四教義 1.17

1.17

第四料簡者，問曰：《法華經》云「佛平等說，如一味雨。」何曾有四說之殊？答曰：上來處處引「四不可說，有因緣故亦可得說」者，尚未曾定有一說，何曾定有四教耶？故此經云：「佛以一音演說法，眾生隨類各得解。」隨類異解者，即是四教不同之相也。且諸經明義不同，自有說異解異、說一解一、說異解一、說一解異、說無說無解。故此經云：「其說法者無說無示，其聽法者無聞無得。」若達此意，四教點定立義，何所疑哉？問曰：四教從何而起？答曰：今明四教，還從前所明三觀而起。為成三觀，初從假入空觀，具有折體、拙巧二種入空不同。從折假入空，故有藏教起；從體假入空，故有通教起。若約第二從空入假之中，即有別教起。約第三一心中道正觀，即有圓教起。問曰：三觀復因何而起？答曰：三觀還因四教而起。問曰：觀教復因何而起？答曰：觀教皆從因緣所生四句而起。問曰：因緣所生四句因何而起？答曰：因緣所生四句即是心，心即是諸佛不思議解脫。諸佛不思議解脫畢竟無所有，即是不可說，故淨名杜口默然無說也。有因緣故亦可得說者，即是用四悉檀說心因緣所生之四句，赴四種根性、十二因緣法所成眾生而說也。四種根性者，一者下根，二者中根，三者上根，四者上上根。赴此四種根性故，因此教觀無礙而起，普利益眾生，得成信、法兩行之益，此即若聖說法、若聖默然之義也。問曰：《大涅槃經》云：「根有三種：一者下根，二者中根，三者上根。為中根人於波羅奈三轉小法輪；為上根人於拘尸那城轉大法輪；若為下根人，如來終不為轉法輪。」今何得言有四種根性，為下根人說三藏教耶？答曰：諸佛教門隨緣不定，或說一根，或說二根，或說三根，或說四根。或言為下根者說，或言不為下根者說。言為下根者說者，如《法華經》「三草二木稟澤皆得增長」。言不為下根者說，即如引《涅槃經》文也。問曰：《提謂經》說五戒明人天善，何意不開為五教義耶？答曰：人天教，舊醫所說，世之常道，不離生死。法王出世，欲化眾生令出火宅，是以鹿苑三轉法輪，人天得道。以此為實，故有三藏教。此經、《大品》、《法華》、《涅槃》諸大乘經，皆云於波羅奈轉四諦法輪，又《大智度論》明結集法藏亦從鹿苑而起，不取《提謂經》為初也。問曰：若不開人天善，何得《法華經》明三草二木稟澤也？答曰：三藏教明世間布施、持戒、禪定，即是人天之教，並是正因緣所生善法。此已為三藏教所攝，故不須為五也。問曰：四教義與地論人四宗義同不？答曰：若人問言：「四諦即是四大不？」此為非問。今不依四宗立四教者，意乃多途，略出三妨：一四宗明義，言方似滯；二細尋研覈，立名作義，似如不便；三四宗雖言富博，一家往望，攝佛法意猶有所闕。一、四宗明義言方似滯者，彼不約四不可說用四悉檀趣緣而說，即成滯也。二、細尋研覈立名作義似如不便者，彼之四宗，毘曇見有得道，可許因緣為宗。三假品是世諦，何得為宗？成論見空得道，何不以空為宗？且《智度論》明三藏教有三門入道：一是有門，二是空門，三是假名門也。又《智度論》彈方廣義云：「取十喻直說一切法不生不滅，失般若意。」豈得用夢幻為不真宗也！今諮曰：不真宗即是通教、真宗即是通宗者，宗則通真不真，不真何意沒宗而用教？真宗何意無教而立宗？宗若無教何得知真？真宗若沒宗有教，則同名通教。若俱沒教留宗，則同名通宗。若俱安教，則同名通宗教。若留真不真，則名通不真宗。教通真宗、教通不真宗，可為三乘通修，通真宗亦應三乘通修也。若言此通是融通之通者，通教亦是通真之通也。此則兩名混同，義無別也。答曰：《楞伽經》云：「說通教童朦，宗通教菩薩」，故以真宗為通宗也。又諮曰：若爾，是則前因緣、假名、不真宗皆是教童朦，不應悉立宗名也。覈却並決意邪，謂立四宗名義不甚便也。今言四教者，佛從初得道至大涅槃，顯示一切法門無非言教也。三設巧救，四宗名義得立。若比古今雖為富博，一家往望攝佛法意，猶大有所闕。今採諸經論立四教義，一教各有四門，合十六門。彼因緣假名兩宗，似與此所明三藏教有、空二門相參，猶闕昆勒門及非有非空兩門也。彼不真宗明諸法如幻如化，似與此通教有門相參，餘三門彼所不明。彼真宗似與此別教有門相參，餘三門彼所不明。此則四宗明義，但得與此三教四門相參，此圓教四門彼所不明。四教猶有十二門明義，彼四宗之所不明也。又護身法師用五宗明義，彼四宗如前長立法界宗，似與此圓教有門相參。四教猶有十一門，彼所不明也。耆闍法師用六宗明義，三宗似與此三門相參，如上分別。彼真宗似與此通教空門相參，彼常宗似與此別教有門相參，彼圓宗似與此圓教有門相參。四教猶有十門，彼六宗之所不明也。故知四宗、五宗、六宗雖言古今以來明義富博，今一家往望，攝佛法意猶大有所闕也。所以前明四悉檀義者，正是述一家通經說法，與古今所說通用不同也。故前明三觀竪破諸法略為數十番，其尋覽者則知，與諸禪師及三論師所說，意有殊也。今明四教，一教各有四門，四教即有十六門。又開三藏教四門，如五百阿羅漢各說身因，即是五百門也。故經說「泥洹真法寶，眾生從種種門入道。」但三藏教四門尚開無量門入道，何況通教、別教、圓教各有四門而不得各明開無量門也？故《華嚴經》明善財童子見四十二善知識，各言「我唯知此一法門」，如是見一百二十善知識，乃至無量善知識，皆各云「我唯能知此一法門」，是則大乘法門無量無邊也。此經三十二菩薩各說入不二法門，乃至八千菩薩皆說入不二法門。故《法華經》云：「以種種法門，宣示於佛道。」如此法藏於不可說，用四悉檀而起教門，令一切眾生以佛教門出三界苦。若留此意，比決四宗、五宗、六宗，自知殊別也。

Fourth, resolution of objections: Question: The Lotus Sūtra says, "The Buddha expounds equally, like rain of a single flavor." When was there ever a distinction into four expoundings? Answer: Earlier it was cited everywhere that "the four are ineffable; yet because of causes and conditions, they can also be spoken of." When there has never been fixedly a single expounding, when could there ever have been fixedly four teachings? Therefore this sūtra says: "The Buddha expounds the Dharma with a single voice, and sentient beings each obtain understanding according to their kinds." Understanding differently according to their kinds is precisely the different characteristics of the four teachings. Moreover, sūtras explain meanings differently: there are speaking differently and understanding differently, speaking as one and understanding as one, speaking differently and understanding as one, speaking as one and understanding differently, and speaking nothing and understanding nothing. Therefore this sūtra says: "The one who expounds the Dharma neither speaks nor demonstrates; the one who listens to the Dharma neither hears nor attains." If one grasps this meaning, what doubt can there be in designating and establishing the meaning of the four teachings? Question: From what do the four teachings arise? Answer: The four teachings explained now arise from the three contemplations explained earlier. In order to fulfill the three contemplations, the initial contemplation of entering emptiness from the provisional possesses two different ways of entering emptiness: analyzing and embodying, clumsy and skillful. From entering emptiness by analyzing the provisional, the Tripiṭaka teaching arises; from entering emptiness by embodying the provisional, the shared teaching arises. If regarding the second [contemplation of] entering the provisional from emptiness, within this the distinctive teaching arises. Regarding