四教義 12.9

12.9

第二明格位者，即為三意：一約三藏教位格後三教，二約通教位格後二教，三約別教格後圓教。一約三藏教位格後三教者，即為三意：一明三藏教位格通教，二格別教，三格圓教。一格通教者，若論聲聞、緣覺，與通教明二乘不殊；若約大乘明位，此則大為殊別。所以者何？三藏教明三阿僧祇劫修行乃至補處即是無垢位，正得齊於通教柔順忍、信地忍、法中忍也；若三藏之佛，則得齊於通教佛地，正習俱盡、八相齊也。傍論三藏佛是折法，智力拙；通教佛是體法，故為巧。問曰：《智度論》云：「阿羅漢地於聲聞經中名之為佛，但得二種涅槃。」答曰：今謂皆除正使，已辦地齊。若取二諦滿、正習盡，二佛齊也。二明用三藏教位格別教位者，三藏教明一生補處淨無垢稱位，格別教，與鐵輪位十信第十願心齊；佛地但與別教第十迴向齊，或可與初地齊也。此乃正意，傍論類通教可知。三明三藏教格圓教位者，三藏補處淨無垢稱位但與圓教五品弟子第五品齊，佛地但與鐵輪位十信後願心齊。正義如此，傍論亦有優劣：三藏佛正、習俱盡，以此為勝；不明六根清淨、不思議之妙用，此為劣也。故《華嚴經》歎初發心住菩薩云：「初發心以過於牟尼」也。二明用通教位格後二教位，即為二：一格別教，二格圓教。一明格別教位者，通教明補處淨無垢稱位，別教第十法界無量迴向齊；通教佛果但與十地初歡喜地齊。正義如此，傍論有劣者，無相似中道智伏無明也。二明格圓教者，若通教明補處淨無垢稱位，但與圓教鐵輪位十信第十願心齊；通教明佛果但與初發心住齊。此是一往格之。正論則劣初發心住，以初發心住即能顯中道法身、斷無明一品為勝也。三明別教格圓教位者，若別教明法身法雲一生補處淨無垢稱位，但與圓教十位第十灌頂住齊；佛地斷十一品無明，但與十行初歡喜行齊。若依《仁王經》開十地為三十生，是則無垢與法界無量迴向位齊，佛地與十地初歡喜地齊。是則別教明一生補處望圓教。若依前釋，以義往推，猶有三十一品無明。若依引《仁王經》，即有十一品無明。是則別、圓法身補處雖通約位，無垢稱義懸殊，豈得一概而釋維摩詰之名也。問曰：尋至道即是一，若格前方便三教所明補處、佛果遂傳爾懸殊，此意難解。答曰：二義往釋，一有教有人、二有教無人。若是三教方便之說因中稟教之者，即並有教有人。佛果、補處及上位菩薩能說三教，此並有教無人。所以者何？所稟三教行人因教各獲利，故有教有人也。能說之教主示現為三教之佛菩薩，令物慕果行因，因行既成則無復化主，如斯乃緣感便應、緣謝便息。空拳誑小兒，引將還家，手中實無物也。三教化主亦皆如是。若是圓教有教有人者，因中稟教，乃至法雲有教有人斷四十一品無明，法身補處，此實非虛。妙覺法身無說之說，即是果上有教有人也。有教無人因之為權，有教有人名之為實。問曰：若爾，四教明果可分權實，四教因地皆有教有人，何得分其權實？答曰：今明三教之人名為權人，稟圓教之人則人、教俱實，故約四教明因分權實也。問曰：三教之因既立權人，三教之果何意不得辨權人也？答曰：三教行人可成圓人，無有三教之佛，修因作圓佛，故非類也。

