四教義 1

English (machine translation) 1

Language: English

1.1

Composed by Chan Master Zhiyi of Xiuchansi on Mount Tiantai.

Because sentient beings have different capacities and inclinations, the gates of teaching are manifold and distinct. The sūtra states: "From the night of attaining the Way until the night of nirvāṇa, all the teachings expounded are true and not empty." Contemplating this intention with reverence, its profound import becomes ever more significant. Hence it is said: "The Way excludes dualistic paths; the ultimate is eternal bliss. The Dharma has only a single flavor; those who enter quiescence return to reality." However, with texts from the Deer Park and the Crane Grove, and teachings from the seven locations and eight assemblies, how could there not be differences between sudden and gradual, or distinctions between indeterminate and secret? For this reason, masters of recent generations have each presented their own explanations of principle. The doctrines established here differ in intention from former models; thus I have briefly compiled the gates of the four teachings in order to elucidate the traces of the Great Master's gradual, sudden, indeterminate, and secret [teachings]. If one can comprehend this purport, then indeed the Tathāgata's expedient and ultimate [teachings] will be trusted as limitless, and the origin and trace of the perfected being will be recognized as profound and difficult to plumb. Moreover, the traces of these gradual, sudden, indeterminate, and secret [teachings] will all be free from obstruction. To clarify this doctrine now, seven sections are briefly opened:

1.3

First, explaining the names of the four teachings; second, discerning what they elucidate; third, clarifying the four gates of entering principle; fourth, clarifying the differences in judging spiritual stages; fifth, clarifying the expedient and ultimate; sixth, treating contemplation of the mind; seventh, harmonizing the various sūtras and treatises.

1.4

First, explaining the names of the four teachings. The four teachings are: first, the Tripiṭaka teaching; second, the shared teaching; third, the distinctive teaching; and fourth, the perfect teaching. These four are all termed "teachings" because a teaching has the meaning of elucidating principle and transforming beings. In relation to the four ineffables, the Great Sage applied the four siddhāntas to respond to conditions, thereby giving four expositions. The expositions are capable of elucidating principle and transforming beings' minds, which is why they are called teachings. Transforming has three meanings: first, transforming evil into good; second, transforming delusion into awakening; and third, transforming ordinary beings into sages. Thus, a teaching has the meaning of elucidating principle and transforming beings. This is briefly divided into five points: first, properly explaining the names of the four teachings; second, examining and defining the four teachings; third, citing scriptural evidence; fourth, critical discrimination; and fifth, clarifying the varying extent to which sūtras and treatises employ the teachings.

1.5

First, properly explaining the names of the four teachings. This consists of four parts: first, explaining the name of the Tripiṭaka teaching; second, explaining the name of the shared teaching; third, explaining the name of the distinctive teaching; and fourth, explaining the name of the perfect teaching. First, regarding explaining the name of the Tripiṭaka teaching: this teaching elucidates the principle of the four noble truths of arising and ceasing through causes and conditions, fundamentally instructing the Hīnayāna and collaterally transforming bodhisattvas. What is called the "Tripiṭaka teaching" comprises: first, the Sūtra-piṭaka; second, the Vinaya-piṭaka; and third, the Abhidharma-piṭaka. First, regarding the Sūtra-piṭaka: sūtra is said by some to have a translation and by others to have none. As for having a translation, there are various differing traditions; however, most use "root of the Dharma"—the root of the verbal teachings of world-transcending wholesome dharmas. Thus it is called "root of the Dharma," which refers to the Four Āgamas. Second, regarding the Vinaya-piṭaka: vinaya is translated here as "extinction." The Buddha expounded active and non-active precepts capable of extinguishing the evils of body and speech; therefore it is called "extinction," which refers to the Vinaya in Eighty Recitations. Third, regarding the Abhidharma-piṭaka: abhidharma is translated here as "incomparable dharma." The wisdom of the sage discriminates the meanings of dharmas, incomparable in the world; hence it is called "incomparable dharma." Whether the Buddha himself discriminated the meanings of dharmas, or the Buddha's disciples discriminated the meanings of dharmas, both are termed abhidharma. These three dharmas are collectively called "piṭaka" (treasury) because a treasury has the meaning of containing; however, commentators differ. Some say: "The text can contain the principle; therefore it is called a treasury." Others say: "The principle can contain the text; therefore it is called a treasury." Now I say: "The names of the three dharmas are each a single phrase, and each of the three names contains all text and principle; therefore it is called a treasury." The Āgama is the treasury of concentration, for the Four Āgamas mostly clarify methods of practice. The Vinaya is the treasury of precepts, properly clarifying the establishment of precepts in response to events to guard against evil dharmas of body and speech. The Abhidharma is the treasury of wisdom, discriminating untainted dharmas of wisdom, which are beyond compare. This Tripiṭaka teaching definitely belongs to the Hīnayāna; hence the Lotus Sūtra says: "greedy for and attached to the Hīnayāna, learners of the three collections."

