大乘玄論 5.4.2

5.4.2

」《涅槃經》明佛果真我，即此經明無上菩提； 《涅槃經》明生死無我，即此經明因中菩薩無我。 應知此經佛果真我生死無我，皆空其相無二、具明八倒，應可信受耳。 問曰：或謂此經未是會三，感誦法華以為盛難。 此義云何？ 答曰：法華會三歸一，則三遣而一存，一存未免守相，故以萬善為乘體。 般若即三而不三，則三遣而一亡，無有法之可得，故以無生中道為乘體。 無生絕於戲論，竟何三之可會？ 所謂百華異色共成一陰，萬法殊相同入波若，無可分別。 又顯一乘真實，凡有二門：若是《法華》，對三乘方便，顯一乘真實相。 若是《波若》、《淨名》，毀小乘為劣、讚大乘為勝，顯一乘真實也。 是故不可談其二經勝劣耳。 若引《涅槃》明常而難此經，前已明之，不更煩耳。 問曰：若唱成地二家之失，今云何判佛教耶？ 答曰：菩薩藏聲聞藏、大乘小乘、有餘無餘、作無作、了不了、有邊無邊、頓漸、半滿、常無常、有量無量門往收，不以具足十門方收，但以一一門攝無量法藏，攝門非一，故有十門。 問曰：前言應依四依莫依凡妄說者，何等是四依？ 答曰：四依者有二種，法四依者，依法不依人、依義不依語、依智不依識、依了義經不依不了義經； 人四依者，依小乘五方便為第一依、須陀洹斯陀含為第二依、阿那含為第三依、阿羅漢為第四依。 若依大乘，地前四十心具煩惱性為第一依、從初地至六地為第二依、七八九地為第三依、第十地為第四依。 今是後四依也。 問曰：前言十二部經，云何但言十二，不大不小耶？ 答曰：有四句。 一大小俱明十二者，以十二是一數之圓，又治眾生十二緣病故也。 二者大小同明九部者，亦是一數之圓，又為九道眾生說故九部。 小乘約法淺，故無方廣經，佛記非小乘之宗。 又小乘人無補佛處，故除授記經。 小乘法淺，有人能問，故除無問自說經。 又大士能為眾生作不請之友，故有無問自說； 小乘不能，要待請方說，故無無問自說。 大乘人根利故除三，大乘之根利直說即解，不須因緣及以譬喻，亦不假論義，故略以此三部。 第三句小廣而大略，如《地持論》說「菩薩藏名方廣經，聲聞藏謂十一部。 」此意明大乘十二為明方廣之理，從所詮之理為名，故十二部悉名方廣。 小乘十二部不為明方廣之理，故存其十一部名，沒方廣之稱。 第四句大廣小略，顯大乘滿字，故具足十二部。 小乘半字，故唯有九部。 又得開三：修多羅、祇夜、伽陀。 此三就教別名，即以教為此三部體，餘之九部從別事受名，亦不離此三也。 三從文言立名，九從功能受稱。 修多羅者，有二種：直說語言為別修多羅，從「如是」至「奉行」，通修多羅。 三藏中修多羅，竪長橫狹，竪長故攝於十二，橫狹故但一藏。 十二部中修多羅，橫濶竪短，不攝十一故竪短，攝三藏故橫濶。 伽陀者，第二部，謂不等頌。 第三祇夜，謂等頌。 又九從功能受名，謂授記經、本事經、本生經、未曾有經、因緣經、譬喻經、無問自說經、方廣經、論義經，合為十二部。 今小乘九部合為五雙：初長行與偈一雙。 諸佛為眾生，或直說修多羅、或命初即為說偈故名伽陀，即知修多羅不必在前、伽陀不必在後。 本事、本生，第二自他一雙，本事說他過去世事，如〈藥王本事品〉等； 說自過去世事為本生經。 未曾有、因緣經，此明善惡事一雙，未曾有經為善事，如青牛行鉢、白狗聽經、大地振動； 因緣謂起罪本末，隨本末而說，名因緣經。 譬喻、祇夜，法喻一雙，論義經者則是能論，上八部四雙名為所論，謂能論所論一雙。 佛在世時自說十二部經，佛滅度後委付迦葉。 十弟子之中最大有四大聲聞，所謂迦葉、目連、須菩提、舍利弗。 何獨付迦葉不付餘人者，舍利弗、目連早已滅度，須菩提者為性濡，迦葉為性剛決，故付迦葉。

"[…]" The Nirvāṇasūtra explains the true self of the buddha-fruit, which is precisely the unsurpassed bodhi explained in this sūtra; the Nirvāṇasūtra explains the non-self of saṃsāra, which is precisely the bodhisattva's non-self on the causal stage explained in this sūtra. One should know that the true self of the buddha-fruit and the non-self of saṃsāra in this sūtra are both empty in their characteristics and non-dual, fully clarifying the eight inversions; this should be faithfully accepted. Question: Some say that this sūtra does not yet converge the three [vehicles], and passionately recite the Lotus [Sūtra] to pose a formidable challenge. What is the meaning of this? Answer: The Lotus [Sūtra] converges the three to return to the one; thus the three are dismissed while the one remains. Because the remaining one still does not escape clinging to characteristics, it takes the myriad goods as the vehicle's essence. Prajñā is identical to the three yet not three; thus the three are dismissed and the one is eliminated, and there is no dharma whatsoever to be attained. Therefore, it takes the unborn Middle Way as the vehicle's essence. The unborn is severed from conceptual proliferation; ultimately what three could there be to converge? This is what is meant by "a hundred flowers of different colours together form a single shade; the myriad dharmas of diverse characteristics together enter prajñā," without anything to distinguish. Furthermore, in revealing the reality of the Ekayāna, there are generally two gates: if it is the Lotus [Sūtra], it reveals the real aspect of the Ekayāna in contrast to the expedients of the three vehicles; if it is Prajñā or the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, they reveal the reality of the Ekayāna by denouncing the Hīnayāna as inferior and praising the Mahāyāna as superior. Therefore, one must not speak of superiority or inferiority between the two sūtras. If one cites the Nirvāṇa[sūtra] to clarify permanence in order to challenge this sūtra, this has already been clarified