能顯中邊慧日論 1.3

1.3

夫勝義無差，經論起平等之說；俗諦有異，諸聖流四一之談。隨相理智星分、歸性心言并絕，或真或俗、乍實乍權，量為應物示因、符機趣果。理雖是一、根器寔多，故更使十二玄門說有同別、三藏奧旨詮或總分。或有執如而作生因、心體為諸法種，迷執一文總不令異，有異難會，即指為小為權；不知如來有根性等力、有情有種種界等。或有偏固別詮咸使不一，有一乖反，即云隨假隨人；不知世尊有同體意樂，依如有不定性等。所以聲聞被詰，為不識機差；菩薩見訶，由不依理一。若言真如佛性是一，齊得作佛，種性不殊，即四擔三草之喻不成。若言闡提二乘盡不作佛，種性各一，即三車二城之況不立。故由生界種性有無，約理周遍有識皆有，據事差別有識有無，有性復有定不定殊，無性復有暫畢竟別，以此聲聞說有多類、闡提復演數沒。因斯乘或一二三五等分果，或凡聖權實等別，或說皆有佛性皆當作佛，或說有無種性非皆作佛。然佛因既為無為異，佛果亦常無常分，依三義而標常住之名。或據或無以立無為之稱，或有迷斯妙旨，云三佛而總凝然；見說無為，將四智而無生滅。不知皆是正遍知尊，依四祕密、四種意趣，隨自隨他。十二分教，佛自會通，散在諸經，率難被究。彌勒菩薩廣制《瑜伽論》釋云「理無不究、事無不盡、文無不釋、義無不詮、執無不破、疑無不遣、行無不修、果無不證。正為菩薩，令於諸乘境行果等皆得善巧，懃修大行、證大菩提，廣為有情常無倒說，兼為餘乘，令依自法修自分行得自果證。」無著等師，或別釋一部或通明大趣，并教理符煥、本末遞暉。然有情昏密旨，欲大海而灌㘭塘；心翳衣珠，舉穢食而投寶器。連城魚目卉木無分，毒藥醍醐薰蕕弗別，恃螢光而指日月、陵寶劍而振鉛鋒，多羅竟定後先、達磨率分顯密，若也互相發起即旨約文遵，實執為真乃詞乖理爽。余雖不敏，曾酌法海之波瀾；念惑徽猷，疑懷濟嶮之南指。既逢高論，握管前驅，採三藏之精微、摝五乘之奧旨，顯其幽趣以契宏途，略述三章用開未悟。文雖不麗，理寔可觀。冀諸玄鑒，鏡詳其致。