the third, the correct contemplation of the middle way in a single mind, the perfect teaching arises. Question: From what, then, do the three contemplations arise? Answer: The three contemplations in turn arise due to the four teachings. Question: From what do contemplation and teaching arise? Answer: Contemplation and teaching both arise from the four propositions born of causes and conditions. Question: From what do the four propositions born of causes and conditions arise? Answer: The four propositions born of causes and conditions are precisely the mind; the mind is precisely the inconceivable liberation of all buddhas. The inconceivable liberation of all buddhas is ultimately non-existent, which is precisely the ineffable; therefore Vimalakīrti kept his mouth closed and remained silent without speaking. That "because of causes and conditions they can also be spoken of" means using the four siddhāntas to speak of the four propositions born of causes and conditions of the mind, spoken to meet sentient beings constituted by the four kinds of faculties and capacities and the dharmas of the twelve links of dependent origination. The four kinds of faculties and capacities are: first, inferior faculties; second, middling faculties; third, superior faculties; and fourth, supreme faculties. To meet these four kinds of faculties and capacities, teaching and contemplation arise unimpeded because of this, universally benefiting sentient beings so that they obtain the benefits of the two practices of faith and Dharma. This is precisely the meaning of either noble speech or noble silence. Question: The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says: "Faculties are of three kinds: first, inferior faculties; second, middling faculties; third, superior faculties. For people of middling faculties, he turned the lesser wheel of Dharma three times at Vārāṇasī; for people of superior faculties, he turned the great wheel of Dharma at Kuśinagara; for people of inferior faculties, the Tathāgata never turned the wheel of Dharma." How can you now say there are four kinds of faculties and capacities, and that he spoke the Tripiṭaka teaching for people of inferior faculties? Answer: The Buddha's doctrinal gates are indeterminate according to conditions: sometimes he speaks of one faculty, sometimes of two faculties, sometimes of three faculties, and sometimes of four faculties; sometimes he says he speaks for those of inferior faculties, and sometimes he says he does not speak for those of inferior faculties. Saying that he speaks for those of inferior faculties is like the Lotus Sūtra's "three herbs and two trees all grow by receiving moisture." Saying that he does not speak for those of inferior faculties is just like the passage cited from the Nirvāṇa-sūtra. Question: The Tiwei jing expounds the five precepts to explain the good of humans and devas; why not open it into the meaning of five teachings? Answer: The teaching of humans and devas was spoken by the old physician; it is the ordinary way of the world and does not transcend birth and death. When the Dharma King appeared in the world, desiring to transform sentient beings and make them escape the burning house, he therefore turned the wheel of Dharma three times in the Deer Park, and humans and devas attained the path. Taking this as real, there is the Tripiṭaka teaching. This sūtra, the Dàpǐn, the Lotus, the Nirvāṇa, and other Mahāyāna sūtras all say that he turned the wheel of the four truths at Vārāṇasī; furthermore, the Dà zhìdù lùn explains that the compilation of the Dharma canon also began from the Deer Park, not taking the Tiwei jing as the beginning. Question: If one does not open the good of humans and devas [as a separate teaching], how can the Lotus Sūtra explain that the three herbs and two trees receive moisture? Answer: The Tripiṭaka teaching's explanation of mundane giving, morality, and meditation is precisely the teaching of humans and devas, all of which are wholesome dharmas born of correct causes and conditions. Since this is already subsumed by the Tripiṭaka teaching, there is no need to make five. Question: Is the meaning of the four