四教義 7.12

7.12

次第三明料簡者，問曰：聲聞經中開三乘，何故二乘即生斷結，菩薩從初發心乃至至降魔都不斷結？答曰：聲聞、緣覺厭患生死，自求涅槃，不為利物，是故貪取真斷結，結盡則不受生，入涅槃也。菩薩大慈怜愍，欲度一切，受生死苦，教化眾生。眾生出世善根淳熟即便成道，說三乘教，共三乘人同入涅槃。若因中斷結，即不得受生，豈能利物？是故忍受生死，不斷結使，三阿僧祇處在生死，教化眾生，共出三界故。不斷結使，意在於此。問曰：菩薩斷結誓願、神通、應化利物，何必須留結而受生耶？答曰：斷結誓願、神通、應化受生，此乃是摩訶衍之所說，非三藏之所明。所以者何？斷結誓願受生，通教之所說；法性身神通受生，別教之所說；法身應生，—圓教所說。問曰：聲聞經教為何意不得論斷結受生？答曰：三藏之教正化小乘、傍化菩薩。若說菩薩結盡受生，二乘即疑：若結盡而得受生者，諸聲聞人得羅漢果，將不更受生耶？是故不說菩薩斷結受生。問曰：若為二乘生疑不說菩薩斷結受生者，大乘《方等》、《摩訶般若》、通教三乘亦應不得說菩薩斷結，用誓願、神通受生。答曰：此是生蘇、熟蘇之教。二乘漸淳熟，信解分明，聞菩薩事，心不疑惑。故《法華經》云：「過是已後，心相體信，入出無難，然其所止故在本處。」問曰：所明聲聞經菩薩義，為是佛說？為佛去世諸聲聞弟子說耶？答曰：有是佛說，亦有是諸羅漢作《鞞婆沙阿毘曇》中說。問曰：何者是佛所說？何者是羅漢所說耶？答曰：如說菩薩從初發心乃至不斷結使坐道場時，正、習俱斷，此是佛說。何以得知？龍樹論主答數人言：「若後身菩薩不斷結者，是佛方便所說也。」亦有是諸羅漢佛去世後之所說者，如言「初阿僧祇不自知作佛，二阿僧祇自知作佛而口不宣說，三阿僧祇劫了了自知作佛亦發言向他說。」此義者非佛三藏中所說，乃至是諸羅漢作毘婆沙釋菩薩義。問曰：若佛自說三藏教明菩薩義，此則可信。若諸羅漢所說，云何可信？答曰：諸羅漢既是聖人，共採佛三藏教意明菩薩義，何容全失？問曰：若爾，《智度論》何意從始至終一一彈破？答曰：龍樹為欲申摩訶衍，明菩薩所行之道，以大破小，皆可破也。若就小乘明三藏宗徒，羅漢聖人之所撰集，何容頓乖僻也？若諸羅漢明聲聞經所釋菩薩義，遂併乖僻，末世凡人法師何可謬有申釋？凡情解釋小乘既不可長承用，大乘深經豈可出在妄情而論？故知雖非佛說，若是羅漢作論亦須信受。

