大乘法苑義林章 1.66

1.66

第五問答分別者，此中一乘，理應唯一，無餘二三。《法花經》言「聲聞若菩薩，聞我所說法，乃至於一偈，皆成佛無疑。」《涅槃》亦言「凡有心者，悉皆當得無上菩提。」何故乃言為引不定，乃至五乘一切有情皆有佛性，究竟皆至大乘極果。何故究竟有人天乘不歸於佛？答：《攝大乘論》以十因故佛說一乘，《顯揚》二十以六因故佛說一乘，如前已辨。今釋意者，據實而言五乘各異。如前所引教理成立，為引一類故說一乘，非乘唯一無二三等。《法花論》言「聲聞有四：一趣寂、二退菩提心亦名迴向菩提心、三應化、四增上慢。」經但為化退菩提心及應化故，世尊授記非餘二種。應化聲聞者，即經所說耽三昧酒，經劫不覺，後從彼起方發大心。佛菩薩等作此化形，作聲聞類，先聖入滅經劫久時，今尚發心，況於我等。故為應化而說一乘受記作佛。《攝論》十因，第九化故，即是此也。舍利弗等先發大心，因施眼故退求小果。今為彼說一乘受記，故說亦為退菩提心說一乘等。不爾，便違《楞伽》、《莊嚴》五種種姓。又《涅槃》言「我於一時說一乘一道一行一緣，說須陀洹乃至阿羅漢等皆得佛道。我諸弟子不解我意，於大眾中唱如是言：『如來說須陀洹乃至阿羅漢皆得佛道。』若皆作佛即解佛意，何故稱為不解佛意？」故知但應如此中說。問：經自說言「十方佛土中，唯有一乘法，無二亦無三，除佛方便說。」即是破二破三而明一乘。何故乃言三五乘別？答：依梵本說，經頌應言「無第二第三數」。三乘中獨覺為第二，聲聞為第三。為引不定任持所餘故，方便言無第二第三，非真破也。《法花》自言「唯此一事實，餘二即非真。終不以小乘，濟度於眾生。」若破三者，何故乃言餘二非真不以小濟，亦應言不以大乘濟度。經既但言餘二非真不以小濟，明知大乘非所破也。彼經又言「尚無二乘，何況有三。」二謂第二，三謂第三，非謂二乘三乘名為二三。《勝鬘經》云「聲聞、辟支佛乘者，即是大乘。」又言「大乘即是一乘」。故但會二不定姓乘，亦非會彼定性二乘，何況大乘。又無三乘，顯即一故，非破大乘唯有一乘。斯理何爽？若會破三者，三中之大，即火宅內所許牛車，出門等給皆亦牛乘。若破前牛，後別與牛，二牛何別？又三中之大即是頓悟，會令入一，豈令頓悟成漸悟耶？又大乘一乘解行何別，而言捨三而趣於一？新發意菩薩疑網除者，即十義中任持所餘，未說一乘，恐於精進且壞，起疑將退。今聞一乘除其疑意，此乃捨下位而趣上階，非捨大乘而入於一。不爾，十地捨下趣上，皆應亦名破三歸一。又亦應言餘三非真，何獨言二？《勝鬘》又言「若如來隨彼意欲而方便說，即是大乘無有二乘。」故會二乘入於一者，是方便說，非真實理。經雖說言開方便門顯真實相，故說有不定姓二乘者，是方便門，遠令入真故。今說一乘令趣極果名為真實，非謂都無二，唯有一名真。故《法花》言「密遣二人，眇目矬陋」，不言三人。又言「息處故說二」，不言三故。若言迂會入於大位名為大乘，若直往者所入大位名為一乘，經論一乘實為不定，今此所釋未為典據，未見誠文。《法花》一乘豈由直往？今二行位有何差別？故知方便，隱無二乘而說一乘，化一會中所宜聞故。有說：執佛三劫滿已猶是凡夫，三十四念成菩提位。今破此執，故說一乘亦是破三者。不然。此乃佛滅已後小乘曲見，豈是佛在有作此佛執以為真？而今說破，故但破二。問：何故立一乘、五乘，不說一藏、五藏；說有六藏，不說六乘。《阿闍世王經》等所說二藏三藏，與二乘三乘同。答：乘是運載義，約機行以明乘。藏是含容義，教對理而為藏。一五之與六種所以不同，經中所說二三藏、二三乘，以機行而彰運，對機理而辨教，所以可同。未可即令皆同皆異，隨宜且分。乘、藏有此異同相對，總有可同相，於理未爽，然未見文。又準《菩薩藏》第一卷說十度、十弊，相治數齊；四輪、八難，相治數別。不應齊責。問：乘是運度義，菩薩可有乘。如來既已度，應不立佛乘。答：自他皆可乘。菩薩具二度，度他非自度，何妨立佛乘。問：何故有處說佛乘亦名菩薩乘，但名聲聞乘，不名獨覺乘。答：以果相對但說佛乘，二運可修說菩薩乘，行等廣故名為大乘，遮餘二故亦名一乘。獨覺無別教門，初業亦由聲起，故名聲聞乘，不名獨覺乘。二乘通論總名小乘，由機行等同狹劣故。不相違也。問：既以果對名為佛乘，亦應果對名為佛藏。何故但名菩薩藏不名佛藏？聲聞、獨覺俱得藏名，如〈藏章〉中自當廣釋。問：教、理、行、果俱為一乘體，為同為異？答：一雨普潤，教同機異。三獸渡河，理同證異。六處大因行同修異，三車誘引果同設異。或異或同，未勞定準。《勝鬘》會因會果。《法花》乃會教、行、果三。一雨教也，九部行也，三車果也，顯唯教、行、果。密實有四，如《涅槃經》說為同異。

Fifth, discrimination through questions and answers: Here, regarding the One Vehicle, in principle there should only be one, with no remaining two or three. The Lotus Sūtra says: 'Whether śrāvakas or bodhisattvas, / if they hear the Dharma that I preach, / even down to a single verse, / all will become Buddhas without doubt.' The Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] also says: 'All who have minds will without exception attain unexcelled bodhi.' Why then does it say [the One Vehicle is spoken] in order to attract the indeterminate, and even that all sentient beings of the five vehicles possess the Buddha-nature and will ultimately all reach the ultimate fruit of the Great Vehicle? Why are there ultimately human and heavenly vehicles that do not return to the Buddha? Answer: The Mahāyānasaṃgraha states that the Buddha spoke the One Vehicle on account of ten causes; the Xianyang in its twentieth [fascicle] states that the Buddha spoke the One Vehicle on account of six causes, as differentiated previously. The meaning explained now is: speaking according to the real fact, the five vehicles are distinct. Established through the scriptures and reasoning cited earlier, [the Buddha] taught the One Vehicle in order to attract one category [of beings], not because the vehicle is uniquely one without two or three, etc. The Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa says: 'Śrāvakas are of four kinds: 1. those fixed on quiescence, 2. those who regress from the bodhicitta (also called those who turn their aspiration toward bodhi), 3. transformationally manifested ones, and 4. those of excessive arrogance.' The sūtra only confers prophecy for the sake of transforming those who have regressed from bodhicitta and the transformationally manifested ones, not the other two kinds. As for the