大乘法苑義林章 1.12

1.12

第二時利差別，復分為二：初敘古說、後述今文。敘古說中，復分為二：初敘古說、後敘其非。敘古說者，後魏有菩提流支法師，此名覺愛，唯立一時教。佛得自在，都不起心有說不說，但眾生有感，於一切時謂說一切法。譬如天樂，隨眾生念出種種聲。亦如末尼，隨意所求雨種種寶。《花嚴經》云「如來一語中，演出無邊契經海。」《維摩經》云「佛以一音演說法，眾生隨類各得解，或有恐怖或歡喜，或生厭離或斷疑。」故無一教定頓定漸。又《無量義經》言「我得道來四十餘年，常說諸法不生不滅、不去不來、無此無彼、無得無失，一相無相。但由眾生悟解不同，得諸果異。」《法花》亦言「一雨普潤，三草二木生長不同。」《優婆塞經》言「三獸渡河，淺深成別。」故知諸教但總一時，無二三等。又古來大德立有頓漸二教，為諸菩薩大根大莖，說《花嚴》、《楞伽》、《大雲》、《法鼓》、《勝鬘》等經。一會之中說二諦理盡，名之為頓。大不由小起，故名為頓。始從佛樹終至雙林，從淺至深漸次說法，因果、三歸、五戒、十善等法，三乘有教《阿含》等經，《維摩》、《思益》、《大品》空教，《法花》一乘，《涅槃》等說常住佛性，皆是漸教會通三乘，大由小起名為漸也。又菩提流支法師亦立二時教。《楞伽經》說「漸頓者，莫問聲聞菩薩，皆漸次修行從淺至深，名為漸也。頓者，如來能一時頓說一切法，名之為頓。」又有二教：一者半教、二者滿教。《涅槃經》言「云何解滿字及與半字義？」又云「為聲聞乘而說半字，為菩薩乘而說滿字。」又《勝鬘經》言「有作四聖諦、無作四聖諦，聲聞知有作，佛知無作。」《瑜伽》等說安立諦、非安立諦，唯說安立名為半教，通說非安立名為滿教。又有二教：一生空教、二法空教。《二十唯識論》云「依此教能入，數取趣無我、所執法無我，復由餘教入。」此以二空二障以明半滿。又有二教：一勝義諦、二世俗諦。晉時有隱士劉虬立五時教。或有說云真諦三藏立五時教，然菩提流支法師別作文疏破之。真諦居梁，流支在魏，故知不是真諦等作。第一時者，佛初成道，為提謂波利等五百賈人但說三歸、五戒、十善世間因果教，即提謂等五戒本行經是，未有出世善根器故。第二時者，佛成道竟三七日外十二年中，唯說三乘有行之教，未為說空，即《阿含》等小乘經是。第三時者，佛成道竟三十年中，說彼三乘同行空教，即《維摩》、《思益》、《大品》等經是。第四時者，佛成道竟四十年中說有一乘，猶未分明演說佛性常住實有，尚說無常佛顯一乘佛果以為真實，即《法花經》是。以前未明一乘義故，此中猶未分明演說常住佛性故。第五時者，謂雙林中說諸眾生悉有佛性常住佛教，即《涅槃經》、《大悲經》等是。此雖可爾，既無經論誠文說之，未可依信。前來總是敘古說也。敘其非者，只如第一菩提流支法師唯立一時教者，若廢事談理，及在一會有大小機，可如所說。若唯被大如《勝鬘經》，或但被小如《遺教經》，或初有大無小如《花嚴經》至〈入法界品〉方有聲聞，初有小無大，雖未見文，理必應爾。如斯等教義類甚多。或有諸經全分多分大小教異，言唯一時，深為猛浪。豈無一會頓發三乘之心，及無漸入大乘者也？第二古德說有頓漸，理雖可然，定判諸經為頓、漸者，義即難解。只如《花嚴經》中〈入法界品〉，五百聲聞在于會坐列名歎德，又舍利弗將六千弟子從自房出，文殊師利為說十法，即發無上正等覺心。《楞伽經》中亦列聲聞在于會坐。《法鼓經》中說窮子喻，與《法花經．信解品》同。《勝鬘經》說三種意生身一乘之義。《攝大乘》云「引攝一類不定性故」，非為頓教，《花嚴》等經未必從首至末皆是為被大根行說，竝名為頓；定說五時所說之經為漸教者，後當敘非。第三又菩提流支法師。依《楞伽經》立頓、漸二教者。此亦不然。彼經以佛能頓說法，以說為頓；以三乘人漸次修學，名之為漸。以行為漸，非約教時，亦不可取。又第四依《涅槃經》等立半滿教者，彼皆據所明理有盡不盡以明半滿，不定依逗機直往迂會以明半滿。第五劉虬立五時者，今者且依菩提流支法師斥破，是義不然。《提謂經》說五百價人將受五戒，先懺悔彼五逆十惡謗法等罪，得四大本淨、五陰本淨、六塵本淨、吾我本淨。時提謂等得不起法忍，三百價人得柔順忍，二百價人得須陀洹果，四天王等得柔順忍，三百龍王得信忍，自餘天等發無上道意，十億天人皆行菩薩十善。提謂長者滅三界苦得不起法忍，即是初地或第八地。又《普曜經》，第二七日，提謂等五百價人施佛[麩-夫+少]蜜，佛與授記：「汝於來世當得作佛，名曰齊成。」云何但言第一時中世間教也？雖作此破，義亦難知。既有賈人得預流等，何不此日名轉法輪，至五比丘法輪方轉？由未分明說三乘者同所觀諦故，未名轉法輪。次第二時，十二年中唯說有教者，覺愛破云：「是亦不爾。成道五年說《大般若》，正明實相。又第七年為八菩薩說《般舟三昧經》，正明眾生五蘊本空。又第九年說《抰掘摩羅經》、第十年中說《如來藏經》，皆明涅槃佛性深理。又《提謂》、《普曜》等經皆明菩薩行。又與價人授記成佛，明初成道已說大乘。又《摩訶般若大品經》中說：佛在鹿野轉四諦輪，無量眾生發聲聞心，無量眾生發獨覺心，無量眾生發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心、行六波羅蜜，無量菩薩得無生法忍，住於初地、二地、三地乃至十地，無量一生補處菩薩一時成佛。又成道竟第二七日說《十地經》。云何乃言十二年內唯說有教不說大乘？」只如《法花經》云「於三七日中常思惟是事」，即成道竟三七日中不說法也。《彌沙塞律》云「初成道竟，三昧七日。」《十地經》云「七日不說法，顯示自受法樂故，為令眾生於如來所增愛敬故。」然律及薩婆多傳云：過六七日，梵天來請，方乃說法，始度五人。即四十二日方說法也。《十二由經》云「成道竟一年不說法，經十二年方度五人。」《智度論》云「初成道竟五十七日，佛不說法。」有人解云：即五十个七日，與《十二由經》一年不說法同也。如此經傳說成佛道不說法日已各不同，何得以已胸臆之心說十二年唯說有教。又若前後唯度一機，可如所說；機器千品，何得一準？今依古說略破初二，自餘三時廣如菩提流支法師別傳所破。此即別破立教不同。然此所立雖理可然，既無教文未可依據，竝違《解深密經》所說時也。上來總是敘其非也。并前竝為敘古說也。