previously and need not be belaboured further. Question: If you proclaim the errors of the two schools of Tattvasiddhi and Dilun, how do you now classify the Buddha's teachings? Answer: They are gathered through the gates of the Bodhisattvapiṭaka and Śrāvakapiṭaka, Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, with remainder and without remainder, active and inactive, definitive and non-definitive, bounded and boundless, sudden and gradual, half-letter and full-letter, permanent and impermanent, measurable and immeasurable. They are not gathered only when all ten gates are fully present; rather, each single gate subsumes the immeasurable storehouse of dharmas. Because the subsuming gates are not one, there are ten gates. Question: Previously you said that one should rely on the four reliances and not rely on ordinary delusions; what are the four reliances? Answer: As for the four reliances, there are two kinds. The four reliances on dharmas are: rely on the Dharma, not on the person; rely on the meaning, not on the words; rely on gnosis, not on consciousness; rely on definitive sūtras, not on non-definitive sūtras. As for the four reliances on persons: according to the Hīnayāna, the five expedient practices are the first reliance, the srotāpanna and sakṛdāgāmin are the second reliance, the anāgāmin is the third reliance, and the arhat is the fourth reliance. If according to the Mahāyāna, the forty minds before the bhūmis that still possess afflictive nature are the first reliance; from the first bhūmi to the sixth bhūmi is the second reliance; the seventh, eighth, and ninth bhūmis are the third reliance; and the tenth bhūmi is the fourth reliance. Here, it refers to the latter four reliances. Question: Previously you mentioned the twelve divisions of scriptures; why are only twelve spoken of, neither greater nor fewer? Answer: There is a catuskoṭi. First, both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna clarify twelve, because twelve is the completion of a single number, and also because it cures the twelve links of disease in sentient beings. Second, both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna equally clarify nine divisions; this is also the completion of a single number, and because they are taught for sentient beings of the nine destinies, there are nine divisions. In the Hīnayāna, because its doctrine is shallow, there is no vaipulya scripture; the Buddha's vyākaraṇa is not the central tenet of the Hīnayāna. Furthermore, because Hīnayāna persons do not succeed to the buddha-position, vyākaraṇa scriptures are excluded. Because the Hīnayāna doctrine is shallow, someone is always able to question, so udāna scriptures are excluded. Furthermore, the great beings can act as uninvited friends to sentient beings, so there are udānas; Hīnayāna persons are incapable of this and must await an invitation before speaking, so there are no udānas. Because Mahāyāna persons have sharp faculties, three are excluded: because the faculties of the Mahāyāna are sharp, they understand as soon as it is directly stated, without needing nidāna, avadāna, or upadeśa; therefore, these three divisions are omitted. In the third proposition, the Hīnayāna is broad while the Mahāyāna is brief: as the Bodhisattvabhūmi says, "The Bodhisattvapiṭaka is called vaipulya scriptures; the Śrāvakapiṭaka refers to eleven divisions." The meaning here is to clarify that the twelve [divisions] of the Mahāyāna are for clarifying the principle of vaipulya; taking their name from the principle