāṇa, this person was not seen, as he was sitting in meditation in the Snow Mountains. In the course of two hundred years after the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa, he emerged from the Snow Mountains to seek fellow practitioners. Seeing that the Mahāsāṃghika only propagated shallow meanings and did not know the profound Dharma, this person fully recited both the shallow and profound meanings. Among the profound meanings were Mahāyāna doctrines; the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra* originated from this school. People of the time believed what he said, and therefore a separate school was formed, called the Bahuśrutīya School. In the course of two hundred years, yet another school emerged from the Mahāsāṃghika, named the Prajñaptivāda (Bahuśrutīya-vibhajya School). When the Buddha was in the world, Mahākātyāyana composed a treatise explaining the Buddha's Āgama sūtras. At two hundred years, Mahākātyāyana emerged from Lake Anavatapta and further differentiated the meanings within the previous Bahuśrutīya School. People of the time believed what he said; hence it was called the Prajñaptivāda School. At the close of two hundred years, there was a tīrthika named Mahādeva. At that time in the country of Magadha, there was an upāsaka who greatly promoted the Buddha's Dharma; tīrthikas, for the sake of material gain, all shaved their heads and went forth, and so there were thief-dwelling monks, with Mahādeva as the chief thief-dweller. Mahādeva himself went forth, and the disciples he ordained went forth and received the precepts within Mahādeva's assembly; at that time, everyone disputed this matter. The Sthaviravāda said: 'If the preceptor (upādhyāya) lacks precepts or has broken precepts, while the ācārya has precepts and the assembly also has precepts, receiving the precepts is successful; the precepts are obtained from the assembly. If the assembly knows that the preceptor lacks precepts and yet transmits the precepts together with him, the assembly incurs a duṣkṛta offense.' Question: Since precepts are not obtained from the preceptor, why invoke the preceptor’s name? Answer: It is merely intended that after receiving the precepts, the preceptor should take charge of and instruct the disciple. The Sarvāstivāda adopts this explanation. Other schools said: 'If the preceptor lacks precepts or has broken precepts, even if the assembly has precepts, one does not obtain the precepts, because precepts are obtained from the preceptor.' Due to this dispute, they ultimately would not tolerate Mahādeva, and his followers consequently lived separately among the mountains. Within these mountains, the tenets they upheld differed again; hence there were the Caityaśaila and Uttaraśaila schools. Places where the Buddha attained enlightenment, turned the Dharma wheel, and where the great assembly gathered are called caityas. In this place there was a mountain called Caitya Mountain. To the north of that mountain there was another mountain; hence the Uttaraśaila School. Counting the divisions of the Mahāsāṃghika, there are either five, seven, or eight. Regarding the 'five schools': first, the Ekavyāvahārika; second, the Lokottaravāda; third, the Kaukkulika—these were the initial split into three. Next the Bahuśrutīya, and next the Prajñaptivāda; thus forming five schools. Regarding the 'seven schools': because of the tīrthika, it divided into two schools, namely the Caityaśaila and Uttaraśaila. The previous five arose from internal tenets, while the latter two arose from the tīrthika; hence forming seven schools. Regarding the 'eight schools': this counts the root Mahāsāṃghika School as well. Next, regarding the Sthaviraputra School: After the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa, Kāśyapa entrusted the Tripiṭaka to three masters: he entrusted the sūtras to Ānanda, the Abhidharma to Pūrṇa, and the Vinaya to Upāli. When Ānanda passed away, he entrusted the sūtras to Madhyāntika; Madhyāntika entrusted them to Śāṇakavāsin; Śāṇakavāsin entrusted them to Upagupta; Upagupta entrusted them to Pūrṇa; Pūrṇa entrusted them to Mecaka; Mecaka entrusted them to Kātyāyanīputra. From Kāśyapa to Mecaka, during these two hundred years, there were no different schools. At the beginning of the three-hundredth year, Kātyāyanīputra passed away, and it subsequently divided into two schools: first, the Sthaviraputra School; second, the Sarvāstivāda School. The reason it divided into two schools is that the Sthaviraputra only propagated the sūtras, taking the sūtras as primary, while the Vinaya is unfixed in terms of permissions and prohibitions. The Abhidharma merely explains the sūtras, either exceeding the original or falling short of the original; therefore they did not propagate it as primary, nor did they discard the other two baskets. The Sarvāstivāda, however, held that the Abhidharma was supreme, and therefore promoted it predominantly. From Kāśyapa to Upagupta, they propagated the sūtras as primary. From Pūrṇa, they gradually discarded the root and promoted the branches, and therefore propagated the Abhidharma as primary. Arriving at Kātyāyana, the Abhidharma flourished greatly. The Sthaviraputra School, seeing that they discarded the root and promoted the branches, issued a proclamation on four occasions sending them to reform their school, but they held fast to their school and did not reform. The Sthaviraputra School then moved to the Snow Mountains to avoid them; hence they were called the Haimavata (Snow Mountain Dwelling) School. In the three-hundredth year, a school emerged from the Sarvāstivāda, named the Vātsīputrīya (Disciples of Kāvāṣṭa's Son), which is the old Vātsīputrīya. Regarding the name 'Vātsīputrīya': there was an ascetic named Kezhu (Vatsa). There was a woman who was of this ascetic's lineage, hence named Vātsī (Kezhu’s daughter). There was an arhat who was the son of this Vātsī woman, hence named Vātsīputra. This school consists of the disciples of this arhat, hence named Vātsīputrīya. Śāriputra was Rāhula’s upādhyāya, Rāhula was Vātsīputra’s upādhyāya, and this school in turn consists of Vātsīputra’s disciples. Śāriputra explained the Buddha’s ninefold Abhidharma, calling it the *Dharmalakṣaṇa-abhidharma*; Rāhula propagated Śāriputra's Abhidharma; Vātsīputra propagated what Rāhula taught; and this school again propagated what Vātsīputra taught. Next, in the course of three hundred years, from the Vātsīputrīya School there further emerged four schools, which, considering the *Śāriputrābhidharma* to be deficient, each separately composed treatises, taking meanings from the sūtras to complete it. Because what they maintained differed, they formed four schools: 1. The Dharmottarīya, which is the old Dharmaguptaka. 