大乘法苑義林章 2.25

2.25

後以諸藏對十二分別相相攝者，於中亦三：初以二對、次以三對、後以六對。以二對者，《涅槃》第三說「大乘有九，唯無因緣、譬喻、論議。」小乘具十二，經文不遮，故言具有。《瑜伽》二十一言「具有十二」。《法花經》說「小乘有九，謂除記別、自說、方廣。大乘有十二。」《瑜伽論》中第三十八說「方廣分唯菩薩藏，所餘諸分有聲聞藏。」此說大乘具有十二，小乘有十一，唯除方廣。又《瑜伽論》八十五說「十二分中除方廣分，餘名聲聞乘相應契經。」即方廣分獨名大乘相應契經。此說小乘有十一，大乘唯方廣。四文不同，各有別意，此中皆依別相門故。且《涅槃經》中，依因犯制戒說為因緣。諸大菩薩本來無犯，不因制戒，說無因緣。非無因請，因事說法，因緣經也。夫說喻況，開中下根，諸大菩薩多分利根，不須譬瑜，聞法便解。說無譬喻，理非無也。諸大乘經，現見大有說喻者故。又大菩薩性皆利根，舉宗便解，不假徵詰方生慧心，說無論議。理實非無，《解深密經》、《瑜伽論》等是大乘故，明論議經通大乘有。問：既說菩薩由利根故不假論議，應無應頌，不假重說故。答：為益後來故須重頌，非前菩薩假重頌言。《涅槃》一往依此別義，說大乘中無此三分。其實具有。又護法者誦三藏中，多分唯誦素呾纜藏，不誦餘二，故但說九，略無餘三。餘三即是二藏攝故。理實大乘非無十二，諸聖教中皆說大乘有此三故。又《法花經》中，依授弟子得成佛記，名為記別。說聲聞無，彼不求於大菩提故。猶如以寶示其愚人，愚人便咲。聲聞聞記亦復如是，故說為無。記諸弟子死生事等，理實亦有。又聲聞人多聞淺法，若不待請憍慢便生，說無自說，其實亦有。又聲聞法但證小果，不得無上正等菩提，理非至極行不包弘，說無方廣。其實亦有，正法廣陳，云方廣也。又《法花》一會宗說一乘，為引一切不定聲聞趣佛果故。彼類已前未聞記彼得成於佛，今迴心已方乃得聞，故說聲聞略無記別。初〈方便品〉顯法深妙，欲令聲聞起尊重意，無問不說，三請方說，故說聲聞略無自說。恐聲聞等於先所聞四諦等法生無上意，今顯彼非無上大法，無上大法唯大乘是，故說聲聞略無方廣。《法花》一往化不定人，依一義中說聲聞人唯有其九，實可具有。《瑜伽論》第三十八中，同《法花經》，亦依小乘理教非勝，不得菩提，名無方廣。有十一部：小乘經中亦記弟子死生之事，分明顯示諸法密意，亦有記別。小乘經中亦顯佛慈悲所有法相，不待請問而便自說，如初轉法輪，故有自說。不同《法華》略無此二。說大乘中有十二者，大乘經中亦有因請因事說法，故有因緣。又《勝鬘經》云「毘尼者即大乘學，故有因緣。顯法深難亦有況說，故有譬喻。法相幽邃往復方明，故有論議。」故說大乘具有十二。又《瑜伽論》八十五，文同三十八。然以十一分既為聲聞藏，對此但說方廣一分為菩薩藏，其實菩薩具十二分。又八十五所說方廣，通相方廣攝十二故，更不假說餘十一分名菩薩藏。聲聞藏中，八十五說「若通若別俱無方廣，故須除之。」此即四文不同意也。上來第一二藏對訖。

