大乘玄論 5.4.3

5.4.3

迦葉滅後付阿難，阿難付末田地，末田池付舍那婆斯，舍那婆斯付優婆掘多，如是隔世五師。 至一百餘年，分為二部：一者摩訶僧祇部，此云大眾部； 二者多羯羅部，此云上坐部。 從大眾部分為九部：一名大眾部、二名一說部、三名出世部、四名窟居部、五名多聞部、六名施設論部、七名枝提部、八名阿婆羅部、九名欝他羅部。 三百年中，上座部因諍論事，分為十一部：一名薩婆多部、二名雪山部、三名犢子部、四名達磨欝多部、五名跋陀耶尼部、六名三彌底部、七名六城部、八名彌沙塞部、九名曇無德部、十名迦葉唯部、十一名修多羅論部。 問：經言本二及十八皆從大乘中出，何者為本二及十八耶？ 答：上座、大眾兩部為本二，其後弟子分為十八部。 又經言五部者，佛三藏中毘尼藏多有此名。 又十八部中五部盛行，五部者：一薩婆多部、二曇無德部、三僧祇部、四彌沙塞部、五迦葉唯部。 五部之中，薩婆多部盛行，故佛滅後二百年中，從上座部出薩婆多部，偏弘《毘曇》。 佛滅後三百餘年，迦旃延子作《毘曇八犍度》。 六百年，五百阿羅漢造《毘婆沙論》百卷。 七百年，為《婆沙》太廣，法勝造《毘曇論》。 為法勝太略，千年之間，達磨多羅造《雜心論》十一卷，故毘曇盛行。 《成實》論主從曇無德部出，出於七百年，名訶梨跋摩。 龍樹菩薩，出五百年，破諸異部，造大乘百部論，於閻浮提轉第二法輪。 問：有人言，般若是三乘通教，凡引多文，「欲得聲聞地當學般若，乃至欲得菩薩地當學般若。 」又云「是般若中，廣說三乘之教。 」故言三乘通教。 此義云何？ 答曰：論云「佛於三藏中，但為聲聞說四諦法，未說菩薩行。 今欲為彌勒等廣說菩薩行，故說般若。 」即知般若非三乘通教。 又論云「般若不屬二乘，但屬菩薩。 」又論云「在菩薩心中名般若，在聲聞心中名道品。 」若是三乘通教，則在三乘心通名般若，不應有別名。 又難云：若三乘通學般若，般若是三乘通教者，《涅槃經》云「三乘人同觀中道，下智觀故得聲聞菩提，乃至上上智觀故得佛菩提。 」亦應是三乘通教？ 《大論》云「十種大經中，般若波羅蜜最深最大。 」《小般若經》云「此經為發大乘者說、最上乘者說。 」故知般若非三乘通教。 又說「三乘同學般若者，是密會一乘。 」若因同，果亦應同。 又說「聲聞緣覺若智若斷，皆是菩薩無生法忍。 」又說「一切處求人不可得，云何分別有三乘耶？ 」當知即是密說一乘。 又古舊義：般若已會法，但未會人。 會法者，一切法皆入法性，皆入摩訶衍中。 次云：《淨名》是抑揚轉法輪，嘆凡夫有，及覆毀聲聞為敗根。 是亦不然。 〈魔事品〉云「譬如癡犬，不從大家求食，從作務者索。 」犬者聲聞人，大家者大乘教，作務者小乘經。 《大品經》應是抑揚教耶？ 問：何故餘經不逗緣說此法耶？ 答：《大品》、《法華》是合明義，《涅槃》是開明義。 所以合明義者，《大品》直明無所得因、無所得果，破眾生有所得心，即便了悟，不須別開緣正因果也。 《法華》直破異因異果，明一因一果，眾生即得了悟，亦不開緣正因果。 《大經》為鈍根眾生聞上合說未悟，故廣開緣正兩因兩果，始得領解。 以根緣宜聞合以取悟則為之合，應聞開以受道故為之開也。 問：就《大品》、《法華》、《華嚴》正有緣正文以不？ 答：傍有此義。 《釋論》解〈方便品〉云「般若為種子是正因，五度等為水是緣因，能生菩提果樹。 」又《大品》已有明佛性義，亦有緣正因義也。 《法華》中明眾生有佛性，即正因； 萬行等，是緣因。 《華嚴》中正法性起，文云「微塵中有一經卷，一經卷中廣記一切事。 」此即是眾生身中有佛性。 破微塵出經卷，即是除煩惱見佛性也。 佛性既是正因，諸菩薩修行四十心十地等即是緣因也。

After Kāśyapa's parinirvāṇa, he transmitted [the Dharma] to Ānanda; Ānanda transmitted it to Madhyāntika; Madhyāntika transmitted it to Śāṇavāsa; Śāṇavāsa transmitted it to Upagupta—thus there were five masters across successive generations. After a little more than a hundred years, [the saṃgha] split into two sects: the first was the Mahāsāṃghika sect, translated here as the School of the Great Assembly; the second was the *Thera sect (Sthaviravāda), translated here as the School of the Elders. From the Mahāsāṃghika sect, it split into nine sects: the first was called the Mahāsāṃghika sect, the second was called the Ekavyāvahārika sect, the third was called the Lokottaravāda sect, the fourth was called the Kaukkutika sect, the fifth was called the Bahuśrutīya sect, the sixth was called the Prajñaptivāda sect, the seventh was called the Caityavāda sect, the eighth was called the Aparasaila sect, and the ninth was called the Uttarasaila sect. During the three hundred years, the Sthavira sect, due to disputes, split into eleven sects: the first was called the Sarvāstivāda sect, the second was called the Haimavata sect, the third was called the Vātsīputrīya sect, the fourth was called the Dharmottarīya sect, the fifth was called the Bhadrayānīya sect, the sixth was called the Saṃmitīya sect, the seventh was called the Channagarika sect, the eighth was called the Mahīśāsaka sect, the ninth was called the Dharmaguptaka sect, the tenth was called the Kāśyapīya sect, and the eleventh was called the Sautrāntika sect. Question: The sūtras say that the root two and the eighteen all emerged from the Mahāyāna; what are the root two and the eighteen? Answer: The two sects of the Sthaviras and the Mahāsāṃghikas are the root two; their later disciples split into eighteen sects. Furthermore, where the sūtras mention the five sects, this name frequently appears within the Vinaya Piṭaka among the Buddha's three piṭakas. Moreover, among the eighteen sects, five sects flourished widely: the five sects were, first, the Sarvāstivāda sect; second, the Dharmaguptaka sect; third, the Mahāsāṃghika sect; fourth, the Mahīśāsaka sect; and fifth, the Kāśyapīya sect. Among the five sects, the Sarvāstivāda sect flourished most widely; thus, within two hundred years