transformationally manifested śrāvakas, they are those spoken of in the sūtras who, indulging in the wine of samādhi, do not awaken for kalpas, and only after arising from it do they generate the great mind. Buddhas and bodhisattvas make these transformation forms, appearing as the category of śrāvakas: if ancient saints who entered cessation for kalpas long ago still now generate the mind, how much more so should we! Therefore, for the sake of the transformationally manifested ones, the One Vehicle is taught and prophecies of Buddhahood are conferred. The ninth [of the] ten causes in the Saṃgraha, 'on account of transformation', is precisely this. Śāriputra and others had previously generated the great mind, but because of giving away their eyes they regressed to seek the lesser fruit. Now, for their sake the One Vehicle is taught and prophecies are conferred; hence it is said that the One Vehicle is also taught for those who have regressed from bodhicitta, and so forth. Were it not so, it would contradict the five lineages of the Laṅkāvatāra and the Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra. Furthermore, the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: 'At one time I taught one vehicle, one path, one practice, one condition, saying that from srotaāpannas up to arhats, all attain the Buddha path. My disciples did not understand my intention, and among the great assembly they proclaimed thus: "The Tathāgata says that from srotaāpannas up to arhats, all attain the Buddha path." If all become Buddhas, then they would have understood the Buddha's intention; why are they called "not understanding the Buddha's intention"?' Thus we know that one should only explain it as it is stated here. Question: The sūtra itself says: 'In the Buddha lands of the ten directions / there is only the Dharma of the One Vehicle; / there are no two and no three, / except for the Buddha's expedient teachings.' This is precisely refuting the two and refuting the three to clarify the One Vehicle. Why then do you say there is a distinction of three and five vehicles? Answer: Following the Sanskrit text, the verse of the sūtra should say: 'There are no second and third numbers.' Among the three vehicles, the pratyekabuddha is the second, and the śrāvaka is the third. In order to attract the indeterminate and sustain the rest, it expediently says there is no second and no third; it is not a genuine refutation. The Lotus [Sūtra] itself says: 'Only this one thing is real; / the other two are not true. / Never with the lesser vehicle / do I rescue sentient beings.' If it refutes the three, why then does it say 'the other two are not true, not rescuing with the lesser'? It should also have said 'not rescuing with the Great Vehicle'. Since the sūtra only says 'the other two are not true, not rescuing with the lesser', we clearly know that the Great Vehicle is not what is refuted. That sūtra also says: 'There are not even two vehicles, how much less three.' 'Two' means the second, and 'three' means the third; it does not mean that the two vehicles and three vehicles are called two and three. The Śrīmālā-sūtra says: 'The vehicles of the śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha are the Great Vehicle.' It also says: 'The Great Vehicle is the One Vehicle.' Therefore, it only converges the two vehicles of indeterminate lineage, and does not converge those two vehicles of determinate lineage, how much less the Great Vehicle! Moreover, that there are no three vehicles reveals that it is precisely the one; it does not refute the Great Vehicle, leaving only the One Vehicle. How could this principle be in error? If it converged and refuted the three, the 'great' among