[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [大乘法苑義林章](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861) › 2.15 # 大乘法苑義林章 2.15 大乘法苑義林章 2.15 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [2.15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.2.15) 第十釋通疑難者，第一結集緣起。雖有違文，諸部不同，未可為難。第二名數增減中，問：既大乘中無別雜藏，何故《分別功德經》說有雜藏，《瑜伽論》等云如雜事說。答：《分別功德經》是大眾部義，非宗所許。設同《瑜伽》說有雜事者，如《法蘊足論》薩婆多部說有〈雜事品〉，本是經文，隨彼所詮即屬彼藏。唯詮行雜即毘奈耶，唯詮事雜即素呾纜，唯詮理雜即對法藏。若三俱雜即素呾纜，若行、事雜即毘奈耶及素呾纜。若行、理雜即通調伏及對法攝。若事、理雜即通契經及對法攝。然非大乘別立雜藏。此依所詮，以分三藏。若部袠別，從多攝屬，彼藏所收。《胎藏經》八藏亦大眾部，非大乘義。第三辨廢立中，問：約機運濟為乘，即立一乘、五乘。亦許約機攝持為藏，許立一藏、五藏？答：雖無文說，義即可然。乘、藏俱許就機，理有一藏、五藏。《勝鬘經》云「毘尼者即大乘學。既攝小教名為大學，故同於乘唯立一藏。」亦應說言：十方佛土中：唯有一藏法：無第二、第三，除佛方便說。以此准知，義應立一、五。約機論藏諸教既小，故略不立一藏、五藏，理應有也。又乘依機行、藏約教門，意趣有殊，不可一准。如十度、十蔽相治數齊，四輪、八難其數不等，故乘有一、五，而教不立也。第四門中出其體性所有妨難，總聊簡中前已具述。第五釋總別名中，問：何故二藏中，小乘依人立藏名聲聞藏，不名獨覺藏？大乘依人立藏名菩薩藏，不名如來藏？答：獨覺之教小於聲聞，又初入法亦依聲教故，小乘藏依人立名名聲聞藏，不名獨覺藏。若名如來藏，願行名字不弘。欲顯願行名字深大弘遠，但名菩薩藏，不名如來藏。又菩薩德行世易可成，如來德行世難可成，欲勸有情令依此教易可成立，但名菩薩藏，不名如來藏。又小乘之中聲聞為因、獨覺為果，從小為名，非名獨覺藏。大乘之中，菩薩為因、如來為果，從小為稱，非名如來藏。問：何故菩薩藏以誓願所求為名，不以境緣為號而名無師藏？其聲聞藏以境緣為稱，不以誓願所求為名而名涅槃薩埵藏？答：夫立名者，且約一德。菩薩願求俱廣利益既大，欲顯悲深智廣，但名菩薩藏，不名無師藏。聲聞依緣成德為勝，願求俱淺故，從境緣為名，不名涅槃薩埵藏。由此獨覺亦依緣立名，不以誓願為號。問：三藏中若以貫穿生理名素呾纜，餘之二藏亦應名契經。調伏、對法為問亦爾。答：據實而論，三藏俱可名素呾纜，以說素呾纜是貫穿義故。然從根本以得其名，餘即不得。如色法處，餘不得名，調伏、對法其義亦爾。又貫穿理生勝，一得其名，非餘。調伏三業勝，一得名，非餘。對向無住涅槃勝，一得名，非餘。契經、調伏、對法，如次各一得名。問：六藏之中若以行果機理少別，《普曜經》等立獨覺等以為三藏，亦應以彼行等小別立於九藏，何故唯六？答：有別部類但可分六，以獨覺教無別部類不分成九。又機性全別可成三藏，教法小別不分成九。第六辨差別中，問：依淨尸羅生無悔等，漸次得定生詮戒、定，俱名毘奈耶。依定發慧生詮定、慧，應俱名對法。答：戒、定俱福類，詮生竝調伏。定慧福智殊，生詮異藏攝。問：定慧類殊，別藏所攝。散定差別，定非調伏。答：定散雖殊俱是福，不能斷惑俱調伏。福智兩殊專擇異，斷惑有差別藏攝。第七彰佛自說總別部類，略為聊簡，如自門說。第八師資建立者，問：設許三藏十二分教，佛滅度後弟子皆得分別演說，有何過失？答：若爾，便成師資無別，淺法、深法，比法、證法，聖法、凡法，一切智法、一切種智法都無差別。又許造者，藏教便殊。故佛不許佛滅度後弟子等，造十二分教及三藏等。問：如是諸藏，三界五趣何處具有？被何眾生？答：《仁王經》中列變化眾、無色界眾。又無色界天，佛邊側立聽《阿含經》。《陀羅尼經》烈地獄眾。故知契經被三界、五趣真化之身。《盧舍那佛經》說十八梵天諸神王等，俱能解悟，皆悉受持菩薩戒法。故知調伏亦被二界、五趣之身。此依實身。無色界中無有耳識，不聞教故，故知但被二界、五趣有情實身。以經威力，地獄眾生得聞法故，諸大菩薩於地獄中教化受戒種種事故，然得戒者義即差別，有此教者亦唯二界、五地無遮，尋伺上地可起下故，發教化他理亦無失。阿毘達磨可通二界，不見文說，許通五趣、四生即無遮。然《中陰經》說佛於中有教化無色界眾生者，非大乘宗。大乘宗者，此是化眾生，定非真身，無業果故。不爾，便違《瑜伽》等說。 > Tenth, on resolving doubts and objections. Regarding the first, the circumstances of the redaction: although there are conflicting texts and the various schools differ, this cannot be taken as an objection. Regarding the second, the increase and decrease in name and number: Question: Since in the Mahāyāna there is no separate Kṣudraka Piṭaka, why does the Fenbie gongde jing say there is a Kṣudraka Piṭaka, and why does the Yogācārabhūmi and so forth say 'as explained in the Kṣudraka'? Answer: The Fenbie gongde jing reflects the doctrine of the Mahāsāṃghika school, which is not accepted by our school. Even if, like the Yogācāra, it speaks of a Kṣudrakavastu, just as the Sarvāstivāda school's Dharmaskandha speaks of a 'Kṣudrakavastu Chapter,' this was originally sūtra text, and according to what it explains, it belongs to that respective piṭaka: what solely explains miscellaneous practices belongs to the Vinaya; what solely explains miscellaneous events belongs to the Sūtra; what solely explains miscellaneous principles belongs to the Abhidharma Piṭaka. If all three are mixed, it is the Sūtra; if practice and events are mixed, it is the Vinaya and the Sūtra; if practice and principle are mixed, it is subsumed under both the Vinaya and the Abhidharma; if events and principle are mixed, it is subsumed under both the Sūtra and the Abhidharma. However, the Mahāyāna does not separately establish a Kṣudraka Piṭaka. This divides the three piṭakas according to the meaning explained. If individual volumes differ, they are subsumed