四教義 1.10

1.10

第二覈定者，明此四教通而為語，於一教中各有四教。雖有四教，覈定其實，三義不成，故各從一義以受其教名也。即為四意：一覈定三藏教，二覈定通教，三覈定別教，四覈定圓教。一覈定三藏教者，問曰：如三藏教說無常，三乘同稟入道，即是通教。別為菩薩說弘誓、六度，此即別教。若為說一切種智，令求佛果，豈非圓教？答曰：今覈定此教三義：若言說無常通教三乘是通教者，二乘聞無常發真斷結，一世便入涅槃，可是稟教見無常理。菩薩雖稟無常之教，三阿僧祇劫不發真斷結，豈見無常之理？故知無常理通教之義不成。雖說願行化物別教義不成者，本論別教詮別理、斷別惑。初三藏教所明願行，猶約生滅四諦而起，見生滅四諦不及二乘，豈是別教？雖說一切種智勸菩薩慕果行因不名為圓者，菩薩因中不得即具一切種智，豈得論圓？又此種智只照二諦、不照中道，豈得圓也？是則雖有三教，覈義不成，但名三藏教也。

Second, examination and determination: this clarifies that speaking broadly of these four teachings, within one teaching there are each of the four teachings. Although there are the four teachings, when examining and determining their reality, three meanings do not hold, and thus each takes its teaching's name according to a single meaning. This comprises four points: first, examining and determining the Tripiṭaka teaching; second, examining and determining the shared teaching; third, examining and determining the distinctive teaching; fourth, examining and determining the perfect teaching. First, examining and determining the Tripiṭaka teaching. Question: If the Tripiṭaka teaching expounds impermanence and the three vehicles equally receive it and enter the path, that is the shared teaching; if it expounds the great vows and the six pāramitās specifically for bodhisattvas, that is the distinctive teaching; and if it expounds sarvākārajñatā (knowledge of all aspects) to lead them to seek the Buddha fruition, how is that not the perfect teaching? Answer: We now examine and determine the three meanings in this teaching: If one says that expounding impermanence to teach the three vehicles equally is the shared teaching, the two vehicles hear impermanence, give rise to the true [insight], sever the fetters, and enter nirvāṇa in a single lifetime; they indeed can be said to receive the teaching and see the principle of impermanence. Although the bodhisattva receives the teaching of impermanence, for three asaṃkhyeya kalpas he does not give rise to the true [insight] to sever the fetters—how does he see the principle of impermanence? Thus we know the meaning of the shared teaching of the principle of impermanence does not hold. Although it expounds vows and practices to transform beings, the meaning of the distinctive teaching does not hold because, properly discussed, the distinctive teaching elucidates a distinctive principle and severs distinctive delusions. The vows and practices clarified in the initial Tripiṭaka teaching are still aroused based on the four truths of arising and ceasing; in seeing the four truths of arising and ceasing, [the bodhisattva] does not even equal the two vehicles—how could this be the distinctive teaching? Although it expounds sarvākārajñatā to encourage bodhisattvas to admire the fruition and practice the cause, this is not called 'perfect' because a bodhisattva in the causal stage cannot right away be complete in sarvākārajñatā—how could one speak of it as 'perfect'? Furthermore, this knowledge of aspects only illuminates the two truths and does not illuminate the middle way; how could it be 'perfect'? Thus, although there seem to be three teachings, upon examining the meaning they do not hold, and it is named solely the Tripiṭaka teaching.