the three would be the ox-cart promised inside the burning house, and upon exiting the door, what is equally given to all is also an ox vehicle. If the previous ox was refuted and another ox given afterward, what distinction would there be between the two oxen? Moreover, the 'great' among the three is sudden awakening; if it is converged and made to enter the one, would it make sudden awakening into gradual awakening? Furthermore, what distinction in understanding and practice is there between the Great Vehicle and the One Vehicle, that one speaks of relinquishing the three and proceeding to the one? When it is said that the 'doubts of the newly resolved bodhisattvas were removed', this is precisely 'sustaining the rest' among the ten meanings: when the One Vehicle had not yet been taught, fearing that their vigor might temporarily falter, they gave rise to doubts and were about to regress. Now, hearing the One Vehicle, their doubting thoughts were removed. This is relinquishing a lower stage and proceeding to a higher level, not relinquishing the Great Vehicle to enter into the one. Were it not so, then on the ten bhūmis, relinquishing the lower to proceed to the higher should also all be called 'refuting the three to return to the one'. Moreover, it should also have said 'the other three are not true'; why say only 'two'? The Śrīmālā-sūtra also says: 'If the Tathāgata teaches expediently in accordance with their inclinations, that is the Great Vehicle; there are no two vehicles.' Therefore, converging the two vehicles to enter into the one is an expedient teaching, not the real principle. Although the sūtra says 'opening the expedient gateway to reveal the true mark', teaching that there are two vehicles of indeterminate lineage is the expedient gateway, in order to remotely cause them to enter the true. Teaching the One Vehicle now to cause them to proceed to the ultimate fruit is called the real; it does not mean that there are entirely no two and only one is called real. Therefore the Lotus [Sūtra] says: 'He secretly dispatched two men, one-eyed and wretchedly short'; it does not say three men. It also says: 'Because of the resting place, I spoke of two', not saying three. If one says that entering the great stages circuitously is called the Great Vehicle, while for those who go directly, the great stage entered is called the One Vehicle—sūtras and treatises take the One Vehicle to be truly indeterminate; the explanation given now lacks authoritative evidence, and no definitive text has been seen. How could the One Vehicle of the Lotus [Sūtra] be solely due to going directly? What distinction is there between the practices and stages of the two now? Therefore we know it is an expedient, concealing that there are no two vehicles and preaching the One Vehicle, because it was what was fitting to be heard by that one assembly. Some say: 'Holding that when the Buddha completed the three [asaṃkhyeya] kalpas he was still an ordinary person, and in thirty-four thought-moments attained the stage of bodhi—now, to refute this clinging, the One Vehicle is taught, which also refutes the three.' This is not so. This was a crooked view of the Hīnayāna after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa; how could it be that during the Buddha's presence there was someone who clung to this Buddha[-nature] as true, and it is now spoken to refute it? Therefore, it only refutes the two. Question: Why establish the One Vehicle and five vehicles, but not speak of one piṭaka or five piṭakas; and speak of six piṭakas, but not speak of six vehicles? The two piṭakas and three piṭakas spoken of in the Ajātaśatru-rāja-sūtra and others are the same as the two vehicles and three vehicles. Answer: 'Vehicle' has the meaning of conveying; it clarifies the vehicle with reference to the capacity and practice [of beings]. 