大乘法苑義林章 2.12

2.12

第七彰佛自說總別部類者，且二藏中總而言之，或有別部類、或無別部類。所以者何？一會之中唯被聲聞、不被菩薩，如《阿含》等，是名別部聲聞藏也。其一會中，唯被菩薩、不被聲聞，如〈十地〉等。是名別部菩薩藏也。若一會中俱被二機，教益二種，名無別部，如說《深密》。三乘眾生各有無邊，入自乘故。佛為勝義生菩薩說三無性法時，六百千眾生發菩提心，三百千聲聞遠塵離垢得法眼淨，一百五十千聲聞永盡諸漏心得解脫，七十五千菩薩得無生法忍。故知二藏亦有別部亦無別部。此說二藏總別部類。素呾纜等三總別者，經部師說：契經、調伏有別部類，阿毘達磨無別部說。薩婆多師有二師說。有言：世尊亦有別部說對法藏，即《發智》是。名攝歸彼，故名迦多衍尼子造。有說：世尊無別部類說對法藏，豈佛自造章頌品等？若作此解，便與經部所說不殊。既正理師廣為鬪諍，明佛世尊別說對法。由此義理，故《毘婆沙》存於二解。今大乘中亦有二說，西域相傳其義如是。一師說云：世尊亦有別部類說者，《花嚴》、《般若》如是等經是素呾纜藏，《阿毘達磨》、《深密》等經是阿毘達磨藏，《毘奈耶》、《瞿沙經》是毘奈耶藏。此藏梵本，即今西國施無厭寺猶有小分，大徒隱沒。舊人傳云：《清淨毘尼經》是毘尼藏。第二師云：隨於所詮以分，三藏無別部類。《解深密經》多詮慧學，《文殊問經》等多詮戒學，《首楞嚴經》多詮定學，隨多所詮以分三藏。如《涅槃經》，始從如是終至奉行，俱是修多羅。阿毘達磨經中，具足亦有直非直說，故彼定非是別對法。故從多分以立藏也。三學俱多唯素呾纜，戒定多者唯毘奈耶，唯慧多者對法藏攝。此約佛說。若弟子說，亦有別部，唯對法藏。其《普曜經》、《未生怨經》所說三藏，唯獨覺藏無別部類，以教小故合聲聞說。唯有餘二，以就機行果及所詮少有差別，故分三藏，定無別部。其六藏中，准前所說。初師既許大乘別有《毘奈耶》、《瞿沙經》為毘奈耶藏，別部說有六藏不同，斯亦無失。第二師意不許別部，但隨所詮。若師資合論，別部類說亦可有六，若唯佛說無別六也。隨其所應別有多少，隨詮成六。此即第七彰佛自說總別部類也。

Seventh, elucidating whether the Buddha's own teaching is of general or distinct textual divisions: speaking generally of the two piṭakas, there are either distinct divisions or no distinct divisions. Why is this? In an assembly where only śrāvakas are addressed and not bodhisattvas, as in the Āgamas and so forth, this is called the distinct-division Śrāvaka Piṭaka. In an assembly where only bodhisattvas are addressed and not śrāvakas, as in the "Daśabhūmika" and so forth, this is called the distinct-division Bodhisattva Piṭaka. If an assembly addresses both capacities, and the teaching benefits both kinds, it is called having no distinct division, as when preaching the Saṃdhinirmocana. The sentient beings of the three vehicles are each boundless, entering their respective vehicles. When the Buddha preached the doctrine of the three non-natures for the bodhisattva Paramārthasamudgata, six hundred thousand sentient beings gave rise to the bodhicitta, three hundred thousand śrāvakas became free from dust and defilement and attained the purity of the Dharma eye, one hundred and fifty thousand śrāvakas exhausted all outflows forever and their minds were liberated, and seventy-five thousand bodhisattvas attained the forbearance of non-arising phenomena. Therefore we know that the two piṭakas both have distinct divisions and have no distinct divisions. This explains the general and distinct divisions of the two piṭakas. As for the general and distinct aspects of the three, sūtras and so forth: the Sautrāntika masters say that sūtra and vinaya have distinct divisions, but the abhidharma has no distinct divisions spoken. Among the Sarvāstivādin masters, there are the statements of two masters. Some say that the World-Honoured One also had distinct divisions expounding the Abhidharma Piṭaka, namely the Jñānaprasthāna. Because its title subsumes them, it is said to have been composed by Kātyāyanīputra. Some say that the World-Honoured One did not expound the Abhidharma Piṭaka as distinct divisions; how could the Buddha himself compose sections, verses, and chapters? If this interpretation were made, it would not differ from what the Sautrāntikas say. Since the Nyāya masters extensively debated this, they made it clear that the Buddha, the World-Honoured One, separately preached the abhidharma. Due to this reasoning, the Vibhāṣā preserves both interpretations. Now in the Mahāyāna there are also two explanations, the tradition in the Western Regions being thus. One master says: the World-Honoured One also expounded them as distinct divisions; sūtras such as the Avataṃsaka and Prajñāpāramitā are the Sūtra Piṭaka, sūtras such as the Abhidharma-sūtra and Saṃdhinirmocana are the Abhidharma Piṭaka, and sūtras such as the Vinaya and *Ghoṣa-sūtra are the Vinaya Piṭaka. As for the Sanskrit text of this piṭaka, a small portion still exists in the Western Countries at the Abhayagirivihāra, though the greater part has been lost. The elders transmitted that the Vinayaviniścaya-sūtra is the Vinaya Piṭaka. The second master says: the three piṭakas are divided according to what they express, without distinct divisions. The Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra mostly expresses the training in wisdom, the Mañjuśrīparipṛcchā-sūtra and so forth mostly express the training in morality, and the Śūraṅgamasamādhi-sūtra mostly expresses the training in concentration; the three piṭakas are divided according to what they predominantly express. Like the Nirvāṇa-sūtra, from 'thus' at the beginning to 'faithfully practiced' at the end, it is entirely sūtra. In the Abhidharma-sūtra, it also completely contains direct and indirect teachings, so that is certainly not a distinct abhidharma. Therefore, the piṭakas are established based on what is predominant. Where all three trainings are abundant, it is only the sūtras; where morality and concentration are abundant, it is only the vinaya; where wisdom alone is abundant, it is subsumed under the Abhidharma Piṭaka. This applies to the Buddha's teaching. If spoken by disciples, there are also distinct divisions, but only for the Abhidharma Piṭaka. As for the three piṭakas spoken of in the Lalitavistara and the Ajātaśatrukaukṛtyavinodana-sūtra, only the Pratyekabuddha Piṭaka has no distinct divisions; because its teaching is minor, it is combined with what is preached for śrāvakas. There are only the remaining two; because there are slight differences regarding capacity, practice, fruit, and what is expressed, they are divided into three piṭakas, definitely without distinct divisions. Among the six piṭakas, it corresponds to what was said before. Since the first master accepts that the Mahāyāna separately has the Vinaya and *Ghoṣa-sūtra as the Vinaya Piṭaka, distinct divisions stating six different piṭakas is also without error. The intention of the second master does not accept distinct divisions, but only follows what is expressed. If masters and disciples are discussed together, the teachings of distinct divisions may also be six; if solely the Buddha's preaching, there are no distinct six. According to what is appropriate, with differences in quantity, six are established according to what is expressed. This is the seventh section, elucidating whether the Buddha's own teaching is of general or distinct textual divisions.