Second, the differences regarding time and benefit are further divided into two parts: first, recounting ancient theories; second, explaining the present text. Within recounting ancient theories, there are again two parts: first, recounting ancient theories; second, recounting their flaws.

Regarding recounting ancient theories: In the Later Wei dynasty, there was the Dharma master Bodhiruci (here translated as Jue'ai ["Awakened Love"]), who posited only a single-period teaching. The Buddha attained mastery; he never aroused any intention of speaking or not speaking. It is merely that sentient beings have resonances, and at all times conceive that he preaches all dharmas. For example, just as heavenly music produces diverse sounds according to the thoughts of sentient beings, or just as a maṇi jewel rains diverse treasures according to what is wished for. The Avataṃsaka-sūtra says: "In a single utterance of the Tathāgata, an ocean of boundless sūtras is expounded." The Vimalakīrti-sūtra says: "The Buddha expounds the Dharma with a single voice; sentient beings each obtain understanding according to their kinds: some feel dread, some rejoice, some give rise to revulsion, and some cut off doubts." Therefore, no single teaching is definitively sudden or definitively gradual. Furthermore, the Wuliangyi jing says: "Since I attained the path forty-odd years ago, I have constantly spoken of all dharmas as non-arising and non-ceasing, neither going nor coming, without this and without that, without gain and without loss, of a single characteristic which is markless. It is only because sentient beings differ in their awakening and comprehension that the fruits they attain are different." The Lotus Sūtra also says: "A single rain moistens universally, yet the three kinds of grasses and two kinds of trees grow differently." The Upāsaka-sūtra says: "When three beasts cross a river, shallow and deep form distinctions." Hence we know that all teachings are merely collectively of a single period; there are no two, three, or more.