'Piṭaka' has the meaning of containing; it constitutes a piṭaka by setting teaching against principle. The reason why the one and five differ from the six kinds is that the two or three piṭakas and two or three vehicles spoken of in the sūtras express conveyance through capacity and practice, and differentiate teachings against capacity and principle; therefore they can be identical. One cannot yet make them all identical or all different; they are temporarily divided according to suitability. Vehicles and piṭakas have this mutual correspondence of difference and identity; generally there are aspects in which they can be identical, which does not violate principle, yet no scriptural text has been seen. Furthermore, following the first fascicle of the Bodhisattvapiṭaka, the ten pāramitās and ten defects match in number as counter-remedies; the four wheels and eight adverse conditions differ in number as counter-remedies. One should not demand equal parity. Question: 'Vehicle' has the meaning of carrying across; bodhisattvas may have a vehicle. Since the Tathāgata has already crossed over, a Buddha Vehicle should not be established. Answer: Both self and other can be conveyed. Bodhisattvas are endowed with both crossings; [a Buddha] carries across others rather than crossing himself, so what prevents the establishment of a Buddha Vehicle? Question: Why is it that in some places the Buddha Vehicle is spoken of as also named the Bodhisattva Vehicle, yet it is only named the Śrāvaka Vehicle and not the Pratyekabuddha Vehicle? Answer: In contrast with the fruit, it is only called the Buddha Vehicle; when the two conveyances can be cultivated, it is called the Bodhisattva Vehicle; because its practices and so forth are vast, it is called the Great Vehicle; because it excludes the other two, it is also called the One Vehicle. The pratyekabuddha has no separate teaching doorway, and its initial activity also arises from sound; hence it is named the Śrāvaka Vehicle, not the Pratyekabuddha Vehicle. Speaking generally of the two vehicles, they are collectively named the Lesser Vehicle, because their capacities, practices, and so forth are equally narrow and inferior. There is no contradiction. Question: Since it is named the Buddha Vehicle in contrast with the fruit, in contrast with the fruit it should also be named the Buddha Piṭaka. Why is it only named the Bodhisattva Piṭaka and not the Buddha Piṭaka? Śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas both obtain the name of piṭaka, as will be extensively explained in the 'Chapter on the Piṭakas'. Question: Teaching, principle, practice, and fruit all constitute the substance of the One Vehicle; are they identical or different? Answer: 'A single rain universally moistens': the teaching is identical, the capacities differ. 'Three beasts crossing the river': the principle is identical, the realizations differ. The 'great causes of the six bases': the practices are identical, the cultivations differ. The 'allurement of the three carts': the fruits are identical, the provisions differ. They are either different or identical; it is unnecessary to make a fixed rule. The Śrīmālā converges cause and converges fruit. The Lotus converges the three: teaching, practice, and fruit. The 'single rain' is teaching; the 'nine divisions' are practice; the 'three carts' are fruit. It explicitly reveals only teaching, practice, and fruit. Implicitly, there are in truth four, as explained in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra regarding identity and difference.