2. The Bhadrayānīya. 3. The Saṃmatīya (Disciples of Great Correct Measure); there was a Great Correct Measure arhat, and they were his disciples, hence named the Saṃmatīya School. These three took their names from persons. 4. Named the Channagirika (Dense Forest School), which took its name from their dwelling place. In the three-hundredth year, another school emerged from the Sarvāstivāda, named the Mahīśāsaka (Rectifying the Earth School). There was a Brahman who was a royal preceptor, named Rectifying the Earth, who was well versed in the four Vedas. He went forth and attained arhatship, and took fine phrases from the four Vedas to adorn the Buddhist sūtras, upholding doctrines that differed again. People of the time believed what he said, so it became a separate school. In the course of three hundred years, another school emerged from the Mahīśāsaka, named the Dharmaguptaka (Dharma Protection School). He was originally a disciple of Maudgalyāyana; having attained arhatship, he constantly followed Maudgalyāyana to the realm of form, and was able to recite and maintain whatever Dharma was taught, compiling it himself into five baskets: the three baskets as usual, the fourth being the dhāraṇī basket, and the fifth being the bodhisattva basket. Some believed what he said, and so it became a separate school. In the course of three hundred years, another school emerged from the Sarvāstivāda, named the Kāśyapīya (Good Years School). Kālodāyin was his father, and the nun Guptā was his mother. He attained arhatship at seven years of age; encountering the Buddha and hearing the Dharma, he was able to recite and retain it all. He compiled the Buddha’s words in corresponding pairs, grouping together refutations of tīrthikas as one category, and remedies for sentient beings' afflictions as another category. People of the time believed what he said, and so it became a separate school. In the course of three hundred years, another school emerged from the Sarvāstivāda, named the Saṅkrāntivāda (Explaining Crossing Over School). They held that the five skandhas cross over from this world to a future world, and are extinguished only when attaining the path of remedy. It was also named the Sautrāntika (Sūtra Explaining School), holding that only the Sūtra Piṭaka is primary, while the other two merely complete the sūtras. In all, there were eleven schools derived from the Sthaviravāda and seven schools from the Mahāsāṃghika, making eighteen schools, which together with the two root schools make twenty schools. Now, the transmission of Revata speaks of the five masters of different eras and the five masters of the same era. Regarding the five masters of different eras: first, Kāśyapa; second, Ānanda; third, Madhyāntika; fourth, Śāṇakavāsin; fifth, Upagupta. These five maintained the Buddha's treasury of Dharma, each for twenty-odd years, entrusting it in succession; hence they are called 'of different eras.' Regarding the five masters of the same era: in the era of Upagupta, it divided into five schools, arising simultaneously, which are called the five masters of the same era: first, Dharmagupta; second, Mahāsāṃghika; third, Mahīśāsaka; fourth, Kāśyapīya; fifth, Vātsīputrīya. Furthermore, the *Mahāsaṃnipāta-sūtra* also explains five schools, whereas the *Mañjuśrī-sūtra*, the *Samayabhedoparacanacakra*, and Kumārajīva's *Treatise on the Differentiation of Schools* all explain twenty schools. As to why there is the discrepancy between five schools and twenty schools: taking into account the diverse tenets from beginning to end, there are twenty; taking into account what flourished prominently in that particular era, only five schools are mentioned. Saying that the five schools arose simultaneously contradicts the previous account of the twenty schools, or perhaps it is because what was seen and heard differed. Regarding the 'five hundred schools': the *Dàzhìdù lùn*, in explaining the chapter on 'Faith and Defamation' in the *Prajñāpāramitā*, says: 'After five hundred years following the Buddha’s parinirvāṇa, there were five hundred schools. Failing to understand that the Buddha's intention was for liberation, they grasped phenomena as having determined marks, and hearing of ultimate emptiness was like a knife wounding their hearts.' Because the diverse tenets of the various schools lost the intention of the Buddha's teaching, Nāgārjuna and Āryadeva composed treatises to refute their delusions. Question: Did the treatise masters refute all the schools completely? Or was there also non-refutation? Answer: There are four propositions in all: First, refuting without accepting: If what the various schools teach contradicts the Mahāyāna or Hīnayāna sūtras and sets up arbitrary doctrines, it is refuted and not accepted. Thus the *Dàzhìdù lùn* rebukes the disciples of Kātyāyana, saying: 'There is no such teaching in the Tripiṭaka, nor is there such a teaching in the Mahāyāna; this is merely what the treatise masters have manufactured themselves.' This is an instance of it. Second, accepting without refuting: As the *Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā-sūtra* says: 'The eighteen and the root two all emerge from the Mahāyāna. There is neither right nor wrong; I say they will arise in the future.' Third, both refuting and accepting: Refuting the various schools’ ability to foster deluded attachments, while accepting the teachings about which the various schools were confused. Fourth, neither refuting nor accepting: In terms of the gate of the Correct Way, there has never been any refutation, nor is there anything to be accepted.