Second, explaining the ranking of stages. Under this there are three points: first, ranking the latter three teachings in terms of the stages of the Tripiṭaka teaching; second, ranking the latter two teachings in terms of the stages of the shared teaching; third, ranking the latter perfect teaching in terms of the distinctive teaching. First, ranking the latter three teachings in terms of the stages of the Tripiṭaka teaching has three points: first, explaining the ranking of the shared teaching in terms of the stages of the Tripiṭaka teaching; second, ranking the distinctive teaching; third, ranking the perfect teaching. First, ranking the shared teaching: If one discusses the śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha, they do not differ from the two vehicles elucidated in the shared teaching; but if one explains stages in terms of Mahāyāna, these differ greatly. Why is this? The Tripiṭaka teaching's cultivation over three asaṃkhyeya kalpas up to the stage of succession, which is the stainless stage, precisely equates to the shared teaching's forbearance of conformity, forbearance of the stage of faith, and forbearance within dharmas; the Buddha of the Tripiṭaka equates to the Buddha stage of the shared teaching, where primary [delusions] and habitual tendencies are both exhausted, and the eight aspects are equal. As an incidental discussion, the Tripiṭaka Buddha analyzes dharmas, so the power of wisdom is clumsy; the shared teaching Buddha embodies dharmas, so it is skillful. Question: The Dà zhìdù lùn says: 'The stage of the arhat is called Buddha in the śrāvaka sūtras, but merely obtains the two kinds of nirvāṇa.' Answer: We now maintain that both eradicate primary afflictions, and their stage of 'done what was to be done' is equal. If one takes the fulfillment of the two truths and the exhaustion of primary [delusions] and habitual tendencies, the two Buddhas are equal. Second, explaining the ranking of the distinctive teaching's stages by using the Tripiṭaka teaching's stages: The Tripiṭaka teaching's stage of succession to one [final] birth, the stainless name, when ranked against the distinctive teaching, is equal to the tenth mind of aspiration among the ten faiths of the iron-wheel stage; its Buddha stage is merely equal to the tenth dedication of the distinctive teaching, or perhaps equal to the first bhūmi. This is the primary meaning; the incidental discussion is analogous to the shared teaching and can be known. Third, explaining the ranking of the perfect teaching's stages by the Tripiṭaka teaching: The Tripiṭaka's stage of succession, the stainless name, is merely equal to the fifth rank among the five ranks of disciples of the perfect teaching; its Buddha stage is merely equal to the final mind of aspiration among the ten faiths of the iron-wheel stage. The primary doctrine is like this. As an incidental discussion, there are also superior and inferior aspects: that the Tripiṭaka Buddha has exhausted both primary [delusions] and habitual tendencies is considered superior; that it does not elucidate the purification of the six sense faculties and the wondrous function of the inconceivable is considered inferior. Hence the Avataṃsaka Sūtra praises the bodhisattva of the dwelling of initial generation of the mind, saying: 'The initial generation of the mind already surpasses Muni.' Second, explaining the ranking of the latter two teachings' stages by using the shared teaching's stages has two points: first, ranking the distinctive teaching; second, ranking the perfect teaching. First, explaining the ranking of the distinctive teaching's stages: The shared teaching's stage of succession, the stainless name, is equal to the tenth dedication of the immeasurable dharmadhātu of the distinctive teaching; the shared teaching's Buddha fruit is merely equal to the first joyful bhūmi among the ten bhūmis. The primary doctrine is like this. The incidental discussion that has an inferior aspect is that it lacks the approximate wisdom of the middle way to subdue ignorance. Second, explaining the ranking against the perfect teaching: The shared teaching's stage of succession, the stainless name, is merely equal to the tenth mind of aspiration among the ten faiths of the iron-wheel stage of the perfect teaching; the shared teaching's Buddha fruit is merely equal to the dwelling of the initial generation of the mind. This is ranking them in general. In the primary discussion, it is inferior to the dwelling of the initial generation of the mind, because the dwelling of the initial generation of the mind is already able to reveal the dharmakāya of the middle way and sever one grade of ignorance, which is considered superior. Third, explaining the ranking of the perfect teaching's stages by the distinctive teaching: The distinctive teaching's dharmakāya of the dharma-cloud, succession to one [final] birth, the stainless name stage, is merely equal to the tenth, the coronation dwelling, among the ten dwellings of the perfect teaching; its Buddha stage, severing eleven grades of ignorance, is merely equal to the first, the joyful practice, among the ten practices. If, according to the Renwang jing, the ten bhūmis are opened into thirty births, then the stainless [stage] is equal to the stage of the dedication of the immeasurable dharmadhātu, and the Buddha stage is equal to the first joyful bhūmi among the ten bhūmis. Thus, when the distinctive teaching's succession to one [final] birth is viewed against the perfect teaching: if according to the previous explanation, inferring by principle, there are still thirty-one grades of ignorance remaining; if according to the citation of the Renwang jing, there are eleven grades of ignorance. Thus, although the dharmakāya succession of the distinctive and perfect teachings are both referred to as stages, their meaning of 'stainless name' is vastly disparate; how could one interpret the name of Vimalakīrti uniformly? Question: If one investigates the ultimate Way, it is one; if when ranking the stage of succession and Buddha fruit elucidated in the preceding three expedient teachings they become so vastly disparate, this meaning is difficult to understand. Answer: Two meanings are used to explain it: first, there is the teaching and there is the person; second, there is the teaching but no person. In the case of those who receive the teaching in the causal stage from the expedient discourses of the three teachings, there is both the teaching and the person. The Buddha fruit, the stage of succession, and the bodhisattvas of higher stages who are able to expound the three teachings—all these have the teaching but no person. Why is this? The practitioners who receive the three teachings each obtain benefit through the teaching, hence there is the teaching and there is the person. The lords of teaching who are able to expound manifest as the Buddhas and bodhisattvas of the three teachings, causing beings to admire the fruit and cultivate the cause; once the causal practice is accomplished, there is no longer a transforming lord. In this manner, when conditions stimulate, they respond; when conditions wane, they cease. With an empty fist one deceives small children, leading them to return home, while in the hand there is truly nothing. The transforming lords of the three teachings are all like this. In the case where the perfect teaching has both teaching and person: receiving the teaching in the causal stage, all the way up to the dharma-cloud, there is both teaching and person; severing forty-one grades of ignorance, the dharmakāya succession to the stage—this is truly not false. The exposition without exposition of the wondrous awakening dharmakāya is precisely that in the fruition stage there is both teaching and person. Having the teaching but no person is derived as the expedient; having the teaching and the person is called the ultimate. Question: If so, while the fruits elucidated in the four teachings can be divided into expedient and ultimate, in the causal ground of the four teachings there are all both teaching and person—how can their expedient and ultimate be divided? Answer: We now explain that the persons of the three teachings are called expedient persons; the persons who receive the perfect teaching have both person and teaching as ultimate, hence the cause is elucidated in terms of the four teachings to divide expedient and ultimate. Question: Since the causes of the three teachings establish expedient persons, why cannot the fruits of the three teachings determine expedient persons? Answer: The practitioners of the three teachings can become perfect persons; there is no Buddha of the three teachings who cultivates the cause to become a perfect Buddha, and therefore they are not of the same category.