Next is the mutual subsumption of the various piṭakas with respect to the specific characteristics of the twelve branches. Within this there are also three parts: first, pairing by two; next, pairing by three; and finally, pairing by six. Regarding pairing by two: the *Nirvāṇa[-sūtra]*, fascicle three, states: "The Mahāyāna has nine, lacking only *nidāna*, *avadāna*, and *upadeśa*." The Hīnayāna possesses all twelve, as the text of the scripture does not preclude it; hence it is said to possess them fully. *Yogācārabhūmi*, fascicle twenty-one, states that it "possesses all twelve." The *Lotus Sūtra* states: "The Hīnayāna has nine, namely excluding *vyākaraṇa*, *udāna*, and *vaipulya*. The Mahāyāna has twelve." In the *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra*, fascicle thirty-eight, it states: "The *vaipulya* branch belongs exclusively to the Bodhisattva-piṭaka; the remaining branches belong to the Śrāvaka-piṭaka." This says that the Mahāyāna possesses twelve, while the Hīnayāna has eleven, excluding only *vaipulya*. Furthermore, *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra*, fascicle eighty-five, states: "Among the twelve branches, excluding the *vaipulya* branch, the remainder are named sūtras associated with the Śrāvakayāna." That is, the *vaipulya* branch alone is named sūtras associated with the Mahāyāna. This says that the Hīnayāna has eleven and the Mahāyāna has only *vaipulya*. These four passages differ, each having its distinct intent, because here they all rely on the approach of specific characteristics. First, in the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra*, *nidāna* is explained on the basis of establishing precepts due to transgressions. Great bodhisattvas are originally free from transgressions and do not have precepts established because of them; hence it is said to lack *nidāna*. It is not that there are no *nidāna* scriptures expounding the Dharma due to requests or due to events. When it comes to expounding parables, it is to open the minds of those of middling and lower faculties; great bodhisattvas are mostly of sharp faculties, needing no parables, and understand upon hearing the Dharma. To say that it lacks parables does not mean that in principle there are none. This is because in the Mahāyāna sūtras, parables are manifestly seen to exist in great numbers. Furthermore, great bodhisattvas are all by nature of sharp faculties; they understand as soon as a proposition is raised, and do not rely on interrogation and cross-examination before generating a mind of wisdom; hence it is said to lack *upadeśa*. In actual principle, it is not absent: the *Saṃdhinirmocana-sūtra*, the *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra*, and so forth are Mahāyāna, which clarifies that *upadeśa* scriptures exist generally in the Mahāyāna. Question: Since it is said that bodhisattvas, due to their sharp faculties, do not rely on *upadeśa*, they should also lack *geya*, as they would not rely on reiteration. Answer: Reiteration is necessary in order to benefit those who come later; it is not that the previous bodhisattvas rely on reiterated words. The *Nirvāṇa[-sūtra]* provisionally relies on this specific meaning in stating that the Mahāyāna lacks these three branches. In reality, it possesses them all. Furthermore, among the protectors of the Dharma who recite the three piṭakas, most recite only the Sūtra-piṭaka and do not recite the other two; hence it only speaks of nine, omitting the other three. The other three are subsumed under the other two piṭakas. In actual principle, the Mahāyāna is not without the twelve, because the sacred teachings all state that the Mahāyāna has these three. Furthermore, in the *Lotus Sūtra*, *vyākaraṇa* is designated on the basis of conferring the prophecy of attaining Buddhahood upon disciples. It says that the śrāvakas lack it because they do not seek great bodhi. It is just like showing a jewel to a fool, who merely laughs; when śrāvakas hear the prophecy, it is also like this; hence it is said to be absent. In actual principle, predicting events of disciples' deaths and rebirths and so forth also exists. Furthermore, śrāvaka practitioners hear much shallow Dharma; if one does not wait for a request, arrogance will arise; hence it is said to lack *udāna*, but in reality it also exists. Furthermore, the śrāvaka Dharma merely realizes lesser fruits and does not attain unexcelled, complete, perfect bodhi; its principle is not the ultimate and its practice does not broadly encompass; hence it is said to lack *vaipulya*. In reality it also exists, for the broad setting forth of the correct Dharma is called *vaipulya*. Furthermore, the single assembly of the *Lotus Sūtra* takes expounding the One Vehicle as its principle, in order to guide all indeterminate śrāvakas toward the Buddha fruit. Before this, that class had not heard that they were predicted to attain Buddhahood; only now, having turned their minds, do they get to hear it; hence it says that the śrāvakas omit *vyākaraṇa*. The initial "Expedient Means Chapter" reveals that the Dharma is profound and wondrous; wishing to cause the śrāvakas to generate a mind of reverence, it is not expounded without inquiry and is only expounded after three requests; hence it says that the śrāvakas omit *udāna*. Fearing that the śrāvakas might generate the notion of the unexcelled toward the four truths and other dharmas previously heard, it now reveals that those are not the unexcelled great Dharma, and that the unexcelled great Dharma is exclusively the Mahāyāna; hence it says that the śrāvakas omit *vaipulya*. The *Lotus Sūtra* provisionally converts indeterminate persons, stating based on one perspective that the śrāvakas have only nine, whereas in reality they can possess all [twelve]. In the thirty-eighth fascicle of the *Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra*, agreeing with the *Lotus Sūtra*, it is also based on the Hīnayāna's doctrine and teaching not being superior and not attaining bodhi that it is said to lack *vaipulya*. It has eleven branches: within Hīnayāna scriptures, the events of disciples' deaths and rebirths are also predicted, clearly revealing the hidden intentions of dharmas; hence there is also *vyākaraṇa*. In Hīnayāna scriptures, the Dharma characteristics of the Buddha's compassion are also revealed, being expounded of himself without awaiting an inquiry, as in the first turning of the wheel of the Dharma; hence there is *udāna*. It is not like the *Lotus*, which omits these two. When it says that the Mahāyāna possesses twelve: in Mahāyāna scriptures, the Dharma is also expounded due to requests and due to events; hence there is *nidāna*. Furthermore, the *Śrīmālādevī-sūtra* states: "The Vinaya is the Mahāyāna training"; hence there is *nidāna*. Parables are also used to reveal that the Dharma is profound and difficult; hence there is *avadāna*. The Dharma characteristics are subtle and profound, clarified only through dialogue; hence there is *upadeśa*. Therefore it is said that the Mahāyāna possesses all twelve. Furthermore, *Yogācārabhūmi*, fascicle eighty-five, agrees in text with fascicle thirty-eight. However, since the eleven branches are the Śrāvaka-piṭaka, in contrast to this it merely states that the single branch of *vaipulya* is the Bodhisattva-piṭaka, whereas in reality the bodhisattvas possess all twelve branches. Moreover, as for the *vaipulya* expounded in fascicle eighty-five, because *vaipulya* in its general characteristic subsumes the twelve, it does not need to separately state that the remaining eleven branches are named the Bodhisattva-piṭaka. In the Śrāvaka-piṭaka, fascicle eighty-five states: "Whether in general or specific characteristics, it lacks *vaipulya*; hence it must be excluded." This is the differing intent of the four passages. The first part above, pairing the two piṭakas, is completed.