[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) › [大乘玄論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1853) › 5.4.1 # 大乘玄論 5.4.1 大乘玄論 5.4.1 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [5.4.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1853.5.4.1) 釋教第一。 至理無言，所以言者，言生於群心。 然群基百差，致令聖教萬殊。 萬殊言教，解釋不同。 成論師或言四時、或言五時，引《涅槃經》云「從牛出乳，從乳出酪，從酪出生酥，從生酥出熟酥，從熟酥出醍醐。 」又從佛出十二部經，從十二部經出修多羅，從修多羅出方等經，從方等經出波若波羅蜜，從般若波羅蜜出大涅槃。 成論師五味相生配五時教，四諦教有相差別故出十二部經。 修多羅名法本，波若是諸法根本，故波若名修多羅。 《維摩經》廣明菩薩不思議法門，故《維摩經》名方等經。 一乘之中般若最勝，故《法華經》名般若波羅蜜。 《涅槃經》時明常住佛果，故言出大涅槃。 今謂不爾。 十二部經是別相修多羅； 從十二部經出修多羅者是通相修多羅，從通別兩教起大乘萬行，故言從修多羅出方等。 萬行之中。 波若為主，故言從方等出波若波羅密。 從此二因得大涅槃果，故言從波若波羅蜜出大涅槃。 此乃教行因果相生，非是判五時教也。 今此摩訶衍論無作，品末云「初轉法輪時，非唯八萬諸天一人得須陀洹果，又無量人發無上菩提之心，乃至無量人得一生補處。 又成道五年，說十萬偈波若，備明二空。 七年為大菩薩說《般舟三昧經》，明色心皆空。 十年說《如來藏經》，顯本有佛性。 」應知十二年中非只說小乘。 若大小俱明而言但說小乘者，亦可十二年後雖大小俱說，應名小乘。 若俱說大小而名大乘，我亦十二年前雖大小俱談，而名大乘教。 又論云「善吉曾於法華會聞說菩薩畢定，後聞《大品．阿毘跋致品》，是故今問為定為不定。 」故《法華》不必第四時耳。 又成道已來常說般若，所以不局第二時也。 地論師云：有三宗四宗。 三宗者，一立相教、二捨相教、三顯真實教。 為二乘人說有相教，《大品》等經廣明無相故云捨相，《華嚴》等經名顯真實教門。 四宗者，毘曇是因緣宗，成實謂假名宗，三論名不真宗，十地論為真宗。 今謂不然。 此人罪過甚深，勿謗《波若》墮於無間。 今依此論具明三佛，又彌勒、天親釋波若經文亦明三佛，故知《波若》等經具明常住佛果、佛性正因、十地了因。 若爾，何不名顯實教？ 應依四依大聖，莫依凡妄執也。 問曰：若言常者，云何此經云三世諸佛皆入無餘涅槃耶？ 答曰：非是小乘無餘涅槃。 若依《攝論》，大乘無餘涅槃有二種：一者分段因果盡名有餘，變易因果盡名無餘涅槃； 二者報應二佛名有餘涅槃，法身名無餘涅槃也。 又《金剛波若經》中「我皆令入無餘涅槃」者，是彌勒釋云「大乘第一無餘涅槃」也。 問曰：若爾，何故此經明十力、四無畏、十八不共等皆是有為耶？ 答曰：對法身真如空邊故，報佛十力十八不共等是有法，故言有為，非生滅有為也。 又《攝論》云「無常有二種：一者因中本無今有、已有還無無常； 二者佛果本無今有、已有不無無常。 」而不同因中生滅無常，但是佛果上報梨耶識五根等始起邊名無常耳。 問曰：若此經非直明空者，亦說本有不空之法耶？ 答曰：論主釋初品中法性云「法名涅槃、性名本分，如白石中有銀性、黃石中有金性、一切法中有涅槃性亦如是。 」今謂是本有性淨涅槃，是以此經皆明性淨、方便二種涅槃也。 問曰：更有明證證此經已明常住、已顯真實耶？ 答曰：明證雖多，不可為煩。 今但取〈法尚品〉以三譬具明三佛。 又云「諸佛色身有去來，諸佛法身無去來。 」有去來是應佛，無去來是法佛報佛。 又論云「佛有二種：一者父母生身佛、二法性生身佛。 」父母生身者，是應佛； 法性生身，是報佛； 若但言法性身，是法身佛。 論又云「華色比丘尼不見法身佛，善吉得見法身。 」又此經處處皆云十地行滿得無上菩提，云何十地行滿還得無常身耶？ 是故《涅槃》云「我無我無有二相，我於摩訶般若波羅蜜經中廣說。 > First is the explanation of the teachings. The ultimate principle is beyond words; the reason there are words is that words arise from the minds of the multitude. Yet, because the capacities of the multitude have a hundred differences, this causes the sacred teachings to have ten thousand variations. Regarding these ten thousand variations of the spoken teachings, the interpretations differ. The Tattvasiddhi masters speak either of four periods or of five periods, citing the Nirvāṇasūtra: "From a cow one extracts milk; from milk one extracts curd; from curd one extracts fresh butter; from fresh butter one extracts clarified butter; from clarified butter one extracts the finest ghee." And further: from the Buddha issue the twelve divisions of scripture; from the twelve divisions of scripture issues the sūtra; from the sūtra issue the vaipulya sūtras; from the vaipulya sūtras issues the Prajñāpāramitā; and from the Prajñāpāramitā issues the Mahānirvāṇa. The Tattvasiddhi masters correlate the reciprocal arising of the five flavors with the teachings of the five periods: because the teaching of the four truths has differentiated marks, it issues the twelve divisions of scripture. "Sūtra" means the root of phenomena, and prajñā is the fundamental root of all phenomena; hence prajñā is called "sūtra". The Vimalakīrtinirdeśa extensively illuminates the bodhisattva's inconceivable dharma-gate; hence the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa is called a "vaipulya sūtra". Within the Ekayāna, prajñā is the most supreme; hence the Lotus Sūtra is called "Prajñāpāramitā". The Nirvāṇasūtra period illuminates the eternally abiding fruit of buddhahood; hence it says that it "issues the Mahānirvāṇa". We say now that this is not so. The twelve divisions of scripture are sūtras of specific characteristics; that which "issues from the twelve divisions of scripture as the sūtra" is the sūtra of general characteristics. From these two teachings—general and specific—the myriad practices of the Mahāyāna arise; hence it says that "from the sūtra issue the vaipulya \[sūtras\]". Among the myriad practices, prajñā is primary; hence it says that "from the vaipulya \[sūtras\] issues the Prajñāpāramitā". From these two causes one attains the