Third, regarding the evaluation: Question: In the śrāvaka sūtras, the three vehicles are opened. Why do [practitioners of] the two vehicles sever defilements in their present lifetime, whereas a bodhisattva does not sever defilements at all from the initial resolve of the mind right up until subduing Māra? Answer: Śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas are repulsed by and distressed with saṃsāra and seek nirvāṇa for themselves, not to benefit other beings. Therefore, they eagerly grasp the real and sever defilements; when their defilements are exhausted, they do not undergo rebirth, but enter nirvāṇa. Bodhisattvas possess great compassion and pity, desiring to liberate all beings; they undergo the sufferings of saṃsāra in order to teach and transform sentient beings. When sentient beings' roots of goodness for transcending the world have fully ripened, [the bodhisattva] then attains the path, teaches the doctrine of the three vehicles, and together with persons of the three vehicles enters nirvāṇa. If they severed defilements in the causal stage, they would not be able to undergo rebirth, and how then could they benefit beings? For this reason, they endure saṃsāra without severing the fetters, remaining within saṃsāra for three asaṃkhyeya [kalpas] to teach and transform sentient beings, so that they may leave the three realms together. The intent in not severing the fetters lies herein. Question: If a bodhisattva can sever defilements and, through vows, supernormal powers, and responsive transformation, benefit beings, why must they retain the defilements to undergo rebirth? Answer: Severing defilements and undergoing rebirth through vows, supernormal powers, and responsive transformation is what is taught in the Mahāyāna, not what is elucidated in the Tripiṭaka [teaching]. Why is this so? Undergoing rebirth through vows upon severing defilements is what the shared teaching explains; undergoing rebirth through supernormal powers with a body of dharmic nature is what the distinctive teaching explains; and responsive rebirth with the dharma-body is what the perfect teaching explains. Question: For what reason can the doctrine of the śrāvaka sūtras not discuss undergoing rebirth upon severing defilements? Answer: The Tripiṭaka teaching primarily transforms the Hīnayāna, and only secondarily transforms bodhisattvas. If it were taught that bodhisattvas undergo rebirth with their defilements exhausted, [practitioners of] the two vehicles would suspect: 'If one can undergo rebirth even when defilements are exhausted, will the śrāvakas who attain the fruit of arhatship perhaps also undergo rebirth again?' Therefore, it does not speak of bodhisattvas undergoing rebirth upon severing defilements. Question: If it does not speak of bodhisattvas undergoing rebirth upon severing defilements for fear that the two vehicles would give rise to doubts, then the Mahāyāna *Vaipulya* [sūtras], the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā*, and the three vehicles of the shared teaching likewise ought not to say that bodhisattvas sever defilements and undergo rebirth using vows and supernormal powers. Answer: These are the teachings of raw curds and cooked curds. As the two vehicles gradually ripen and their faithful understanding becomes clear, upon hearing of the deeds of bodhisattvas their minds have no doubts. Hence the *Lotus Sūtra* states: 'After this, their minds came to mutual trust, entering and leaving without difficulty, yet what he stayed in remained as before in his original place.' Question: Is the doctrine of the bodhisattva elucidated in the śrāvaka sūtras spoken by the Buddha, or was it spoken by the śrāvaka disciples after the Buddha passed away? Answer: Some was spoken by the Buddha, and some was spoken by the arhats in composing the *Vibhāṣā-abhidharma*. Question: Which is spoken by the Buddha, and which is spoken by the arhats? Answer: What states that a bodhisattva, from the initial resolve of the mind right up until sitting at the place of the path without severing the fetters, severs both [the defilements themselves] and the habit-energies, is spoken by the Buddha. How is this known? Treatise Master Nāgārjuna answered the Sarvāstivādins: 'That the bodhisattva in his final body does not sever defilements is a conventional teaching spoken by the Buddha.' There are also things spoken by the arhats after the Buddha passed away, such as the statement: 'In the first asaṃkhyeya [kalpa] he does not know himself that he will become a Buddha; in the second asaṃkhyeya he knows himself that he will become a Buddha but does not declare it with his mouth; and in the third asaṃkhyeya kalpa he clearly knows himself that he will become a Buddha and also utters words to tell others.' This meaning was not spoken by the Buddha in the Tripiṭaka, but was rather the arhats' composing of the *Vibhāṣā* to explain the doctrine of the bodhisattva. Question: If the Buddha himself taught the Tripiṭaka teaching elucidating the doctrine of the bodhisattva, then it is trustworthy. If it was spoken by the arhats, how can it be trusted? Answer: Since the arhats were noble ones who together gathered the Buddha's intent in the Tripiṭaka teaching to elucidate the doctrine of the bodhisattva, how could it be completely errant? Question: If so, why does the *Dà zhìdù lùn* refute it one by one from beginning to end? Answer: Nāgārjuna wished to express the Mahāyāna and illuminate the path traversed by bodhisattvas; using the great to refute the small, all can be refuted. If one considers it from the standpoint of the Hīnayāna elucidating the tradition of the Tripiṭaka, compiled by arhats and noble ones, how could it suddenly be perverse and errant? If the arhats' exposition of the doctrine of the bodhisattva in the śrāvaka sūtras were utterly perverse and errant, how could ordinary Dharma masters in the final age have an erroneous exposition? Since an ordinary person's explanation of the Hīnayāna cannot be permanently relied upon, how could deep Mahāyāna sūtras be discussed emerging from delusional sentiments? Therefore, we know that although it was not spoken by the Buddha, if it is a treatise composed by arhats, it must also be accepted with faith.