[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [四教義](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1929) › 8.4 # 四教義 8.4 四教義 8.4 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [8.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1929.8.4) 第二略明約通教開三乘者，此通教約因緣即空之理分三乘也。三人同稟通教見第一義諦，同斷三界見思，得一切智，同求有餘、無餘二種涅槃。此義既同，故約通教義以辨位也。而分為三乘者，聲聞總想體法入空，智慧力弱，但斷正使。根性不同，亦有二種解脫，如前三藏教中分別。緣覺福德利根，能少分別，別想體法入空，生無佛世，不因聞法，時至道熟，自然曉悟見第一義，斷三界結盡、侵除習氣，是名辟支佛乘。根性不同，亦有二種：一者小辟支迦羅，二大辟支迦羅，已如前說。若菩薩，具修總想、別想智慧，體因緣即空，起大悲誓願，以修諸行見第一義、斷界內煩惱，用誓願扶習、還生三界，用道種智遊戲神通、淨佛國土、成就眾生。三乘善根淳熟即坐道場，用一念相應智慧斷煩惱習盡，得一切種智，名之為佛。轉生滅、無生滅二種法輪，化三乘眾生入無餘涅槃，是為大乘。故《大品經》云：「三乘之人同用以第一義諦無言說道斷煩惱，但是人煩惱習盡、不盡為異。」又《中論》云：「諸佛以甘露味教化眾生，諸法實相是真甘露味也。」佛說實相分為三種：若得諸法實相、滅諸煩惱，名聲聞乘；若生大悲、發無上意，名為大乘；若佛滅度後，時世無佛，因遠離生智，名辟支佛乘。問曰：若爾，與前三藏教明三乘何異？答曰：前已處處說見第一義不殊，但教門有拙度、巧度之別，觀門則有折、體見真之殊。彼明菩薩從初發心乃至補處未言斷結使，此明菩薩從初發心即斷結使，乃至補處，正使久盡、殘習微薄，此為大異。復次，三藏教約生滅四諦、十二因緣、六波羅蜜三法分三乘。今明通教則不如此，三乘同觀無生四諦見第一義而分三乘之別者，事如前解；三乘同體假入空、觀十二因緣見第一義而分三乘之別者，事如前釋；三乘同觀六波羅蜜見第一義而分別三乘之別者，如前分別。如此豈同三藏教之三乘也？問曰：菩薩可修六度，二乘何得亦同修六度耶？答曰：《涅槃經》云：「福德莊嚴、有為有漏無漏是聲聞法。」何處有慳貪聲聞，破戒、瞋恚、放逸、散亂、愚癡羅漢、辟支佛也？但二乘之人不能遍行其事、成就眾生，何曾不同修六度、第一義諦無言說道而能斷結也？問曰：上引《中論》所明，即應是大乘聲聞、緣覺也？答曰：不然，此雖通從大乘門入，而二乘取涅槃證，即身滅度，故《中論》簡別：得諸法實相、滅諸煩惱，名聲聞乘；若生大悲、發無上意，名為大乘；若佛不出世，辟支佛人因遠離生智。此二既無大悲，何得名為大乘聲聞、緣覺耶？故《法華經》云：「身子自歎云：『我等同入法性，云何如來以小乘法而見濟度？然是我咎，非世尊咎也。』」此即自述得法性實相，非是大乘聲聞。若如迦葉領解，聞《法華》開權顯實云：「我等今日真是聲聞，以佛道聲令一切聞」也。故不得言見諸法實相即是大乘聲聞、辟支佛也。 > Second, briefly explaining the opening of the three vehicles according to the shared teaching: this shared teaching divides into the three vehicles according to the principle that causes and conditions are identical to emptiness. The three types of persons equally receive the shared teaching and see paramārtha-satya, equally sever the delusions of view and thought of the three realms, attain the knowledge of all phenomena, and equally seek the two kinds of nirvāṇa, with remainder and without remainder. Since this meaning is identical, the stages are distinguished according to the meaning of the shared teaching. As for their division into three vehicles: śrāvakas, through collective reflection, embody dharmas as entering emptiness; their power of wisdom is weak, and they sever only the active afflictions. Their faculties and natures differing, there are also two kinds of liberation, as distinguished earlier under the Tripiṭaka teaching. Pratyekabuddhas have meritorious virtue and sharp faculties, are able to make minor distinctions, and through separate reflection embody dharmas as entering emptiness; born in an era without a Buddha and not relying on hearing the Dharma, when the time arrives and the path matures, they spontaneously comprehend and see the paramārtha, ending the fetters of the three realms and eroding their habit-energies; this is called the pratyekabuddha vehicle. Their faculties and natures differing, there are also two kinds: first, the lesser pratyekabuddha, and second, the great pratyekabuddha, as already stated earlier. As for the bodhisattva, they fully cultivate the wisdom of both collective reflection and separate reflection, embody causes and conditions as identical to emptiness, give rise to the vows of great compassion, and by cultivating all practices see paramārtha-satya and sever afflictions within the realms; using vows to support habit-energies, they are reborn into the three realms, and using the knowledge of the aspects of the path, they sport in supernormal powers, purify Buddha lands, and mature sentient beings. When the wholesome roots of the three vehicles are fully matured, they sit at the site of awakening, use wisdom associated with a single thought-moment to completely sever afflictions and habit-energies, attain the knowledge of all aspects, and are named a Buddha. Turning the two kinds of Dharma-wheels—of arising and ceasing, and of non-arising and non-ceasing—they transform sentient beings of the three vehicles to enter nirvāṇa without remainder; this is the Great Vehicle. Therefore the Dàpǐn jīng says: 'Persons of the three vehicles equally use the ineffable path of paramārtha-satya to sever afflictions; it is only in whether the habit-energies of afflictions are ended or not ended that they differ.' Furthermore, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: 'The Buddhas teach and transform sentient beings with the taste of amṛta; the true nature of all dharmas is the true taste of amṛta.' The Buddha expounded the true nature in three divisions: if one attains the true nature of all dharmas and eliminates all afflictions, it is called the śrāvaka vehicle; if one gives rise to great compassion and generates the unexcelled resolve, it is called the Great Vehicle; if after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, in an era where there is no Buddha, one