fruit of Mahānirvāṇa; hence it says that "from the Prajñāpāramitā issues the Mahānirvāṇa". This is merely the reciprocal production of teaching, practice, cause, and fruit; it is not a classification of the teachings into five periods. Now, at the end of the chapter on "Non-action" in this Mahāyāna treatise, it says: "When the wheel of the Dharma was first turned, not only did eighty thousand devas \[and one human\] attain the fruit of srotāpanna, but also immeasurable people generated the mind of unexcelled bodhi, up to immeasurable people attaining \[the stage of\] being bound to one more birth. Furthermore, five years after attaining enlightenment, he preached the Prajñā of one hundred thousand verses, fully illuminating the two kinds of emptiness. After seven years, for the sake of the great bodhisattvas, he preached the Pratyutpanna-buddha-saṃmukhāvasthita-samādhi-sūtra, illuminating that both form and mind are empty. After ten years, he preached the Tathāgatagarbhasūtra, revealing the originally existent buddha-nature." One should know that within the twelve years he did not preach only the Hīnayāna. If he illuminated both the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna, and yet one claims he only preached the Hīnayāna, one might as well say that although he preached both the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna after the twelve years, it should be called Hīnayāna. If preaching both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna makes it called Mahāyāna, then I likewise say that although he discussed both Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna before the twelve years, it was called the Mahāyāna teaching. Furthermore, the treatise states: "Subhūti had previously heard in the Lotus assembly that bodhisattvas are definitively determined; later, he heard the 'Chapter on the Irreversible' in the Large Prajñāpāramitā, and therefore now asks whether they are determined or undetermined." Hence the Lotus need not belong to the fourth period. Moreover, since his enlightenment, he constantly preached prajñā; thus it is not restricted to the second period. The Daśabhūmika masters say: There are three tenets and four tenets. The three tenets are: first, the teaching establishing marks; second, the teaching relinquishing marks; third, the teaching revealing the real. For persons of the two vehicles, he preached the teaching of having marks. Because sūtras such as the Large Prajñāpāramitā extensively illuminate signlessness, they are called "relinquishing marks". Sūtras such as the Avataṃsaka are called the gate of the teaching that "reveals the real". As for the four tenets: Abhidharma is the tenet of dependent co-arising; the Tattvasiddhi is called the tenet of conventional designation; the Sanlun is called the tenet of the non-true; and the Daśabhūmivyākhyāna is the tenet of the true. We say now that this is not so. The transgression of this person is extremely grave; do not slander prajñā and fall into Avīci! Now, relying on this treatise, the three buddhas are fully clarified, and furthermore Maitreya and Vasubandhu in explaining the text of the Prajñāpāramitāsūtra also clarify the three buddhas; therefore we know that sūtras such as the Prajñāpāramitā fully illuminate the eternally abiding fruit of buddhahood, the direct cause which is buddha-nature, and the revealing cause of the ten stages. If so, why should it not be called the teaching revealing the real? One should rely on the four reliances of the great sages, and not rely on the deluded attachments of ordinary people. Question: If you say it is eternal, why does this sūtra say that the buddhas of the three times all enter nirvāṇa without remainder? Answer: This is not the nirvāṇa without remainder of the Hīnayāna. If we rely on the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, Mahāyāna nirvāṇa without remainder is of two kinds: first, the exhaustion of the causes and fruits of fragmented \[birth and death\] is called 'with remainder', and the exhaustion