四教義 3.8

3.8

第三明用四悉檀起四門之教者，若外道四門皆不見根緣，執心取相定說，如舊醫常用乳藥治一切病，此不因四悉檀而起四門也。今佛法四門皆因四悉檀而起也：一明悉檀起三藏教四門，二明悉檀起通教四門，三明悉檀起別教四門，四明悉檀起圓教四門。一明四悉檀起三藏教四門者，即是生生不可說，有四悉檀因緣，亦可得說。一明用四悉檀起有門者，若眾生心樂有法，即用世界悉檀說毘曇有門；若宜聞生善，即用各各為人悉檀說於有門；若執無因緣、邪因緣，或執空取著、起諸結業，即用對治悉檀為說有門；若聞即是悟見第一義，即用第一義悉檀為說有門，如拘隣等五人聞說四諦即見第一義諦得須陀洹果。若不能用四悉檀赴緣而說法者，即是差機說法，是眾生怨天魔外道一手作諸牢侶。《涅槃經》云：「說法者，諸佛之境界，非諸聲聞、緣覺所知也。」二明用四悉檀起空門者，類前有門用四悉檀起空門，義即成也。而諸成論師云：「毘曇有門但是調心，不能得道，成實見空乃得道耳。」諸數論師云：「我用小乘明義見有得道，汝採用大乘明義，故說見空得道。」今謂此並不得三藏教意。《大集經》云：「常見之人說異念斷，斷見之人說一念斷，二見雖殊，得道無異。」《大智論》云：「聲聞經中處處明法空義，豈得言見空得道明大乘？」今約此四悉檀意作成、壞義：數人四義成，成論四義壞；成論四義成，數人四義壞。是則，成壞敵等，何者是成論成？何者是數人壞？若解三藏教巧、拙度，則成論空門義成，數人有門義壞。三明用悉檀起有無門者，類前有門用悉檀意，則有空門得道，故為毘曇論之所通也。四明用悉檀起非有非無門者，亦類前有門用四悉檀，意可見也。二明用悉檀起通教四門者，通教四門雖如幻化、但有名字，即是生不生不可說。而眾生四種根緣不同，若用四悉檀赴緣，即得起四門也。用四悉檀起通教，類前可知也。三明用四悉檀起別教四門者，不生生不可說。以四悉檀因緣故，得赴緣起教說四門也。但地論師明「阿梨耶識是如來藏」，即是用別教有門入道。三論人云：「汝是不見真空，亦是唼水義。」三論師明「諸法畢竟無所有」，此是別教空門。地論師云：「汝是外人冥初生覺義，亦是黃蜂黃𧑀義。」執諍不穆，何可融會也？今謂此是不得別教四門之意，不知四悉檀，說此有、空兩門義也。四明悉檀起圓教四門者，不生不生不可說。以四悉檀因緣，起圓教說四門也。