gives rise to wisdom on the basis of seclusion, it is called the pratyekabuddha vehicle. Question: If so, how does this differ from the three vehicles explained earlier in the Tripiṭaka teaching? Answer: It was already stated everywhere earlier that seeing paramārtha-satya is no different; however, in terms of teaching gateways there is the distinction between clumsy conveyance and skillful conveyance, and in terms of contemplation gateways there is the difference of seeing the true through analysis versus through embodiment. That \[teaching\] explained that from first giving rise to the mind up to the stage of succession to buddhahood, the bodhisattva is not spoken of as severing the fetters and drives; this \[teaching\] explains that from first giving rise to the mind, the bodhisattva severs the fetters and drives, up to succession to buddhahood, where the active afflictions have long been ended and the residual habit-energies are faint and thin—this is a great difference. Furthermore, the Tripiṭaka teaching divides into three vehicles according to the three dharmas of the four noble truths of arising and ceasing, the twelvefold dependent origination, and the six pāramitās. The shared teaching explained now is not like this: that the three vehicles equally contemplate the four truths of non-arising to see paramārtha-satya and yet are differentiated into the three vehicles, is as explained earlier; that the three vehicles equally embody the conventional as entering emptiness and contemplate the twelvefold dependent origination to see paramārtha-satya and yet are differentiated into the three vehicles, is as elucidated earlier; that the three vehicles equally contemplate the six pāramitās to see paramārtha-satya and yet are distinguished into the three vehicles, is as distinguished earlier. How could this be identical to the three vehicles of the Tripiṭaka teaching? Question: Bodhisattvas may cultivate the six pāramitās, but how can the two vehicles also equally cultivate the six pāramitās? Answer: The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Adornment with meritorious virtue, conditioned, tainted, and untainted, is the dharma of śrāvakas.' Where is there an arhat or pratyekabuddha who is a stingy and greedy śrāvaka, or who breaks the precepts, has anger, is indolent, distracted, or deluded? It is merely that persons of the two vehicles cannot universally practice those activities to mature sentient beings; how could they have ever not cultivated the six pāramitās and the ineffable path of paramārtha-satya to be able to sever the fetters? Question: What was explained in the citation from the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā above—should those then be Mahāyāna śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas? Answer: Not so. Although these generally enter through the gateway of the Great Vehicle, the two vehicles take the realization of nirvāṇa and attain extinction right in their current bodies. Therefore the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā distinguishes: attaining the true nature of all dharmas and eliminating all afflictions is called the śrāvaka vehicle; giving rise to great compassion and generating the unexcelled resolve is called the Great Vehicle; if a Buddha does not appear in the world, pratyekabuddhas give rise to wisdom on the basis of seclusion. Since these two lack great compassion, how could they be called Mahāyāna śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas? Thus the Lotus Sūtra says that Śāriputra sighed to himself, saying: 'We equally entered the dharmatā; why did the Tathāgata use the Hīnayāna Dharma to deliver us? Yet this was our fault, not the World-Honoured One's fault.' This was his own account of having attained the true nature of dharmatā, not of being a Mahāyāna śrāvaka. It is like Kāśyapa's expression of understanding when hearing the Lotus Sūtra open the expedient and reveal the ultimate: 'Today we have truly become śrāvakas, causing all to hear the sound of the Buddha path.' Therefore one cannot say that seeing the true nature of all dharmas makes one a Mahāyāna śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 8.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1929.8.3) - [Next: 8.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1929.8.5) - [Up: 8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1929.8) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1929~en-mt.8.4) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [維摩經玄疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1777.3.142) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1929.8.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1929.8.4) · Pramāṇa