expressed, all twelve divisions are named vaipulya. The twelve divisions of the Hīnayāna are not for clarifying the principle of vaipulya; therefore, their eleven divisions' names are retained, and the designation of vaipulya is omitted. In the fourth proposition, the Mahāyāna is broad while the Hīnayāna is brief: to reveal the full-letter [teaching] of the Mahāyāna, it fully possesses the twelve divisions; the Hīnayāna is the half-letter [teaching], so it has only nine divisions. Furthermore, they can be opened into three: sūtra, geya, and gāthā. These three are distinct names in terms of the teaching, taking the teaching as the essence of these three divisions; the remaining nine divisions receive their names from specific matters, yet they are not apart from these three. The three establish their names from the written words; the nine receive their designations from their functions. As for sūtras, there are two kinds: direct verbal exposition is the specific sūtra; from "Thus [have I heard]" to "faithfully carried it out" is the general sūtra. Sūtra among the Tripiṭaka is vertically long and horizontally narrow: vertically long because it subsumes the twelve [divisions]; horizontally narrow because it is merely one basket. Sūtra among the twelve divisions is horizontally broad and vertically short: vertically short because it does not subsume the eleven [divisions]; horizontally broad because it subsumes the Tripiṭaka. Gāthā is the second division, meaning verses not repeating [prose]. The third is geya, meaning verses repeating [prose]. Furthermore, the nine receive their names from their functions: namely, vyākaraṇa, itivṛttaka, jātaka, adbhutadharma, nidāna, avadāna, udāna, vaipulya, and upadeśa scriptures, together making twelve divisions. Now the nine divisions of the Hīnayāna are combined into five pairs: first is the pair of prose and verse. For the sake of sentient beings, the buddhas either speak sūtras directly, or from the very beginning speak verses, hence called gāthā; thus one knows that sūtras are not necessarily in front, and gāthās are not necessarily behind. Itivṛttaka and jātaka form the second pair, of self and other: itivṛttaka speaks of the past events of others, like the "Former Affairs of the Bodhisattva Bhaiṣajyarāja" chapter; speaking of one's own past events is a jātaka scripture. Adbhutadharma and nidāna scriptures clarify the pair of good and bad matters: adbhutadharma scriptures concern good matters, such as a blue ox carrying an almsbowl, a white dog listening to the sūtra, or the great earth shaking; nidāna refers to the origin and development of offenses, and being taught in accordance with their origin and development, they are called nidāna scriptures. Avadāna and geya form the pair of doctrine and metaphor. Upadeśa scriptures are that which can debate; the preceding eight divisions and four pairs are called that which is debated, meaning the pair of that which can debate and that which is debated. When the Buddha was in the world, he personally spoke the twelve divisions of scriptures; after the Buddha's extinction and crossing over, he entrusted them to Kāśyapa. Among the ten disciples, the greatest were the four great śrāvakas, namely Kāśyapa, Maudgalyāyana, Subhūti, and Śāriputra. Why did he entrust them solely to Kāśyapa and not to the others? Śāriputra and Maudgalyāyana had already entered extinction and crossing over long before; as for Subhūti, his nature was gentle, whereas Kāśyapa's nature was firm and decisive; therefore, he entrusted them to Kāśyapa.