華嚴經內章門等雜孔目章 2.87

2.87

此翻依義，名祕密教。何以故？擬伏異學，生信證道，故興斯教。翻依者，依別文義，顯異文義，名曰翻依，即用智為體。翻依之義，正在三乘，與論道同。其論義法，大分有七：謂義決擇、釋決擇、分別顯示決擇、等論決擇、攝決擇、論軌決擇、祕密決擇。論雖有此七門，若對聖教，約初分有二：一對三乘二乘，三乘即為顯示，不成祕密。小乘對大乘，則名祕密。何以故？因緣方便覆相，不顯真實理故。由聲聞機淺，方便成信，漸入佛法，故不頓說。為小機不勝，名祕密教。二為伏異學令成正信。佛舉論道翻依等義，當大乘宗，伏彼外人，令信入佛法，故興此教。問：興其論道，理應定一。何故小因明等立其論道，但立宗因喻等，不用結論？何故不同？答：凡興其論，正欲顯義。若未結時得了義者，則不須結；若須至結方了義者，即須安結。有此二義，故不同也。又興論道有始終別，若初教中，則有論與不論俱名為論。何以故？二義取要顯佛法故。若至終教，即不論為論。何以故？息相歸真成證顯義，餘不順理，故以不論為論。若小乘中，但有諍論，為小乘宗不得法空故、不盡法原故、教不滿故。若至初教，即須言論為正。初教中不盡法理，以言剋申故。若至終教，不論為正，由窮法理，不假言申故。論其分齊，於大小乘唯論道方便即其分齊。其文不可具述，如《對法論》後論道決擇處說。亦如《攝論》定學後分中說。梁本論云：論曰「如經言：云何菩薩不損一物、不施一人？若菩薩善能行施無量無數，於十方世界修布施行，相續生起。」釋曰：菩薩捨自愛，攝一切眾生為自體，一切行道一切財物悉屬眾生故。財非己有，用者非他，彼物彼用，豈關於我？若能如此運心，則是善能行施。復次菩薩捨自愛，攝一切眾生為自體，一切眾生行施即菩薩行施故。菩薩起隨喜心，得無量施福，亦是不損一物、不施一人，名善能行施。論曰「云何菩薩樂行布施？若菩薩不樂行一切施。」釋曰：若菩薩不樂行隨至等八施義至，但樂行菩薩淨心施。復次若菩薩不樂世間著三輪施，樂行不著三輪施。復次著名為樂，若菩薩著施因或著施果，名樂行施。若菩薩不著行施，名不樂行施。論曰「云何菩薩行信施心？若菩薩不行諸佛如來信心。」釋曰：由菩薩自證施故行施，不由信他故行施。前信有根故成信，後信無根故不成信。論曰「云何菩薩發行布施？若菩薩於布施中不策自身。」釋曰：菩薩自性能行施，無有貪悋嫉妬等障，非策自身方能行施。論曰「云何菩薩恒遊戲布施，若菩薩無布施時？」釋曰：菩薩非時時施，不隨一物施。論曰「云何菩薩大能行施？若菩薩於施離娑羅想。」釋曰：娑羅名目二義，一目貞實、二目散亂，貞實是直語，散亂是密語。若取直語離貞實，則與大施相違；若取密語離散亂，則與大施相符。若離欲三界後行施時，名為大施。何以故？離欲菩薩行施，具縛凡夫行施，百千萬倍所不能及。若施定互相妨，不名大施，由不相妨故得大名。論曰「云何菩薩於施清淨？若菩薩欝波提貪悋。」釋曰：欝波提名目二義，一目生起、二目拔根棄背。生起是直語，拔根棄背是密語。若取直語生起貪悋，則與清淨施相違；若取密語拔根棄貪背悋，則與清淨施相符。拔根是除身見，身見是貪悋，根本棄背，是除貪悋體。由菩薩能斷身見滅貪悋故，於施清淨。論曰「云何菩薩能住於施？若菩薩不住究竟後際。」釋曰：究竟後際有二義，一施有初中後，以最後為究竟後際。若依此義不住施，最後分豈得言能住於施？此則相違。二若有餘涅槃名究竟，無餘涅槃名究竟後際。若聲聞住無餘涅槃，不更起心，無利益眾生事，則不能住施。菩薩依大悲，不同聲聞住無餘涅槃故，恒起六度無有窮盡。若依此義，則與能住施相符。論曰「云何菩薩於施自在？若菩薩於施不得自在。」釋曰：若菩薩不得施障自在，菩薩於施則得自在。昔在凡夫地中見修二惑，無道對治，欲起便起，故得自在。今入聖位，為道對治故，菩薩於惑不得自在，於施能得自在。論曰「云何菩薩於施無盡？若菩薩不住無盡中。」釋曰：無餘涅槃名為無盡。菩薩不同聲聞入無盡中，無利益他事，是故菩薩於施無盡。論曰「如施，經於戒乃至般若，如理應知。」釋曰：如施，經說施有不了義語，說餘度亦有不了義語，皆須如理分判。又依《淨土盆經》，一僧得施、二現前施、三戒德施、四安居施、五齊限施、六指示施、七給得施、八三世常住僧施。此是三乘正施。又依《毘曇》，八非法施：一悕望施、二怖畏施、三反報施、四期報施、五家法施、六生天施、七求名施、八不求生死樂施。又有一乘十種施，如〈十無盡藏品〉廣說。餘義如別章。

This sense of 'inverting reliance' is called the 'secret teaching'. Why is this? It is because this teaching was promoted in order to subdue heterodox scholars, generate faith, and realize the path. 'Inverting reliance' means that relying upon the explicit literal sense reveals a disparate textual meaning; this is termed 'inverting reliance', and its essence is simply wisdom. The meaning of 'inverting reliance' properly belongs to the Triyāna, and is identical with the method of debate. In the method of debating propositions, there are broadly seven kinds: determination of meaning, determination of explanation, determination of distinguishing and revealing, determination of debate on equal terms, determination of synopsis, determination of the rules of debate, and determination of secrets. Although the treatises contain these seven rubrics, when contrasted with the holy teaching, in terms of the initial division there are two: First, when contrasting the Triyāna and the Two Vehicles, the Triyāna constitutes an explicit disclosure, not forming a secret. When contrasting the Hīnayāna with the Mahāyāna, it is then termed 'secret'. Why is this? Because the provisional forms of causes and conditions conceal, without revealing the true principle. Since the capacities of śrāvakas are shallow, faith is established through expedient means, allowing them gradually to enter the Buddha-Dharma; therefore it is not spoken suddenly. Because it is given for small capacities that cannot bear [the direct truth], it is called the secret teaching. Second, it is to subdue heterodox scholars and bring them to mature right faith. The Buddha brought forth the method of debate, inverting reliance, and other such meanings; taking the