Furthermore, venerable masters of the past established two teachings: sudden and gradual. For bodhisattvas of great faculties and great stems, he spoke such sūtras as the Avataṃsaka, Laṅkāvatāra, Mahāmegha, Mahābherī, and Śrīmālā. Within a single assembly, the principles of the two truths were fully expounded; this was named "sudden." The great did not arise from the small, hence it was named "sudden." From the tree of awakening at the beginning to the twin trees at the end, he preached the Dharma gradually from shallow to deep: teachings on cause and effect, the three refuges, the five precepts, the ten good deeds, and so forth; the teachings of existence of the three vehicles such as the Āgamas; the teachings of emptiness such as the Vimalakīrti, Viśeṣacinti, and Mahāprajñāpāramitā; the one vehicle of the Lotus Sūtra; and the eternal Buddha-nature spoken of in the Nirvāṇa and other sūtras. These are all gradual assemblies that integrate the three vehicles; the great arising from the small was named "gradual."

Moreover, Dharma master Bodhiruci also established a two-period teaching. The Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra says: "As for gradual and sudden: whether śrāvakas or bodhisattvas, all practice gradually from shallow to deep; this is called 'gradual.' 'Sudden' means that the Tathāgata can expound all dharmas suddenly at one time; this is called 'sudden.'"

There are also two teachings: first, the half-word teaching; second, the full-word teaching. The Nirvāṇa-sūtra says: "How does one understand the meanings of the full letter and the half letter?" It also says: "For the śrāvaka vehicle, he spoke the half letter; for the bodhisattva vehicle, he spoke the full letter." Moreover, the Śrīmālā-sūtra says: "There are the four noble truths with action, and the four noble truths without action. Śrāvakas know those with action; the Buddha knows those without action." The Yogācārabhūmi and other texts speak of established truths and non-established truths. Speaking only of the established is named the half teaching; universally speaking of the non-established is named the full teaching.

There are also two teachings: first, the teaching of the emptiness of persons; second, the teaching of the emptiness of dharmas. The Viṃśatikā says: "Relying on this teaching, one can enter the selflessness of pudgalas and the selflessness of grasped dharmas; and through other teachings, one enters again." This explains half and full by means of the two emptinesses and the two hindrances.

There are also two teachings: first, the paramārtha truth; second, the saṃvṛti truth.

During the Jin dynasty, the hermit Liu Qiu established a five-period teaching. Some say that Tripiṭaka master Paramārtha established a five-period teaching, yet Dharma master Bodhiruci composed separate commentaries refuting it. Paramārtha resided in the Liang dynasty, while Bodhiruci was in the Wei dynasty; hence we know this was not made by Paramārtha and others. The first period: when the Buddha first attained the path, for Trapuṣa, Bhallika, and five hundred merchants, he only expounded the worldly teaching of cause and effect—the three refuges, the five precepts, and the ten good deeds; that is, the Sūtra on the Fundamental Practice of the Five Precepts for Trapuṣa and Others—because they were not yet vessels for supramundane roots of goodness. The second period: within twelve years outside the three seven-day periods after the Buddha attained the path, he expounded only the teachings on practice of existence of the three vehicles, not yet speaking of emptiness for them; that is, the Hīnayāna sūtras such as the Āgamas. The third period: within thirty years after the Buddha attained the path, he spoke the teaching of emptiness practiced in common by those three vehicles; that is, sūtras such as the Vimalakīrti, Viśeṣacinti, and Mahāprajñāpāramitā. The fourth period: within forty years after the Buddha attained the path, he spoke of there being one vehicle, yet he had not clearly expounded Buddha-nature as eternally abiding and substantially existent, still speaking of an impermanent Buddha to reveal the one-vehicle Buddha-fruit as real; that is, the Lotus Sūtra. This is because earlier he had not yet clarified the meaning of the one vehicle, and here he had not yet clearly expounded eternally abiding Buddha-nature. The fifth period: speaking in the twin trees that all sentient beings have Buddha-nature, the teaching of an eternally abiding Buddha; that is, sūtras such as the Nirvāṇa-sūtra and the Mahākaruṇā-sūtra. Although this might be so, since there is no authentic text in the sūtras and treatises stating it, it cannot yet be relied upon and trusted. Up to this point has been recounting ancient theories.

