四教義 1.14

1.14

第三引證者，夫欲申通佛法，事須經論明文。但佛教浩漫，玄旨難尋，若不立名辨義，何以得知旨趣也！今明此義，略為三意：一明無文立名作義以通經教，二別引經論證，三總引經論證。一無文立名作義以通經教者，問曰：立四教名義，若無經論明文，豈可承用？答曰：古來諸師講說，何必盡有經論明文？如開善、光宅五時明義，莊嚴四時判教，地論四宗、五宗、六宗，攝山單、複、中、假，興皇四假，並無明文，皆是隨情所立，助揚佛化。其有緣者莫不承習，信解弘宣。問曰：何意不依半、滿、五味幸出經論文？答曰：佛教具有漸、頓、不定，半、滿、五味各據一邊，豈得通釋此諸教也？但使義符經論，無文何足致疑？《大智度論》云：「法施者，依附經法，廣作義理、為立名字，皆名法施。」今一家解釋佛法，處處約名作義，隨義立名，或有文證、或無文證。若有文證，故不應疑。無文證者，亦須得意。譬如神農、編鵲、華他皆古之聖醫，所造藥對治，世撰集諸經方。當時所治無往不差，今人依用未必皆愈。而即末代凡醫，雖約古方出意增損，隨病授藥少有不差。若深解此喻，通經說法，覩時事所宜作義立名，亦有何失？今釋此經一部，前後作義立名，此非一條。若不體此意者，何但四教之名而生疑也！經論正是趣前人機緣，末代學問執見千端，行道障起非一，寧可守株待㝹，必貽斯責。且佛教無窮，恒沙非譬，東流之者萬不一達，智人君子希更詳焉。

Third, citing evidence: To elucidate and propagate the Buddha-Dharma, matters require explicit texts from sūtras and treatises. However, the Buddha's teachings are vast and boundless, and their profound purport is difficult to trace; if one does not establish names and distinguish meanings, how could one know their purport? In clarifying this meaning now, there are briefly three intentions: first, clarifying that without explicit texts, establishing names and creating meanings serves to open up the sūtras and teachings; second, citing specific sūtras and treatises as evidence; third, citing sūtras and treatises in general as evidence. Regarding the first, that without explicit texts, establishing names and creating meanings serves to open up the sūtras and teachings: Question: If the establishment of the names and meanings of the four teachings lacks explicit texts from sūtras and treatises, how can they be inherited and applied? Answer: In the lectures of ancient masters, why must all have had explicit texts from sūtras and treatises? For example, the elucidation of the five periods by [Baozhi of] Kaishan and [Fayun of] Guangzhai, the classification of teachings into four periods by [Sengmin of] Zhuangyan, the four, five, and six traditions of the Dilun [masters], the single, double, middle, and provisional of Sheshan [Sengquan], and the four provisionals of Xinghuang [Falang]—none of these have explicit texts; all were established according to their understanding to assist in propagating the Buddha's transformation. Those who had affinity with them all inherited and practiced them, faithfully understanding and widely proclaiming them. Question: Why do you not rely on the passages in the sūtras and treatises that fortunately appear regarding the half and full, and the five flavors? Answer: The Buddha's teachings fully possess the gradual, sudden, and indeterminate; the half, full, and five flavors each occupy only one side—how could they comprehensively explain all these teachings? As long as the meaning accords with the sūtras and treatises, why should a lack of explicit texts cause doubt? The Dà zhìdù lùn says: 'The gift of Dharma means relying on the sūtras and teachings to broadly construct meanings and principles, and establish names for them—all this is called the gift of Dharma.' Now our lineage's explanation of the Buddha-Dharma everywhere creates meanings according to names, and establishes names according to meanings, sometimes with textual evidence, sometimes without textual evidence. If there is textual evidence, one certainly should not doubt it; where there is no textual evidence, one must also grasp the essential meaning. For example, Shennong, Bian Que, and Hua Tuo were all ancient sage physicians who devised remedies to cure illnesses and compiled worldly recipe collections. At that time, whatever they treated was without exception cured, but when people today rely on them and use them, they are not necessarily all healed. Conversely, ordinary physicians of later generations, although adding or subtracting ideas based on ancient formulas, administer medicine according to the illness and rarely fail to cure. If one deeply understands this analogy, when opening up sūtras and preaching the Dharma, discerning what is appropriate to the times and circumstances to create meanings and establish names, what fault could there be? In now explaining this single scripture [the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa], creating meanings and establishing names from beginning to end is not done in just one instance. If one does not comprehend this intention, how could one give rise to doubts merely about the names of the four teachings? Sūtras and treatises are precisely directed toward the faculties and conditions of the people before them; students of later generations cling to thousands of views, and obstacles arising in the practice of the path are not singular. How can one just sit and wait by the stump [like the farmer waiting for the hare], which will surely incur this reproach? Moreover, the Buddha's teachings are inexhaustible, beyond the metaphor of the sands of the Ganges; among those flowing to the east, not one in ten thousand comprehends them. May wise men and gentlemen examine this more thoroughly.