Now, the paramārtha is without differentiation; hence sūtras and treatises set forth discourses on equality. The saṃvṛtisatya has distinctions; hence the holy ones disseminate discussions of the four and the one [vehicles]. Conforming to characteristics, principle and wisdom are divided like stars; returning to nature, mind and speech are both cut off. Either true or conventional, now real, now expedient—they measure the causes shown to adapt to sentient beings, and tally with capacities in leading to the fruits. Although the principle is one, receptive faculties are truly manifold; hence the twelve profound gates are further made to express identity and distinction, and the profound purports of the Tripiṭaka are elucidated either comprehensively or separately. Some grasp at tathatā to make it the janaka-hetu, or take the substance of the mind as the seed of all phenomena; blindly clinging to a single passage, they permit no distinction at all, and when encountering distinctions that are difficult to reconcile, they immediately designate them as Hīnayāna or expedient; they do not know that the Tathāgata possesses the powers of knowing faculties, natures, and so forth, and that sentient beings possess various realms (dhātus) and so on. Others stubbornly hold to separate elucidations, making everything non-uniform; whenever there is a discrepancy, they immediately claim it conforms to the nominal or conforms to the person; they do not know that the World-Honoured One possesses the intention of identical body (samam uccārayatīty abhiprāyaḥ), and that in reliance on tathatā there are aniyata-gotras and the like. Therefore, the śrāvaka was cross-examined because he did not recognize differences in capacity; the bodhisattva was reproved because he did not rely on the unity of principle. If one says that tathatā and the buddhadhātu are one, that all equally attain buddhahood, and that gotras are not distinct, then the parables of the four burdens and the three herbs would not hold. If one says that icchantikas and dviyāna followers entirely do not attain buddhahood and that each gotra is distinct, then the metaphors of the three carts and the two cities would not be established. Therefore, regarding the presence or absence of gotra in the realm of sentient beings: in terms of principle, it is pervasive, and all that have consciousness possess it; according to phenomenal distinctions, among those that have consciousness some have it and some do not; furthermore, among those that possess the gotra, there is the distinction between niyata and aniyata; among those without the gotra, there is also the difference between the temporary and the ultimate. For this reason, śrāvakas are spoken of as being of many types, and icchantikas are further expounded as being ever-drowned. Because of this, the vehicles are divided into one, two, three, or five, and the fruits are distinguished into ordinary, holy, expedient, or real; either it is said that all have the buddhadhātu and all will attain buddhahood, or it is said that there are those with and without the gotra, and not all will attain buddhahood. Furthermore, since the causes of buddhahood differ as conditioned and unconditioned, the fruit of buddhahood is also divided into eternal and impermanent; the name 'permanently abiding' is designated based on three meanings, and the title 'unconditioned' is established based on presence or absence. Some are confused about this wondrous purport and say that the three bodies of the Buddha are altogether motionless and unchanging; seeing the mention of 'unconditioned', they take the catvāri jñānāni to be without arising and ceasing. They do not know that these are all taught by the Samyaksaṃbuddha, relying on the fourfold saṃdhi and fourfold abhiprāya, whether according with himself or according with others. In the twelve divisions of teachings, the Buddha himself harmonized them; scattered throughout the various sūtras, they are generally difficult to fully investigate. Bodhisattva Maitreya extensively composed the Yogācārabhūmi to explain them, stating: 'There is no principle not investigated, no phenomenon not exhausted, no text not explained, no meaning not expounded, no clinging not refuted, no doubt not dispelled, no practice not cultivated, and no fruit not realized. It is specifically for bodhisattvas, so that they may attain skillfulness regarding the objects, practices, and fruits of all vehicles, diligently cultivate the great practice, realize great bodhi, and extensively teach sentient beings constantly and without error; it is concurrently for the other vehicles, so that they may cultivate their own shares of practice in reliance on their own dharmas and attain their own realizations of the fruits.' Masters such as Asaṅga either separately commented on a single work or comprehensively clarified the great intent, so that teachings and principles matched brilliantly, the fundamental and the secondary illuminating each other in turn. However, sentient beings are blind to the hidden intent, wishing to pour the great ocean into a small puddle; their minds are obscured regarding the jewel in the garment, lifting defiled food to cast into a precious vessel. They do not distinguish between the city-worth gem and a fish's eye, or between flowering plants and trees; they fail to differentiate between poison and clarified butter, or between sweet basil and stinkweed; relying on the light of a firefly, they point at the sun and moon; challenging a precious sword, they brandish a lead blade. Tāras are arbitrarily fixed in order, and the Dharma is rashly divided into revealed and esoteric. If these were to illuminate each other, the meaning would be grasped and the texts complied with; but when one truly clings to them as absolute truth, the words contradict and the principle is ruined. Though I am not clever, I have drunk from the waves of the ocean of Dharma; contemplating doubts concerning the splendid path, I harbor uncertainty about the southward-pointing compass that crosses the precipice. Having encountered these high discourses, I grasp my brush and step forward: gathering the subtle essences of the Tripiṭaka and drawing up the profound purports of the five vehicles, I reveal their hidden intents to tally with the grand path, briefly setting forth three chapters to open the minds of those not yet awakened. Although the text is not ornate, the principle is truly worthy of contemplation. I hope that those of profound discernment will scrutinize its import as in a mirror.