according to the majority of what they contain and are included in that piṭaka. The eight piṭakas of the Garbhāvakrānti-sūtra also belong to the Mahāsāṃghika school and are not a Mahāyāna doctrine. Regarding the third, distinguishing establishment and omission: Question: If taking the conveyance and salvation according to capacity as the vehicle leads to establishing one vehicle and five vehicles, does taking the containment according to capacity as the piṭaka also permit the establishment of one piṭaka and five piṭakas? Answer: Although there is no explicit text stating this, the meaning would indeed allow it. Since vehicle and piṭaka are both accepted with reference to capacity, in principle there are one piṭaka and five piṭakas. The Śrīmālā-sūtra says, 'The Vinaya is the learning of the Mahāyāna.' Since subsuming the small teaching is called the great learning, like the vehicle, only one piṭaka is established. One should also say: 'In the Buddha-lands of the ten directions / There is only the Dharma of one piṭaka; / There is neither a second nor a third, / Except for the Buddha's expedient preaching.' Drawing an analogy from this, by principle one ought to establish one and five. When discussing piṭakas with reference to capacity, because the various teachings are limited, we briefly do not establish one piṭaka or five piṭakas, yet in principle they should exist. Furthermore, the vehicle is based on the practice of the capacity, whereas the piṭaka pertains to the doctrinal gate; their purport differs, so they cannot be equated uniformly. Just as the ten perfections and the ten obscurations match in number as mutual remedies, while the four wheels and the eight difficulties are not equal in number, so too the vehicle has one and five, while the teaching does not establish them. In the fourth section, the objections regarding the nature \[of the piṭakas\] were already fully addressed in the general evaluation above. Regarding the fifth, explaining the general and specific names: Question: Why, in the two piṭakas, is the Hīnayāna piṭaka named the Śrāvaka Piṭaka based on persons and not named the Pratyekabuddha Piṭaka; and the Mahāyāna piṭaka named the Bodhisattva Piṭaka based on persons and not named the Tathāgata Piṭaka? Answer: The teaching for the pratyekabuddhas is smaller than that for the śrāvakas, and when newly entering the Dharma, they also rely on the voice of the teaching; therefore, the Hīnayāna piṭaka establishes its name based on persons as the Śrāvaka Piṭaka, not the Pratyekabuddha Piṭaka. If it were named the Tathāgata Piṭaka, the name of their vows and practices would not be vast. In order to reveal that the names of their vows and practices are profound, vast, great, and far-reaching, it is named only the Bodhisattva Piṭaka, not the Tathāgata Piṭaka. Furthermore, the virtues and practices of a bodhisattva are easily accomplished in the world, while the virtues and practices of a Tathāgata are difficult to accomplish in the world; wishing to encourage sentient beings to rely on this teaching so that they can easily accomplish them, it is named only the Bodhisattva Piṭaka, not the Tathāgata Piṭaka. Furthermore, in the Hīnayāna, the śrāvaka is the cause and the pratyekabuddha is the result; taking its name from the lesser, it is not named the Pratyekabuddha Piṭaka. In the Mahāyāna, the bodhisattva is the cause and the Tathāgata is the result; taking its designation from the lesser, it is not named the Tathāgata Piṭaka. Question: Why is the Bodhisattva