止觀輔行傳弘決 3.62

3.62

Next, in explaining the half and the full [teachings], the names are found in the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra*. Bodhiruci used this to classify the teachings without fully exhausting the principle, so the text of the *Fahua xuanyi* refuted it; now we discuss it here only in terms of doctrinal gates. Furthermore, since the other four [pairs] together accomplish this meaning, for now it is treated the same as the gate of great and small, not as an overall classification whose meaning can be universally applied to a single lifetime. For the time being it is classified from a distinctive perspective; therefore nine and twelve [divisions of scripture] are used to divide the half and the full. The comprehensive meaning is fully distinguished as in the text of the *Xuanyi*, where both the small and the great may have nine, or both eleven, or twelve, and so forth. From "the world conveys" onward, it refutes theories of classifying teachings. The theories held by many masters are collectively called "the world conveys." Nirvana being full is somewhat acceptable in meaning; but along with it, why should the *Lotus* and even the *Avataṃsaka* all be regarded as half? Bodhiruci's classification is likewise not universally applicable: the *Prajñā* being made full without distinguishing the two vehicles is also unacceptable in meaning. The Tripiṭaka being half is somewhat acceptable. From "now we clarify" onward, our own view is directly set forth. Since it supports and establishes the great and the small, according to what they explain: the full runs through the two principles and also embraces the small person; the half is solely in the small and forever segregated from the great; the *Vaipulya* fully contains both the half and the full; the *Prajñā*, *Lotus*, *Nirvana*, and *Avataṃsaka* are solely full and not half; the Deer Park is solely half and not full. Therefore we know that the terms half and full have both shared and exclusive senses; hence they are not like others who rigidly fix definite boundaries.