Mahāyāna tenet, he subdued those outsiders to make them enter the Buddha-Dharma in faith, and therefore he promoted this teaching. Question: When promoting the method of debate, in principle it should be definitively unified. Why is it that in the minor hetuvidyā and related works, in establishing their method of debate, they set up only the thesis, reason, and example, without using a conclusion? Why are they not the same? Answer: Whenever debate is promoted, the primary purpose is to reveal the meaning. If the definitive meaning is already understood before the conclusion, then a conclusion is not needed. If it requires reaching the conclusion before the meaning is understood, then a conclusion must be provided. Because there are these two purposes, they are not the same. Furthermore, the promotion of the method of debate has the distinction between initial and final. In the initial teaching, both having debate and not having debate are alike called debate. Why is this? Because both meanings grasp what is essential to reveal the Buddha-Dharma. When reaching the final teaching, non-debate constitutes debate. Why is this? Because pacifying characteristics and returning to the real accomplishes realization and reveals the meaning, whereas anything else does not accord with principle; hence non-debate constitutes debate. In the Hīnayāna, there is only contentious debate, because the Hīnayāna tenet does not grasp the emptiness of phenomena, does not exhaust the source of phenomena, and its teaching is incomplete. When reaching the initial teaching, verbal debate must be taken as correct. In the initial teaching the principle of phenomena is not exhausted, so words are specifically deployed to express it. When reaching the final teaching, non-debate is taken as correct, because through plumbing the principle of phenomena to the utmost, it does not rely on words to be expressed. As for discussing its demarcation: between Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, the expedient means of the method of debate itself is precisely its demarcation. Its texts cannot be fully cited; it is as stated in the section on the determination of the method of debate at the end of the *Abhidharmasamuccaya-bhāṣya*, and also as stated in the latter portion on the training in concentration in the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha*. The Liang translation of the treatise says: The treatise states: 'As the sūtra says: How is it that a bodhisattva does not harm a single thing, nor give to a single person? If a bodhisattva is well able to practice giving in immeasurable and countless ways, cultivating the practice of giving in the worlds of the ten directions in continuous arising.' The commentary says: The bodhisattva renounces self-cherishing and gathers all sentient beings as his own body, because all paths of action and all wealth and goods entirely belong to sentient beings. Since wealth is not one's own possession and the user is not another, when their property is for their use, how does it concern me? If one can thus move one's mind, this is being well able to practice giving. Furthermore, the bodhisattva renounces self-cherishing and gathers all sentient beings as his own body; because the giving practiced by all sentient beings is just the bodhisattva's practice of giving. When the bodhisattva gives rise to a mind of rejoicing in accordance [with others' giving], he obtains immeasurable merit of giving; this also is not harming a single thing and not giving to a single person, which