after the Buddha's nirvana, the Sarvāstivāda sect emerged from the Sthavira sect, specifically propagating the *Abhidharma*. More than three hundred years after the Buddha's nirvana, Kātyāyanīputra composed the *Abhidharma-aṣṭagrantha*. At six hundred years, five hundred arhats composed the *Vibhāṣā-śāstra* in one hundred fascicles. At seven hundred years, because the *Vibhāṣā* was too extensive, Dharmaśreṣṭhin composed the *Abhidharmahṛdaya-śāstra*. Because Dharmaśreṣṭhin's work was too brief, around the thousandth year, Dharmatrāta composed the *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdaya-śāstra* in eleven fascicles; thus the Abhidharma flourished. The author of the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra* emerged from the Dharmaguptaka sect; he appeared around seven hundred years [after the Buddha] and was named Harivarman. The Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna appeared at five hundred years, refuted the various divergent sects, composed a hundred treatises on the Mahāyāna, and turned the second wheel of the Dharma in Jambudvīpa. Question: Some say that Prajñā is a shared teaching for the three vehicles, citing numerous passages: 'If one wishes to attain the stage of a śrāvaka, one should train in Prajñā; up to, if one wishes to attain the stage of a bodhisattva, one should train in Prajñā.' They also say: 'Within this Prajñā, the teachings of the three vehicles are broadly explained.' Therefore, they say it is a shared teaching for the three vehicles. What is the meaning of this? Answer: The treatise states: 'Within the three piṭakas, the Buddha merely explained the teaching of the four noble truths for the sake of the śrāvakas, and did not yet explain the bodhisattva practices. Now, wishing to explain the bodhisattva practices extensively for Maitreya and others, he therefore taught Prajñā.' From this we know that Prajñā is not a shared teaching for the three vehicles. Furthermore, the treatise states: 'Prajñā does not belong to the two vehicles; it belongs only to bodhisattvas.' Furthermore, the treatise states: 'In the minds of bodhisattvas it is named Prajñā; in the minds of śrāvakas it is named the factors of awakening.' If it were a shared teaching for the three vehicles, it would be universally called Prajñā in the minds of the three vehicles and ought not to have different names. Furthermore, one may object: if the three vehicles all equally train in Prajñā, and Prajñā is a shared teaching for the three vehicles, then since the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* states, 'Persons of the three vehicles together contemplate the Middle Way; because of contemplating with inferior gnosis one attains śrāvaka bodhi, up to, because of contemplating with the supreme gnosis one attains buddha bodhi,' should it then also be a shared teaching for the three vehicles? The *Great Treatise* (*Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa*) states: 'Among the ten kinds of great sūtras, the Prajñāpāramitā is the deepest and greatest.' The *Lesser Prajñā Sūtra* states: 'This sūtra is taught for those who set out upon the Great Vehicle, for those who set out upon the Supreme Vehicle.' Therefore, we know that Prajñā is not a shared teaching for the three vehicles. Furthermore, that it is taught that 'those of the three vehicles together train in Prajñā' is a secret convergence into the One Vehicle. If the causes are the same, the fruits must also be the same. It is also taught: 'Whether it is the gnosis or the abandonment of the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, all are the bodhisattva's forbearance of the unborn dharmas.' It is also taught: 'When seeking for a person in all places none can be found; how could one differentiate the three vehicles?' One should know that this is precisely the covert teaching of the One Vehicle. Furthermore, according to an ancient interpretation: Prajñā has already converged dharmas, but has not yet converged persons. 