Third, explaining the emergence of the teachings of the four gates through the use of the four siddhāntas: the four gates of externalists all fail to discern the faculties and conditions [of beings], clinging to thoughts, seizing on signs, and making fixed assertions—like the former physician who constantly used milk medicine to cure all diseases; this is not bringing forth the four gates on the basis of the four siddhāntas. Now, the four gates of the Buddhadharma all arise on the basis of the four siddhāntas: first, explaining the siddhāntas giving rise to the four gates of the Tripiṭaka teaching; second, explaining the siddhāntas giving rise to the four gates of the shared teaching; third, explaining the siddhāntas giving rise to the four gates of the distinctive teaching; fourth, explaining the siddhāntas giving rise to the four gates of the perfect teaching. First, explaining the four siddhāntas giving rise to the four gates of the Tripiṭaka teaching: that is, 'arising-arising' is ineffable, yet because of the causes and conditions of the four siddhāntas, it can also be spoken. First, explaining the use of the four siddhāntas to bring forth the gate of existence: if the minds of sentient beings delight in phenomena of existence, one uses the worldly siddhānta to expound the Abhidharma gate of existence; if it is fitting for them to hear this to generate goodness, one uses the individual-adaptation siddhānta to expound the gate of existence; if they cling to causelessness or heterodox causes, or cling to emptiness with attachment and produce defilements and karma, one uses the diagnostic siddhānta to expound for them the gate of existence; if upon hearing it they awaken and see the supreme truth, one uses the supreme-truth siddhānta to expound for them the gate of existence—just as Kaundinya and the other five people, hearing the exposition of the four truths, immediately saw the paramārtha-satya and attained the fruit of srotāpanna. If one cannot use the four siddhāntas to respond to conditions and expound the Dharma, this is preaching the Dharma discordant with capacities; such a one is an enemy of sentient beings, working in single concert with Māra and externalists to form their prison-mates. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Expounding the Dharma is the realm of the Buddhas, not something known by the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas.' Second, explaining the use of the four siddhāntas to bring forth the gate of emptiness: this is analogous to the previous use of the four siddhāntas to bring forth the gate of existence, and its meaning is thereby established. Yet the masters of the Tattvasiddhi say: 'The Abhidharma gate of existence merely regulates the mind and cannot attain the Way; only through the Tattvasiddhi's seeing of emptiness is the Way attained.' The Abhidharma masters say: 'We use the Hīnayāna to elucidate the principle, seeing existence and attaining the Way; you mistakenly adopt the Mahāyāna to elucidate the principle, and thus speak of seeing emptiness to attain the Way.' Now I say that neither of these grasps the intention of the Tripiṭaka teaching. The Mahāsaṃnipāta Sūtra says: 'Those of eternalist views say it is severed by different thoughts; those of annihilationist views say it is severed in a single thought. Though the two views differ, their attainment of the Way is no different.' The Dà zhìdù lùn says: 'In the śrāvaka sūtras, the meaning of the emptiness of dharmas is elucidated everywhere; how could one say that seeing emptiness to attain the Way elucidates the Mahāyāna?' Now, according to the intention of these four siddhāntas, we construct the sense of establishment and refutation: the four meanings of the Abhidharma masters are established, and the four meanings of the Tattvasiddhi are refuted; the four meanings of the Tattvasiddhi are established, and the four meanings of the Abhidharma masters are refuted. Thus, establishment and refutation are evenly matched; which is the Tattvasiddhi's establishment, and which is the Abhidharma masters' refutation? If one understands the skillful and clumsy conveyances of the Tripiṭaka teaching, then the Tattvasiddhi's gate of emptiness is established, and the Abhidharma masters' gate of existence is refuted. Third, explaining the use of the siddhāntas to bring forth the gate of both existence and non-existence: this is analogous to the intention of using the siddhāntas for the gate of existence; thus, through the gate of both existence and emptiness the Way is attained, and this is penetrated by the Abhidharma treatise. Fourth, explaining the use of the siddhāntas to bring forth the gate of neither existence nor non-existence: this is also analogous to the previous use of the four siddhāntas for the gate of existence, and the meaning can be seen. Second, explaining the use of the siddhāntas to bring forth the four gates of the shared teaching: although the four gates of the shared teaching are like illusions and transformations and have merely nominal designations, which is 'arising-non-arising' and ineffable, yet because the four kinds of faculties and conditions of sentient beings differ, if one uses the four siddhāntas to respond to their conditions, one can bring forth the four gates. Using the four siddhāntas to bring forth the shared teaching can be known by analogy with the preceding. Third, explaining the use of the four siddhāntas to bring forth the four gates of the distinctive teaching: 'non-arising-arising' is ineffable. Because of the causes and conditions of the four siddhāntas, one can respond to conditions to bring forth the teaching and expound the four gates. But the Daśabhūmika masters explain that 'the ālayavijñāna is the tathāgatagarbha', which is using the distinctive teaching's gate of existence to enter the Way. The Sanlun masters say: 'You do not see true emptiness, which is also the meaning of sipping water.' The Sanlun masters explain that 'all dharmas are ultimately non-existent', which is the distinctive teaching's gate of emptiness. The Daśabhūmika masters say: 'You hold the externalist doctrine of primordial nature giving rise to consciousness, which is also the meaning of yellow bees and yellow wasps.' With entrenched disputes and lack of harmony, how could they be interfused? Now I say that these do not grasp the intention of the distinctive teaching's four gates, not knowing the four siddhāntas in expounding the meanings of these two gates of existence and emptiness. Fourth, explaining the siddhāntas bringing forth the four gates of the perfect teaching: 'non-arising-non-arising' is ineffable. Through the causes and conditions of the four siddhāntas, the perfect teaching is brought forth to expound the four gates.