四教義 12.12

12.12

第七通諸經論為二：一明對諸經論，二通釋此經文義。就初四教對經論者，佛用四教成一切頓漸諸經，論釋經豈越四教也！即為二意：一對經，二對論。一對經者，若《華嚴經》但具二教所成：一別教，二圓教。所以者何？別教則諸菩薩宣說歷劫修行，四十二心斷結行位階差；圓教明一心具足一切諸行，從初一地具足一切諸地功德。次明漸教之初聲聞經，但具足三藏教；《方等》大乘及以此經具足四教；《摩訶般若》具足三教，除三藏教；《法華經》開權顯實，正直捨方便，但一圓教；《涅槃經》具足四教，成五味義也。問曰：《方等》大乘亦具四教，何故不成五味義？答曰：不明聲聞作佛，五味之義不成。約不定中，得論四教也。釋迦出世所有經教更不過此四教，攝此諸經罄無不盡。二對論者，論有二種：一者通申經論，二者別申經論。一通申經論者，即為二意：一通申小乘經，二通申大乘經。一通申小乘經者，如《毘曇》、《成實》、《昆勒》等論，並是通申小乘經論。故成實論主云：「我今正欲論三藏中實義。」二通申大乘經論者，如《地持論》、《攝大乘論》、《唯識論》、《中論》、《十二門論》等，並是通申諸大乘經所明別、圓兩經也。二別申經論者，即為二意：一別申小乘經，二別申大乘經。一別申小乘經者，如《俱舍論》別申修多羅，《明了論》別申毘尼，《毘婆娑論》、《阿毘曇論》別申佛在世說毘曇也。二明別申大乘經論者，如《十地論》別申《華嚴經》別、圓兩教，《大智度論》別申《摩訶般若經》通、別、圓三教。應有別申《大集》、《方等》及此經論，不來此土。《金剛般若論》別申《金剛般若經》，《法華論》別申《法華經》一圓教，《涅槃論》別申《涅槃經》四教五味，論度此土不盡。如是等論申經，即是申觀心，此等諸經今分明也。是則精修觀心，洞解一切經論。若經論不從心出者，觀行之人既不聽不讀，何得內心通達耶？此乃有所言說，冥與經論相應，意在此也。

Seventh, explaining the various sūtras and treatises has two parts: first, clarifying the correlation with various sūtras and treatises; second, comprehensively explaining the literal and doctrinal meaning of this sūtra. Regarding the first correlation of the four teachings with the sūtras and treatises, the Buddha utilized the four teachings to compose all the sudden and gradual sūtras; how could treatises explaining sūtras ever go beyond the four teachings? This comprises two points: first, correlation with sūtras; second, correlation with treatises. First, regarding correlation with sūtras: the Avataṃsaka Sūtra is composed solely with two teachings: first, the distinctive teaching; second, the perfect teaching. Why is this? The distinctive teaching consists of the various bodhisattvas expounding the progressive ranks of practice and stages of severing defilements across kalpas of cultivation through the forty-two minds; the perfect teaching elucidates that a single mind is endowed with all practices, and from the very first stage one is endowed with the merits of all stages. Next, regarding the beginning of the gradual teaching, the śrāvaka sūtras are endowed solely with the Tripiṭaka teaching; the Vaipulya Mahāyāna as well as this sūtra are endowed with all four teachings; the Mahāprajñāpāramitā is endowed with three teachings, excluding the Tripiṭaka teaching; the Lotus Sūtra opens the expedient to reveal the ultimate, frankly casting aside expedients, and consists solely of the one perfect teaching; the Nirvāṇa Sūtra is endowed with the four teachings, accomplishing the meaning of the five flavors. Question: The Vaipulya Mahāyāna is also endowed with the four teachings, so why does it not accomplish the meaning of the five flavors? Answer: Because it does not clarify the śrāvakas attaining Buddhahood, the meaning of the five flavors is not accomplished. In terms of the indeterminate, one may discuss the four teachings. All the scriptural teachings of Śākyamuni's appearance in the world do not go beyond these four teachings, which encompass these various sūtras completely and without remainder. Second, regarding correlation with treatises, there are two kinds of treatises: first, treatises that comprehensively clarify sūtras; second, treatises that specifically clarify sūtras. First, treatises that comprehensively clarify sūtras comprises two points: first, comprehensively clarifying Hīnayāna sūtras; second, comprehensively clarifying Mahāyāna sūtras. Regarding treatises that comprehensively clarify Hīnayāna sūtras, treatises such as the Abhidharma, the Tattvasiddhi, and the Piṭaka are all treatises that comprehensively clarify Hīnayāna sūtras. Thus the master of the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra states: 'I now intend precisely to discuss the real meaning within the Tripiṭaka.' Regarding treatises that comprehensively clarify Mahāyāna sūtras, texts such as the Bodhisattvabhūmi, the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, the Vijñaptimātratā treatises, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, and the Dvādaśamukha-śāstra are all treatises that comprehensively clarify the two teachings, distinctive and perfect, elucidated in the various Mahāyāna sūtras. Second, treatises that specifically clarify sūtras comprises two points: first, specifically clarifying Hīnayāna sūtras; second, specifically clarifying Mahāyāna sūtras. Regarding treatises that specifically clarify Hīnayāna sūtras, for example, the Abhidharmakośa specifically clarifies the sūtras, the Vinayavibhāṣā specifically clarifies the Vinaya, and the Vibhāṣā and Abhidharma treatises specifically clarify the Abhidharma expounded during the Buddha's presence in the world. Second, regarding clarifying treatises that specifically clarify Mahāyāna sūtras, for example, the Daśabhūmika-śāstra specifically clarifies the distinctive and perfect teachings of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, and the Dà zhìdù lùn specifically clarifies the three teachings—shared, distinctive, and perfect—of the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra. There ought to be treatises that specifically clarify the Mahāsaṃnipāta, the Vaipulya, and this sūtra, but they have not arrived in this land. The Vajracchedikā-śāstra specifically clarifies the Diamond Sūtra; the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa specifically clarifies the one perfect teaching of the Lotus Sūtra; the Nirvāṇa treatise specifically clarifies the four teachings and five flavors of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, but the translation of treatises to this land is incomplete. Treatises such as these clarifying sūtras is precisely their clarifying contemplation of the mind; these various sūtras are now clear. Therefore, by diligently cultivating the contemplation of the mind, one thoroughly understands all sūtras and treatises. If the sūtras and treatises did not issue from the mind, then since a practitioner of contemplation neither listens [to lectures] nor reads [texts], how could their inner mind attain thorough comprehension? That there are words spoken that tacitly correspond with the sūtras and treatises—the intention lies right here.