1.6

Question: "Such an alignment of correspondences is doctrinally plausible, but why does the order of their names contradict the sequence of elucidation?" Answer: "The time of exposition is not the time of practice. In the sequence of the teachings' arising, the Four Āgamas come first; at the beginning of practice, the prātimokṣa comes first. Furthermore, as with the eightfold noble path, right view and right resolve come first, followed by the six dharmas of right speech and so forth, all of which are named 'right.' Just as when a person walks, his eyes look forward at the path and only then do his feet set forth. Thus the Dà zhìdù lùn says: 'Because eyes and feet are both complete, one enters the cool pool.'" Question: "In the Tripiṭaka, the Buddha first opened the three vehicles, among which the Mahāyāna is supreme. Why not take the Mahāyāna as primary and the Hīnayāna as collateral?" Answer: "When the wheel of the four truths was first turned in the Deer Park, the five persons including Kauṇḍinya saw the truths and attained the Way, and eighty thousand devas attained the purity of the Dharma eye. Only the Hīnayāna attained the Way, while there was not yet the benefit of the Mahāyāna; thus the Hīnayāna is taken as primary. The Dà zhìdù lùn states: 'Although in the Āgamas the Buddha separately bestowed a prophecy upon Maitreya, he did not expound the manifold bodhisattva practices.' Hence the Mahāyāna is collateral." Question: "Non-Buddhists also speak of precepts, concentration, and wisdom; what difference is there?" Answer: "The precepts, concentration, and wisdom spoken of by non-Buddhists are the old physicians, like those old physicians who used poisonous herbs. Precepts are of two kinds: first, heterodox; second, orthodox. First, heterodox refers to chicken and dog precepts and the like. Second, orthodox refers to the ten wholesome paths of action. Ancient concentration is of two kinds: first, heterodox; second, orthodox. First, heterodox concentration refers to the methods of heterodox concentration of spirits and ghosts expounded in the ninety-six kinds of non-Buddhist scriptures, which may enable one to know worldly good and bad fortune or manifest signs of supernatural transformations. Second, orthodox concentration refers to the four dhyānas, the four immeasurables, the four formless concentrations, and the awakening of the five superknowledges. Ancient wisdom is of two kinds: first, heterodox; second, orthodox. First, heterodox refers to generating various heterodox cognitions based on the minds of the two views of self and extremes, denying cause and effect, consuming dung, practicing nakedness, and the like. Second, orthodox refers to generating various worldly cognitions based on the minds of the two views of self and extremes, affirming cause and effect, and cultivating various wholesome dharmas. Now, the visiting physician explained in the Tripiṭaka teaching expounded by the Buddha—precepts, concentration, and wisdom—is the new physician who comes from afar understanding eight kinds of techniques. The orthodox technique of the four witherings first expounded is precisely the precepts, concentration, and wisdom explained in the gate of the Tripiṭaka teaching. First, precepts refers to the ten ways of receiving precepts and generating all unmanifest form of moral codes, such as all the wholesome bodily and vocal dharmas explained in the Vinayas of the five divisions. Second, concentration refers to relying on the eight liberations to enter the nine successive absorptions, the lion's sprint, the leap samādhi, the apex dhyāna of wisdom based on vow, the six superknowledges, the four discriminations, and so forth. Third, wisdom refers to the four truths of arising and ceasing, shattering the two views of self and extremes and the sixty-two views, generating true untaintedness, and perfecting the eleven knowledges and three untainted faculties. Non-Buddhists have not even heard the names of these precepts, concentration, and wisdom, much less possessed the slightest portion of them. It is like donkey's milk and cow's milk: though the color of the milk is the same, if donkey's milk is left to stand, it turns into foul dung; if cow's milk is left to stand, it becomes curd, butter, and clarified ghee."

