大乘法苑義林章 2.27

2.27

以六對者，《對法論》中第十一說「契經、應頌、記別、諷誦、自說，聲聞藏中素呾纜攝。緣起、譬喻、本事、本生，此二藏中毘奈耶藏并眷屬攝。因緣一種正毘奈耶，譬喻等三是彼眷屬。方廣、希法，菩薩藏中素呾纜攝。方廣廣博，正菩薩藏。希法難思，亦菩薩藏。論議一種，通二藏中阿毘達磨藏攝。」此中意說：十二分教於六藏中，五唯聲聞素呾纜攝，四通二藏毘奈耶攝，二唯菩薩素呾纜攝，一通二藏阿毘達磨。依此聲聞但有十種，菩薩藏內唯有其七。據實初五亦通菩薩素呾纜攝，以聲聞中略無方廣，但說彼五以為聲聞素呾纜攝，非菩薩中無有彼五。三十八云「十二皆通菩薩藏故。緣起等四亦非二藏中素呾纜不攝，以說自性及助伴為毘奈耶故。」略不說為二素呾纜，但說因犯而制於戒名為因緣，因緣自性毘奈耶攝，眷屬隨之亦彼藏攝。涅槃經說始從如是終至奉行皆脩多羅經故。二十五說「十部名為素呾纜故。」譬喻等三亦素呾纜。因請因事而說於法，名曰因緣，故亦說為素呾纜也。此三相從，亦毘奈耶攝。又非聲聞藏素呾纜中亦無方廣、希法。《涅槃》不遮，十二皆通聲聞有故，正法廣陳義亦通故。又說十一為聲聞藏，故知希法亦通聲聞素呾纜也。今以理極能得菩提名為方廣，唯說諸佛菩薩大威神名為希法故，說聲聞素呾纜中無此二分。理實皆有，如前已說。又無方廣，諸文共同。無希法者，眷屬所攝，唯菩薩藏，其實通也。論議多分唯是對法，或約弟子所造論等名為論議，故唯攝在阿毘達磨，理實亦通二素呾纜。以菩薩聲聞素呾纜藏對餘聊簡，初文且舉一邊之義。又以二藏各毘奈耶、阿毘達磨互對十二部，義皆通有。若隨別義相對聊簡，義准應知，恐文煩廣故略不述。《涅槃經》云「從十二部出脩多羅，從脩多羅流出方廣。」此以別中流出於總。始從如是終乃至奉行皆脩多羅，故從十二分出脩多羅也。又從總中流出於總，方廣亦具有十二分，故從脩多羅流出方廣。又有釋云：初從別出總、後從總出別，欲顯總別互流出也。今准諸文，別相正說，應云方廣唯是菩薩素呾纜攝，論議通是菩薩、聲聞阿毘達磨，因緣亦通聲聞、菩薩毘奈耶攝，契經、應頌、記別、諷誦、自說、希法，此之六種亦通聲聞、菩薩藏中素呾纜攝。譬喻、本事、本生三種，通是聲聞及菩薩藏素呾纜及毘奈耶二藏所攝。《對法》所說據其別義，非違理文，此據多分。或方廣分亦通二種，如是所說不違諸教。若約通門相對攝者，以藏分部成三十六，以部分藏亦三十六。若以別相相攝為門，以藏分部等隨應廣說。由此三藏對十二分中脩多羅等互有寬狹，四句分別：有三藏中脩多羅非十二中脩多羅，謂應頌等脩多羅藏，十二分中約別相故。有十二分中修多羅非三藏中脩多羅藏，謂通相脩多羅因緣、論議等。有二俱是，謂別相脩多羅入藏中故。有二俱非者，謂十二中別相緣起等。三藏中別毘奈耶等，或外道典籍，其餘藏中互為句者，名既差別，唯體有寬狹亦可為之。准義應知。上來所辨相攝之義，合是第六、十二分教相攝寬狹。