Regarding recounting their flaws: Taking first Dharma master Bodhiruci, who established only a single-period teaching: if one sets aside phenomena to talk about principle, and if within one assembly there are faculties of both great and small, it could be as he says. But if an assembly addresses only the great, as in the Śrīmālā-sūtra, or addresses only the small, as in the Yijiao jing; or if at first there is the great without the small, as in the Avataṃsaka-sūtra where only upon reaching the "Chapter on Entering the Dharmadhātu" are there śrāvakas; or if at first there is the small without the great—although no text has yet been seen, in principle it must be so. Categories of teachings like these are very numerous. Or there are sūtras with entirely or mostly distinct teachings for the great and the small; to say it was only a single period is extremely reckless. Could it be that there are no assemblies where the minds of the three vehicles are aroused suddenly, and none where one enters the Mahāyāna gradually?

Second, the ancient masters said there were sudden and gradual [teachings]. Although in principle it might be so, definitively classifying various sūtras as sudden or gradual makes the meaning difficult to understand. For instance, in the "Chapter on Entering the Dharmadhātu" of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra, five hundred śrāvakas were seated in the assembly, with their names listed and virtues praised; furthermore, Śāriputra led six thousand disciples out of his own chamber, and Mañjuśrī expounded ten dharmas for them, whereupon they aroused the mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi. In the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra as well, śrāvakas are listed as seated in the assembly. In the Mahābherī-sūtra, the parable of the impoverished son is spoken, identical to the "Chapter on Faith and Understanding" in the Lotus Sūtra. The Śrīmālā-sūtra speaks of the meaning of the three kinds of mind-made bodies and the one vehicle. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: "Because of guiding and gathering one class of indeterminate nature," it is not a sudden teaching. Sūtras such as the Avataṃsaka were not necessarily expounded from beginning to end to address those of great faculties and practices, so that they could all be named "sudden." As for definitively stating that the sūtras expounded in the five periods were gradual teachings, their flaws will be recounted later.

Third, regarding Dharma master Bodhiruci's establishing the two teachings of sudden and gradual based on the Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra: this too is not correct. That sūtra takes the Buddha's ability to expound the Dharma suddenly, taking the exposition as sudden; and it takes the persons of the three vehicles practicing and learning gradually, naming it gradual. It takes the practice as gradual, not referring to the periods of teaching; hence it also cannot be accepted.

Fourth, regarding establishing the half and full teachings based on the Nirvāṇa-sūtra and so forth: those all determine half and full on the basis of whether the principle explained is exhaustive or unexhaustive; they do not definitively establish half and full based on accommodating faculties via direct progression or roundabout convergence.