of the causes and fruits of changeful \[birth and death\] is called 'nirvāṇa without remainder'; second, the saṃbhogakāya and nirmāṇakāya buddhas are called 'nirvāṇa with remainder', and the dharmakāya is called 'nirvāṇa without remainder'. Furthermore, that which is stated in the Vajracchedikāprajñāpāramitāsūtra—"I shall cause them all to enter nirvāṇa without remainder"—is explained by Maitreya as "the supreme nirvāṇa without remainder of the Mahāyāna". Question: If so, why does this sūtra explain that the ten powers, the four fearlessnesses, the eighteen exclusive \[attributes\], and so forth are all conditioned? Answer: Because they are contrasted with the side of emptiness of the dharmakāya's tathatā, the saṃbhoga buddha's ten powers, eighteen exclusive \[attributes\], and so forth are existent phenomena; hence they are said to be conditioned, not that they are conditioned in terms of arising and ceasing. Furthermore, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha states: "Impermanence is of two kinds: first, impermanence in the cause that was originally non-existent and now exists, and having existed returns to non-existence; second, impermanence in the fruit of buddhahood that was originally non-existent and now exists, and having existed is not non-existent." Thus it is not the same as the impermanence of arising and ceasing in the cause; it is merely named impermanence with respect to the initial arising of the recompense-ālayavijñāna, the five sense faculties, and so forth in the fruit of buddhahood. Question: If this sūtra does not merely illuminate emptiness, does it also speak of originally existent non-empty phenomena? Answer: In explaining the 'dharma-nature' in the first chapter, the author of the treatise says: "'Dharma' is called nirvāṇa; 'nature' is called original share. Just as there is the nature of silver in white stone, the nature of gold in yellow stone, so it is with the nature of nirvāṇa within all phenomena." We say now that this is the originally existent nirvāṇa of natural purity; therefore, this sūtra illuminates both kinds of nirvāṇa: natural purity and expedient means. Question: Is there further clear evidence to prove that this sūtra has already illuminated the eternally abiding and already revealed the real? Answer: Although clear evidence is abundant, one should not be tedious. Now we merely take the chapter on "Dharmodgata", which fully illuminates the three buddhas by means of three parables. It also says: "The form body of the buddhas has coming and going; the dharmakāya of the buddhas has no coming and going." Having coming and going is the nirmāṇa buddha; having no coming and going are the dharma buddha and saṃbhoga buddha. Furthermore, the treatise says: "Buddhas are of two kinds: first, the buddha of the body born of parents; second, the buddha of the body born of dharma-nature." The body born of parents is the nirmāṇa buddha; the body born of dharma-nature is the saṃbhoga buddha; if one merely says the dharma-nature body, it is the dharmakāya buddha. The treatise also says: "The bhikṣuṇī Utpalavarṇā did not see the dharmakāya buddha; Subhūti was able to see the dharmakāya." Furthermore, this sūtra states in every place that when the practices of the ten stages are completed, one attains unexcelled bodhi; how could one, upon completing the practices of the ten stages, conversely attain an impermanent body? Therefore, the Nirvāṇa\[sūtra\] states: "Self and non-self have no two marks; I have extensively explained this in the Mahāprajñāpāramitāsūtra." > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 5.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1853.5.3) - [Next: 5.4.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1853.5.4.2) - [Up: 5.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1853.5.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1853~en-mt.5.4.1) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1853.5.4.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1853.5.4.1) · Pramāṇa