Piṭaka named after what is sought by vow, and not designated after the objective condition and named the Masterless Piṭaka? And why is the Śrāvaka Piṭaka designated after the objective condition, and not named after what is sought by vow and named the Nirvāṇa-sattva Piṭaka? Answer: Naming generally refers to a single virtue. The bodhisattva's vows and quests are both broad and the benefit is great; wishing to reveal deep compassion and vast wisdom, it is named only the Bodhisattva Piṭaka, not the Masterless Piṭaka. The śrāvaka's accomplishment of virtue by relying on conditions is superior, while their vows and quests are shallow; therefore, taking its name from the objective condition, it is not named the Nirvāṇa-sattva Piṭaka. By this reason, the pratyekabuddha is also named based on conditions, and not designated by vow. Question: In the three piṭakas, if taking stringing together and generating principle is the meaning of sūtra, the remaining two piṭakas should also be called sūtras. The same question applies to Vinaya and Abhidharma. Answer: Speaking factually, all three piṭakas could be named sūtras, because 'sūtra' is said to mean stringing together. However, taking its name from the fundamental, the others do not receive it. Just as with the form dharmāyatana, the others do not receive the name; the meaning of Vinaya and Abhidharma is also like this. Furthermore, stringing together and generating principle is superior \[in sūtras\], so only one receives the name, not the others. Taming the three karmic actions is superior \[in Vinaya\], so only one receives the name, not the others. Directly facing non-abiding nirvāṇa is superior \[in Abhidharma\], so only one receives the name, not the others. Sūtra, Vinaya, and Abhidharma each receive their name in this sequence. Question: Among the six piṭakas, if the pratyekabuddhas and so on are established as three piṭakas by the Lalitavistara and so forth because of minor differences in practice, fruit, capacity, and principle, one should also establish nine piṭakas based on those minor differences in practice and so forth; why are there only six? Answer: Those with separate divisions can only be divided into six; because the teaching of the pratyekabuddhas has no separate division, they are not divided into nine. Furthermore, completely distinct natures of capacity can form three piṭakas, but minor differences in doctrinal teachings do not divide them into nine. Regarding the sixth, distinguishing differences: Question: Relying on pure morality, absence of regret arises, and so forth, gradually obtaining samādhi; since both generate and explain morality and samādhi, both should be called Vinaya. Relying on samādhi, prajñā arises; since both generate and explain samādhi and prajñā, both should be called Abhidharma. Answer: Morality and samādhi are both of the category of merit; what explains and generates them are both the Vinaya. Samādhi and prajñā differ as merit and wisdom; generating and explaining them are subsumed under different piṭakas. Question: Samādhi and prajñā are different in category and are subsumed under separate piṭakas. Scattered state and samādhi are different, so samādhi should not be Vinaya. Answer: Although samādhi and scattered states differ, both are merit; being unable to sever delusion, both are Vinaya. Merit and wisdom are distinct, specifically differentiating discernment; differing in severing delusion, they are subsumed under separate piṭakas. The seventh, showing whether the Buddha