Fifth, regarding Liu Qiu's establishing five periods: now, relying provisionally on Dharma master Bodhiruci's repudiation, this meaning is not correct. The Tiwei jing states that when the five hundred merchants were about to receive the five precepts, they first repented their offenses such as the five deadly sins, the ten unwholesome actions, and slandering the Dharma, and attained the fundamental purity of the four great elements, the fundamental purity of the five skandhas, the fundamental purity of the six sense objects, and the fundamental purity of the ego. At that time, Trapuṣa and others attained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas; three hundred merchants attained compliant acceptance; two hundred merchants attained the fruit of srotāpanna; the Four Heavenly Kings and others attained compliant acceptance; three hundred dragon kings attained acceptance based on faith; the remaining devas and others aroused the resolve for supreme bodhi; and one billion devas and humans all practiced the ten good deeds of a bodhisattva. The elder Trapuṣa eradicated the suffering of the three realms and attained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas, which is the first ground or the eighth ground. Furthermore, the Lalitavistara states that during the second seven-day period, Trapuṣa and the other five hundred merchants offered roasted flour and honey to the Buddha, and the Buddha bestowed a prophecy upon them: "In a future life you will attain buddhahood, named Qicheng [Evenly Accomplished]." How could one say that the first period contained only worldly teachings? Although this refutation is made, its meaning is also difficult to know: since there were merchants who attained stream-entry and so forth, why is this day not called turning the wheel of the Dharma, and only when it reached the five bhikṣus was the wheel of the Dharma turned? It is because he had not yet clearly expounded the truths commonly contemplated by the three vehicles; therefore, it was not yet named turning the wheel of the Dharma.

Next, regarding the second period, wherein for twelve years only the teaching of existence was spoken, Jue'ai refuted this, saying: "This too is not so. In the fifth year after attaining the path, he spoke the Mahāprajñāpāramitā, directly clarifying true reality. In the seventh year, for eight bodhisattvas, he spoke the Pratyutpanna-samādhi-sūtra, directly clarifying that the five aggregates of sentient beings are fundamentally empty. In the ninth year he spoke the Aṅgulimālīya-sūtra, and in the tenth year he spoke the Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra, both clarifying the profound principle of nirvāṇa and Buddha-nature. Moreover, sūtras such as the Tiwei jing and Lalitavistara all clarify bodhisattva practice. Furthermore, he bestowed a prophecy of buddhahood upon the merchants, making clear that when he first attained the path he had already expounded the Mahāyāna. In addition, the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā states: When the Buddha turned the wheel of the four truths in the Deer Park, immeasurable sentient beings aroused the mind of a śrāvaka, immeasurable sentient beings aroused the mind of a pratyekabuddha, immeasurable sentient beings aroused the mind of anuttarā samyaksaṃbodhi and practiced the six pāramitās, immeasurable bodhisattvas attained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas and dwelt on the first ground, second ground, third ground, up to the tenth ground, and immeasurable bodhisattvas bound to one more birth simultaneously attained buddhahood. Furthermore, on the second seven-day period after attaining the path, he spoke the Daśabhūmika-sūtra. How could one say that within the twelve years he only spoke the teaching of existence and did not speak the Mahāyāna?"

Consider also the Lotus Sūtra, which says: "During three seven-day periods I constantly contemplated this matter," meaning that during the three seven-day periods after attaining the path, he did not preach the Dharma. The Mahīśāsaka-vinaya says: "Upon first attaining the path, he remained in samādhi for seven days." The Daśabhūmika-sūtra says: "For seven days he did not preach the Dharma, to demonstrate that he personally enjoyed the bliss of the Dharma, and to cause sentient beings to increase love and respect toward the Tathāgata." However, the Vinaya and the Sarvāstivāda biographies state: After six seven-day periods passed, Brahmā came to request [it], and only then did he preach the Dharma, initially delivering the five persons; that is, only after forty-two days did he preach the Dharma. The Shi'eryou jing says: "After attaining the path, he did not preach the Dharma for one year; and after twelve years passed, he delivered the five persons." The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: "For fifty-seven days after first attaining the path, the Buddha did not preach the Dharma." Someone explained: "This means fifty [times] seven days, which is the same as the Shi'eryou jing's statement that he did not preach the Dharma for one year." As these sūtras and accounts already differ regarding the days after attaining the Buddha path during which he did not preach the Dharma, how could one rely on one's own fabricated opinion to say that for twelve years he only spoke the teaching of existence?

Furthermore, if before and after he delivered only a single capacity, it could be as they say; but since capacities are of a thousand sorts, how could there be a single standard? Now, following the ancient explanations, I have briefly refuted the first two; the remaining three periods are refuted at length as found in Dharma master Bodhiruci's separate account. This is the distinct refutation of establishing different teachings. However, although what they establish may seem plausible in principle, since there is no textual authority, it cannot be relied upon, and it contradicts the periods spoken of in the Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra. Up to this point has been recounting their flaws. Together with the preceding, both constitute recounting ancient theories.