teachings identical to the meaning of the four tenets of the Dilun masters or not? Answer: If someone asks, "Are the four truths identical to the four great elements or not?" this is a false question. Our not relying on the four tenets to establish the four teachings now is due to many reasons, of which three faults are briefly presented: first, in the four tenets' elucidation of principles, the phrasing seems rigid; second, upon close investigation and examination, their establishing names and formulating meanings seem inconvenient; third, although the four tenets are said to be rich and broad, looking at them from our school's view, their subsumption of the meaning of the Buddha's Dharma still has deficiencies. First, regarding the four tenets' elucidation of principles where the phrasing seems rigid: because they do not rely on the four ineffables and use the four siddhāntas to speak according to conditions, this results in rigidity. Second, regarding the close investigation and examination where establishing names and formulating meanings seem inconvenient: of their four tenets, the Abhidharma attains the path by seeing existence, so one may grant causes and conditions as a tenet. The Chapter on the Three Provisionals is conventional truth; how could it be a tenet? The Chengshi attains the path by seeing emptiness; why not take emptiness as the tenet? Furthermore, the Zhìdù lùn explains that the Tripiṭaka teaching has three gates of entry into the path: first, the gate of existence; second, the gate of emptiness; and third, the gate of provisional designation. Furthermore, the Zhìdù lùn criticizes the Vaipulya meaning, saying: "Directly stating that all dharmas neither arise nor cease by taking the ten similes misses the meaning of prajñā." How could one use dreams and illusions as the non-true tenet? Now I ask: if the non-true tenet is the shared teaching, and the true tenet is the shared tenet, then 'tenet' pervades both true and non-true; why did the non-true submerge 'tenet' and use 'teaching', while the true tenet had no 'teaching' and established 'tenet'? If a tenet has no teaching, how can the true be known? If the true tenet submerges 'tenet' and has 'teaching', then it would equally be called the shared teaching. If both submerged 'teaching' and retained 'tenet', they would equally be called the shared tenet. If both established 'teaching', they would equally be called the shared tenet-teaching. If they retained 'true' and 'non-true', they would be called the shared non-true tenet. If the teaching connects to the true tenet and the teaching connects to the non-true tenet, it could be shared practice for the three vehicles; the shared true tenet should also be shared practice for the three vehicles. If it is said that this 'shared' (tong) means harmonious interpenetration, then the shared teaching is also the 'shared' that reaches the true. In this case, the two names are conflated, and there is no difference in meaning. Answer: The Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra says: "The shared teaching is taught to the childish and naive; the shared tenet is taught to bodhisattvas," therefore taking the true tenet as the shared tenet. Then I ask again: If so, then the previous tenets of causes and conditions, provisional designation, and non-true are all teachings for the childish and naive, and should not all be established with the name of tenet. Having critically examined and refuted this, is their intention determined? I consider establishing the names and meanings of the four tenets not very convenient. Now in speaking of the four teachings: from the Buddha's initial attainment of the path up to his Mahāparinirvāṇa, showing all Dharma gates is nothing other than verbal teaching. Third, even if clever defenses are posited and the names and meanings of the four tenets could be established, and although they are rich and broad compared to ancient and modern [systems], looking at them from our school's view, their subsumption of the meaning of the Buddha's Dharma still has great deficiencies. Now, gathering various sūtras and treatises to establish the meaning of the four teachings, each