himself spoke them in general or specific divisions, was briefly evaluated as explained in its own section. Regarding the eighth, the establishment of master and disciple: Question: Suppose it were permitted that after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, disciples could all differentiate and expound the three piṭakas and the twelve branches of teaching; what fault would there be? Answer: If that were so, there would be no distinction between master and disciple; shallow dharma and deep dharma, inferential dharma and realized dharma, noble dharma and ordinary dharma, dharma of all-knowledge and dharma of the wisdom of all modes would have no distinction whatsoever. Furthermore, if they were permitted to compose them, the piṭakas and teachings would become confused. Therefore the Buddha did not permit disciples and others, after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, to compose the twelve branches of teaching, the three piṭakas, and so forth. Question: Where in the three realms and five destinies do these piṭakas exist completely? Which sentient beings are transformed by them? Answer: The Renwang jing lists assemblies of transformation-bodies and the assembly of the formless realm. Moreover, the devas of the formless realm stood beside the Buddha listening to the Āgamas. The Dhāraṇī-sūtra lists the assemblies of hell. Therefore we know that the Sūtras transform both the real and transformed bodies in the three realms and five destinies. The Rocana-buddha-sūtra states that the eighteen divine kings and others of the Brahmā heavens are all able to awaken and understand, and all uphold the bodhisattva precepts. Therefore we know that the Vinaya also transforms the bodies in the two realms and five destinies. This is based on real bodies. In the formless realm there is no auditory consciousness, so they do not hear the teaching; therefore we know it only transforms the real bodies of sentient beings in the two realms and five destinies. Through the power of the sūtras, sentient beings in the hells are able to hear the Dharma; and because great bodhisattvas teach and transform them in the hells, administering precepts and performing various matters, those who obtain precepts differ in meaning. Those possessing this teaching are also unobstructed only in the two realms and five stages; since the upper stages with coarse examination and fine scrutiny can give rise to the lower, producing teaching to transform others is also logically without flaw. The Abhidharma can extend through two realms; though we see no text stating it, accepting that it extends through the five destinies and four modes of birth is unobstructed. However, the Zhongyin jing's statement that the Buddha in the intermediate state taught sentient beings of the formless realm is not the doctrine of the Mahāyāna school. For the Mahāyāna school, these were transformed sentient beings, definitely not real bodies, because they lack karmic retribution. If not for this, it would contradict what the Yogācārabhūmi and so forth teach. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 2.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.2.14) - [Next: 2.16](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.2.16) - [Up: 2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.2) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861~en-mt.2.15) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.2.15](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1861.2.15) · Pramāṇa