is called being well able to practice giving. The treatise states: 'How does a bodhisattva delight in practicing giving? If a bodhisattva does not delight in practicing all giving.' The commentary says: If a bodhisattva does not delight in practicing the meaning of the eight kinds of giving, such as giving upon arrival, but only delights in practicing the bodhisattva's giving with a pure mind. Furthermore, if a bodhisattva does not delight in worldly giving that is attached to the three wheels, but delights in practicing giving that is unattached to the three wheels. Furthermore, attachment is called delight; if a bodhisattva is attached to the cause of giving or attached to the fruit of giving, this is called delighting in practicing giving. If a bodhisattva practices giving without attachment, this is called not delighting in practicing giving. The treatise states: 'How does a bodhisattva practice a faithful mind of giving? If a bodhisattva does not practice relying on the faithful mind of all Buddhas and Tathāgatas.' The commentary says: Because the bodhisattva practices giving through his own realization of giving, he does not practice giving because of relying on faith in another. Since the former faith has a basis, it constitutes faith; because the latter faith lacks a basis, it does not constitute faith. The treatise states: 'How does a bodhisattva activate the practice of giving? If a bodhisattva does not urge on his own body in giving.' The commentary says: The bodhisattva by self-nature is able to practice giving, being free of obstacles such as greed, stinginess, and jealousy; it is not by urging on his own body that he is then able to practice giving. The treatise states: 'How does a bodhisattva constantly sport in giving? If for the bodhisattva there is no time of giving.' The commentary says: The bodhisattva does not give from time to time, nor does he give according to only a single thing. The treatise states: 'How is a bodhisattva greatly able to practice giving? If the bodhisattva is free of the notion of *sāra* in giving.' The commentary says: The name *sāra* designates two meanings: first, it designates firm reality; second, it designates distraction. 'Firm reality' is the straightforward word; 'distraction' is the esoteric word. If one takes the straightforward word and is free of firm reality, this would contradict great giving. If one takes the esoteric word and is free of distraction, this accords with great giving. When practicing giving after having abandoned desire in the three realms, it is called great giving. Why is this? When a desire-free bodhisattva practices giving, a completely bound ordinary person practicing giving cannot equal it by hundreds of thousands of myriad times. If giving and concentration mutually hinder each other, it is not called great giving; because they do not mutually hinder each other, it receives the designation 'great'. The treatise states: 'How is a bodhisattva pure in giving? If a bodhisattva *utpādayati* greed and stinginess.' The commentary says: The name *utpādayati* designates two meanings: first, it designates giving rise; second, it designates uprooting and abandoning. 'Giving rise' is the straightforward word; 'uprooting and abandoning' is the esoteric word. If one takes the straightforward word of giving rise to greed and stinginess, this contradicts pure giving; if one takes the esoteric word of uprooting and abandoning greed and turning one's back on stinginess, this accords with pure giving. 