Regarding matching by six pairs: fascicle eleven of the Abhidharmasamuccaya states, "Sūtra, geya, vyākaraṇa, gāthā, and udāna are subsumed under the Sūtra[piṭaka] within the Śrāvakapiṭaka. Nidāna, avadāna, itivṛttaka, and jātaka are subsumed under the Vinayapiṭaka and its retinue within these two piṭakas. The single [division of] nidāna is strictly the Vinaya; the three including avadāna are its retinue. Vaipulya and adbhutadharma are subsumed under the Sūtra[piṭaka] within the Bodhisattvapiṭaka. Vaipulya is vast and extensive, strictly the Bodhisattvapiṭaka. Adbhutadharma is wondrous and inconceivable, also the Bodhisattvapiṭaka. The single [division of] upadeśa is subsumed under the Abhidharmapiṭaka common to both piṭakas." The meaning intended here is: among the six piṭakas, five of the twelve divisions of teaching are subsumed solely under the śrāvaka Sūtra[piṭaka]; four are subsumed under the Vinayapiṭaka common to both piṭakas; two are subsumed solely under the bodhisattva Sūtra[piṭaka]; and one is common to the Abhidharma of both piṭakas. Based on this, the śrāvaka has only ten kinds, and within the Bodhisattvapiṭaka there are only seven. In reality, the first five are also subsumed under the bodhisattva Sūtra[piṭaka]; because the śrāvaka leaves out the vaipulya, it only stated that those five are subsumed under the śrāvaka Sūtra[piṭaka], not that those five are absent among the bodhisattvas. Fascicle thirty-eight states: "Because all twelve are common to the Bodhisattvapiṭaka. Nor is it that the four including nidāna are not subsumed under the Sūtra[piṭaka] of both piṭakas; because it speaks of their intrinsic nature and their associates as Vinaya." They were simply omitted from being designated as the two Sūtra[piṭakas]; it only said that formulating precepts due to transgressions is called nidāna, and the intrinsic nature of nidāna is subsumed under the Vinayapiṭaka, with its retinue following it to be subsumed under that piṭaka as well. This is because the Nirvāṇa-sūtra states that from "Thus [have I heard]" down to "they practiced [it]" are all sūtras. Fascicle twenty-five states, "Because ten divisions are called the Sūtra[piṭaka]." The three including avadāna are also sūtras. Teaching the Dharma on account of a request or on account of an event is called nidāna; hence it is also called a sūtra. These three follow along with it and are also subsumed under the Vinaya. Moreover, it is not the case that vaipulya and adbhutadharma are entirely absent from the Sūtra[piṭaka] of the Śrāvakapiṭaka. The Nirvāṇa[-sūtra] does not rule them out, since all twelve are shared by śrāvakas, and the extensive expounding of the correct Dharma is also shared in meaning. Furthermore, it is said that eleven constitute the Śrāvakapiṭaka, so we know that adbhutadharma is also shared by the śrāvaka Sūtra[piṭaka]. Now, because what is ultimate in principle and capable of attaining bodhi is termed vaipulya, and only teaching the great majesty and spiritual power of the buddhas and bodhisattvas is termed adbhutadharma, it is said that these two divisions are absent from the śrāvaka Sūtra[piṭaka]. In reality both exist, as has been said before. Moreover, the absence of vaipulya is agreed upon across the various texts. As for the absence of adbhutadharma, being subsumed under the retinue it belongs solely to the Bodhisattvapiṭaka, though in reality it is shared. Upadeśa for the most part is strictly Abhidharma, or it is called upadeśa in reference to treatises composed by disciples and the like, so it is subsumed exclusively under the Abhidharma; in reality, it is also shared by the two Sūtra[piṭakas]. Contrasting the bodhisattva and śrāvaka Sūtrapiṭakas with the rest to make this distinction, the first passage was merely putting forward one side of the meaning. Furthermore, when matching each of the two piṭakas' Vinaya and Abhidharma mutually against the twelve divisions, their meanings are all shared. If one were to make distinctions according to their specific meanings, it should be understood by analogy; fearing the text would become overly verbose, it is omitted here. The Nirvāṇa-sūtra says, "From the twelve divisions emerges the sūtra; from the sūtra flows forth the vaipulya." This is an emergence of the general from the specific. Since everything from "Thus [have I heard]" down to "they practiced [it]" is a sūtra, the sūtra emerges from the twelve divisions. Also, the general flows forth from the general; vaipulya also possesses all twelve divisions, so vaipulya flows forth from the sūtras. Another explanation states: first, the general emerges from the specific; afterwards, the specific emerges from the general, intending to show that the general and the specific mutually flow forth from each other. Now, based on the various texts, when correctly stated according to specific characteristics, one should say that vaipulya is subsumed solely under the bodhisattva Sūtra[piṭaka]; upadeśa is common to the Abhidharma of both bodhisattvas and śrāvakas; nidāna is also common to the Vinaya of both śrāvakas and bodhisattvas; and these six—sūtra, geya, vyākaraṇa, gāthā, udāna, and adbhutadharma—are also common to the Sūtra[piṭaka] within both the śrāvaka and bodhisattva piṭakas. The three of avadāna, itivṛttaka, and jātaka are common to both the Sūtra[piṭaka] and the Vinayapiṭaka of the śrāvaka and bodhisattva piṭakas. What is taught in the Abhidharmasamuccaya is based on its specific meaning and does not contradict the text of reason, as it is based on the majority of cases. Or vaipulya is also common to both kinds; stated this way, it does not contradict the various teachings. If one subsumes them against each other according to the general approach, dividing the divisions by the piṭakas results in thirty-six, and dividing the piṭakas by the divisions also results in thirty-six. If one takes mutual subsumption by specific characteristics as the approach, dividing the divisions by the piṭakas and so forth should be explained extensively as appropriate. Therefore, when matching these three piṭakas against the sūtras and the rest among the twelve divisions, their scopes are mutually broader or narrower, distinguished by four alternatives: there is what is a sūtra in the three piṭakas but not a sūtra in the twelve, which refers to the Sūtrapiṭaka of geya and the rest, because within the twelve divisions it is considered in terms of specific characteristics. There is what is a sūtra in the twelve divisions but not in the Sūtrapiṭaka of the three piṭakas, which refers to nidāna, upadeśa, and so forth in the general sense of sūtra. There is what is both, which refers to sūtras of specific characteristics entering into the piṭaka. There is what is neither, which refers to specific-characteristic nidāna and the like in the twelve, or specific Vinaya and the like in the three piṭakas, or non-Buddhist texts. For the other piṭakas forming mutual alternatives: since their names are distinct, one may also do this solely based on their substantive scope being broader or narrower. It should be understood by analogy. What has been explained above regarding mutual subsumption constitutes the sixth section: the broader and narrower mutual subsumption of the twelve divisions of teaching.