大乘法苑義林章 2.15

2.15

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.