四教義 8.3

8.3

第一略明半滿辨位有同不同者，若三藏半字教門明位大同小異，如《毘曇》、《成實》釋三藏教、辨賢聖位，雖復小異而大意是同，不足疑也。若摩訶衍滿字教門，通論只是一摩訶衍教，若細尋義理，即有三教明位高下不同，其不達大乘方便，實可疑也。故《大品經》云：「有菩薩從初發心即與薩婆若相應。」此恐約通教明入位，亦是《法華經》小樹增長之譬也。又《大品經》云：「有菩薩從初發心即遊戲神通、淨佛國土、成就眾生。」此恐約別教以明入位，即是《法華經》所明大樹增長之譬。又《大品經》云：「有菩薩從初發即坐道場度眾生，當知是菩薩為如佛。」此恐約圓教初入位，亦是《法華經》明「一地所生」之譬也。故《大智度論》釋〈燈炷品〉云：「有人言：『從乾慧地為初焰，佛地為後焰。』有人言：『歡喜地為初焰，佛地為後焰。』有人言：『初發心為初焰，佛地為後焰。』」如此解釋不同者，恐此是諸大乘論師釋滿字教門，三教明位不同，各取此意已釋初焰後焰。問曰：何意三藏教明位多同，摩訶衍教開為三教、判位不同耶？答曰：半字教門止明界內一世斷結使入涅槃，小乘狹劣、明事淺近，不可動逾。若是滿字教門，廣大深遠，備明界內外行位、法門權實無方，說諸菩薩行類、相貌、位次不同，無罣礙也。故《涅槃經》云：「譬如隘道不容二人並行，解脫不爾，多所容受，即真解脫。」真解脫內權實、行位何所不容？故龍樹菩薩作《大智度論》，種種因緣破迦旃延，引《毘婆沙》釋三藏義，明菩薩義，正是欲申摩訶衍教不可思議行類、階級隨緣不同。

First, briefly explaining the similarities and differences in determining stages between the half-letter and full-letter [teachings]: In the half-letter teaching of the Tripiṭaka, the explanation of stages has broad similarities and minor differences. For example, when the *Abhidharma* and *Tattvasiddhi* explain the Tripiṭaka teaching and distinguish the stages of the worthy and the noble, although there are minor differences, the main purport is the same and not a matter for doubt. In the full-letter teaching of the Mahāyāna, speaking generally, it is only a single Mahāyāna teaching; yet if one investigates the doctrine in detail, there are three teachings whose explanations of the stages differ in height and depth; for those who do not comprehend the expedient means of the Mahāyāna, this is indeed questionable. Thus the *Dàpǐn jīng* states: 'There are bodhisattvas who, from their initial resolve of the mind, are immediately concordant with sarvajñā.' This, we suspect, explains entering the stages in terms of the shared teaching; it is also the parable of the growth of the small tree in the *Lotus Sūtra*. Again, the *Dàpǐn jīng* states: 'There are bodhisattvas who, from their initial resolve of the mind, disport in supernormal powers, purify Buddha lands, and bring sentient beings to maturity.' This, we suspect, explains entering the stages in terms of the distinctive teaching; it is the parable of the growth of the large tree elucidated in the *Lotus Sūtra*. Again, the *Dàpǐn jīng* states: 'There are bodhisattvas who, from their initial resolve, sit at the place of the path and deliver sentient beings; know that such bodhisattvas are like the Buddha.' This, we suspect, explains the initial entry into the stages in terms of the perfect teaching; it is also the parable elucidated in the *Lotus Sūtra* of 'what grows from a single ground.' Hence, when the *Dà zhìdù lùn* comments on the chapter 'The Wick of the Lamp', it states: 'Some say: "From the stage of dry wisdom is the initial flame, and the Buddha stage is the final flame." Some say: "The stage of joy is the initial flame, and the Buddha stage is the final flame." Some say: "The initial resolve of the mind is the initial flame, and the Buddha stage is the final flame."' That there are different interpretations such as these is, we suspect, because when these Mahāyāna treatise masters explained the full-letter teachings, the three teachings explained the stages differently, and each took this idea to explain the initial flame and the final flame. Question: Why is it that the Tripiṭaka teaching's explanation of stages is mostly uniform, whereas the Mahāyāna teaching opens into three teachings whose determination of stages differs? Answer: The half-letter teaching only explains severing the fetters and entering nirvāṇa within the realms in a single lifetime; the Hīnayāna is narrow and inferior, and its explanation of matters is shallow and close, not to be overstepped. But the full-letter teaching is vast, deep, and far-reaching, completely explaining practices, stages, and teachings within and beyond the realms, with expedients and ultimates having no fixed bounds; in explaining the differing practices, characteristics, and sequential stages of bodhisattvas, there is no obstruction. Hence the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* states: 'Just as a narrow path cannot accommodate two people walking abreast, liberation is not like this; it accommodates much, which is true liberation.' Within true liberation, what could the expedient and ultimate, practices and stages fail to accommodate? Therefore, when Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna composed the *Dà zhìdù lùn*, through various causes and conditions he refuted Kātyāyana, and cited the *Vibhāṣā* to explain the meaning of the Tripiṭaka and elucidate the doctrine of the bodhisattva, precisely wishing to express the inconceivable practices and classes of the Mahāyāna teaching, whose gradations differ according to conditions.