'Converging dharmas' means that all dharmas enter into dharma-nature and all enter into the Mahāyāna. Next, it was said: 'The *Vimalakīrti* is a turning of the Dharma wheel that demotes and promotes, praising the ordinary person as possessing [the potential] while repeatedly disparaging the śrāvakas as rotten roots.' This is also not so. The chapter 'Māra's Deeds' states: 'It is like a foolish dog who does not seek food from the master of the house, but asks it of a servant.' The dog represents the person of the śrāvaka vehicle; the master of the house represents the Mahāyāna teaching; the servant represents the sūtras of the Hīnayāna. Should the *Large Sūtra* (*Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā*) then be a teaching of demoting and promoting? Question: Why do other sūtras not adapt to dispositions to teach this Dharma? Answer: The *Large Sūtra* and the *Lotus Sūtra* are integrated explanations of the principle, whereas the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* is a bifurcated explanation of the principle. Why are they integrated explanations? The *Large Sūtra* directly clarifies the cause of non-attainment and the fruit of non-attainment, shattering the sentient beings' minds of attainment, whereupon they immediately comprehend and awaken without the need to separately bifurcate the auxiliary and direct causes and fruits. The *Lotus Sūtra* directly shatters disparate causes and disparate fruits and clarifies the one cause and one fruit, so that sentient beings immediately attain comprehension and awakening, also without bifurcating the auxiliary and direct causes and fruits. The *Great Sūtra* (*Nirvāṇa Sūtra*), for the sake of dull-rooted sentient beings who did not awaken upon hearing the aforementioned integrated explanation, extensively bifurcates the two causes and two fruits—the auxiliary and the direct—whereupon they first manage to comprehend. Because dispositions and capacities were suited to hear the integrated [teaching] to attain awakening, he integrated it for them; because they needed to hear the bifurcated [teaching] to receive the path, he bifurcated it for them. Question: Looking closely at the *Large Sūtra*, the *Lotus Sūtra*, and the *Avataṃsaka*, do they genuinely have passages on the auxiliary and the direct or not? Answer: Secondary passages contain this meaning. The *Treatise's Commentary* (*Dazhidulun*), explaining the 'Expedient Means' chapter, states: 'Prajñā serves as the seed, which is the direct cause; the five perfections and the rest serve as water, which is the auxiliary cause; they are able to produce the tree of the fruit of bodhi.' Furthermore, the *Large Sūtra* already contains the meaning of clarifying buddha-nature, and also has the meaning of auxiliary and direct causes. In the *Lotus Sūtra*, clarifying that sentient beings possess buddha-nature is precisely the direct cause; the myriad practices and so forth are the auxiliary causes. In the *Avataṃsaka*, in the manifestation of the true dharma-nature, the text states: 'Within a single atom of dust there is a sūtra scroll; within that single sūtra scroll, all events are extensively recorded.' This is precisely that within the bodies of sentient beings there is buddha-nature. Breaking open the atom of dust to bring forth the sūtra scroll is precisely removing the defilements to see buddha-nature. Since buddha-nature is the direct cause, the cultivation by all the bodhisattvas of the forty stages of mind, the ten grounds, and so forth is precisely the auxiliary cause.