'Uprooting' is eliminating the view of self, and the view of self is the root of greed and stinginess; 'abandoning and turning one's back' is eliminating the substance of greed and stinginess. Because the bodhisattva can sever the view of self and extinguish greed and stinginess, he is pure in giving. The treatise states: 'How can a bodhisattva abide in giving? If a bodhisattva does not abide in the ultimate limit.' The commentary says: 'The ultimate limit' has two meanings: First, giving has a beginning, middle, and end, with the final part being the ultimate limit. If according to this meaning one does not abide in giving, how could the final part be said to be being able to abide in giving? This would be a contradiction. Second, if nirvāṇa with remainder is called 'ultimate', nirvāṇa without remainder is called 'the ultimate limit'. If a śrāvaka abides in nirvāṇa without remainder, he does not give rise to mind again and has no activities of benefiting sentient beings; thus he cannot abide in giving. Because the bodhisattva relies on great compassion and does not abide in nirvāṇa without remainder like a śrāvaka, he constantly activates the six perfections without exhaustion. If according to this meaning, then it accords with being able to abide in giving. The treatise states: 'How does a bodhisattva have mastery over giving? If a bodhisattva does not obtain mastery in giving.' The commentary says: If a bodhisattva does not obtain mastery over the obstacles to giving, the bodhisattva then obtains mastery over giving. Formerly, on the stage of an ordinary person, the two afflictions of view and cultivation had no path of antidotes, and arose whenever they wished to arise; thus they had mastery. Now, having entered the holy rank, because they are counteracted by the path, the bodhisattva does not obtain mastery over afflictions, and is able to obtain mastery over giving. The treatise states: 'How is a bodhisattva inexhaustible in giving? If a bodhisattva does not abide in the inexhaustible.' The commentary says: Nirvāṇa without remainder is called 'the inexhaustible'. The bodhisattva does not enter the inexhaustible like a śrāvaka, where there are no activities of benefiting others; therefore the bodhisattva is inexhaustible in giving. The treatise states: 'As with giving, so with morality up to wisdom, as should be understood in accordance with principle.' The commentary says: As with giving, the sūtras state that giving has expressions of non-definitive meaning, and their statements on the other perfections also have expressions of non-definitive meaning; all must be distinguished in accordance with principle. Furthermore, according to the *Sūtra on the Pure Urbon Basin*, there are: 1. giving obtained by the Saṃgha; 2. giving in person; 3. giving for virtue in precepts; 4. giving for the rains retreat; 5. giving with fixed limits; 6. giving by designation; 7. giving through provision; and 8. giving to the permanently abiding Saṃgha of the three periods. These are the proper givings of the Triyāna. Furthermore, according to the *Abhidharma*, there are eight improper givings: 1. giving with expectation; 2. giving out of fear; 3. giving for repayment; 4. giving with an expected reward; 5. giving by family tradition; 6. giving to be born in heaven; 7. giving seeking fame; and 8. giving without seeking the bliss of saṃsāra. Furthermore, there are the ten kinds of giving of the Ekayāna, as broadly explained in the 'Chapter on the Ten Inexhaustible Treasuries'. The remaining meanings are as in the separate chapter.