teaching has four gates, totaling sixteen gates. Their two tenets of causes and conditions and provisional designation seem to overlap with the two gates of existence and emptiness of the Tripiṭaka teaching explained here, yet they still lack the Peṭaka gate and the gate of neither existence nor emptiness. Their non-true tenet explains all dharmas as illusory and transformative, which seems to overlap with the gate of existence of this shared teaching, while the remaining three gates are unexplained by them. Their true tenet seems to overlap with the gate of existence of this distinctive teaching, while the remaining three gates are unexplained by them. Thus the four tenets' elucidation of meaning can only overlap with the four gates of these three teachings, while the four gates of this perfect teaching are completely unexplained by them. The four teachings still have twelve gates elucidating meaning that are not explained by their four tenets. Furthermore, Dharma Master Hùshēn used five tenets to elucidate meaning; his four tenets are as before, and he additionally established the dharmadhātu tenet, which seems to overlap with the gate of existence of this perfect teaching. The four teachings still have eleven gates unexplained by him. Dharma Master Qíshé used six tenets to elucidate meaning; three tenets seem to overlap with these three gates, differentiated as above. His true tenet seems to overlap with the gate of emptiness of this shared teaching; his permanent tenet seems to overlap with the gate of existence of this distinctive teaching; his perfect tenet seems to overlap with the gate of existence of this perfect teaching. The four teachings still have ten gates unexplained by his six tenets. Therefore we know that although the four tenets, five tenets, and six tenets have been said to be rich and broad in elucidating meaning from ancient times to the present, looking at them from our school's view now, their subsumption of the meaning of the Buddha's Dharma still has great deficiencies. The reason for explaining the meaning of the four siddhāntas earlier was precisely to set forth our school's penetration of sūtras and expounding of Dharma, which differs from the common usage of ancient and modern accounts. Therefore, earlier we explained the three contemplations vertically breaking down all dharmas in briefly several dozen rounds; those who examine them will know that the intention differs from what various meditation masters and Sanlun masters have taught. Now in explaining the four teachings, each teaching has four gates, so the four teachings have sixteen gates. Furthermore, opening the four gates of the Tripiṭaka teaching, as when the five hundred arhats each explained the causes of the body, these are five hundred gates. Therefore the sūtra says: "Nirvāṇa is the true Dharma treasure; sentient beings enter the path through diverse gates." If even the four gates of the Tripiṭaka teaching open into immeasurable gates of entry into the path, how could the shared teaching, distinctive teaching, and perfect teaching, each possessing four gates, fail to each open into immeasurable gates? Therefore the Avataṃsaka-sūtra explains that the youth Sudhana visited forty-two spiritual friends, each of whom said, "I only know this one Dharma gate"; visiting one hundred and twenty spiritual friends, and even immeasurable spiritual friends in this way, each said, "I am only able to know this one Dharma gate"; thus Mahāyāna Dharma gates are immeasurable and boundless. In this sūtra, thirty-two bodhisattvas each explained entering the Dharma gate of non-duality, up to eight thousand bodhisattvas who all explained entering the Dharma gate of non-duality. Therefore the Lotus Sūtra says: "Through diverse Dharma gates, he declares and shows the Buddha path." Such a Dharma storehouse, within the ineffable, uses the four siddhāntas to raise doctrinal gates, causing all sentient beings to escape the suffering of the three realms through the Buddha's doctrinal gates. If one retains this idea and compares and determines the four tenets, five tenets, and six tenets, one will naturally know their distinct differences.