1.7

Second, regarding explaining the name of the shared teaching: "shared" means identical; because the three vehicles receive it in common, it is called shared. This teaching elucidates the principle of the four noble truths of non-arising and that causes and conditions are identical to emptiness, and is the elementary gate of the Mahāyāna. It is properly for bodhisattvas and collaterally shared by the two vehicles. Therefore the Dàpǐn jīng says: "Those who wish to study the śrāvaka vehicle should study prajñā. Those who wish to study the pratyekabuddha vehicle should study prajñā. Those who wish to study the bodhisattva vehicle should study prajñā." Because the three vehicles equally receive this teaching and perceive the paramārtha-satya, it is called the shared teaching. What is called the shared teaching has multiple meanings, but eight meanings are briefly set forth: first, shared teaching; second, shared principle; third, shared wisdom; fourth, shared severance; fifth, shared practice; sixth, shared stages; seventh, shared cause; and eighth, shared fruit. "Shared teaching" means that the three vehicles commonly receive the teaching that causes and conditions are identical to emptiness. "Shared principle" means that they commonly see the biased real principle. "Shared wisdom" means that they commonly attain the all-knowledge of skillful conveyance. "Shared severance" means that the severing of delusions within the realms is identical. "Shared practice" means that the untainted practice regarding [delusions of] view and thought is identical. "Shared stages" means that the stages from the stage of dry wisdom up to the pratyekabuddha stage are all identical. "Shared cause" means that the nine unobstructed causes are identical. "Shared fruit" means that the fruits of the nine liberations and the two kinds of nirvāṇa with residue and without residue are identical. Although there are eight shared meanings, it is simply termed the shared teaching because without relying on the shared teaching, one would not know the shared principle, nor ultimately attain the shared fruit. Thus, when beings of the two vehicles attain the Way in the various Mahāyāna Vaipulya and Prajñā texts, it is because they commonly receive this teaching. Question: "Why is it not named the common teaching?" Answer: "The name 'common' only captures the near side of the two vehicles and fails to capture the far side. If the name 'shared' is established, both the near and the far are facilitated. What is called 'facilitating the far' refers to sharing into the distinctive and sharing into the perfect."

1.8

Third, regarding explaining the name of the distinctive teaching: "distinctive" is an exclusive name. This teaching is not expounded in common with people of the two vehicles; therefore it is called the distinctive teaching. This teaching properly clarifies the principle of the boundless four noble truths and causes and conditions as provisional designations. It specifically transforms bodhisattvas and does not involve the two vehicles; therefore śrāvakas in the assembly were as if deaf and dumb. When the Lotus Sūtra clarifies Kāśyapa's expression of understanding, he recounted of himself: "In the past, hearing in the Vaipulya and Dàpǐn about 'purifying Buddha lands and maturing sentient beings,' our minds took no joy in it"—this is precisely its meaning. What is called "distinctive" has multiple meanings, but eight are briefly explained: first, distinctive teaching; second, distinctive principle; third, distinctive wisdom; fourth, distinctive severance; fifth, distinctive practice; sixth, distinctive stages; seventh, distinctive cause; and eighth, distinctive fruit. Hence it is called the distinctive teaching. "Distinctive teaching" means that the Buddha expounded the Buddha-dharmas numerous as the sands of the Ganges distinctively for bodhisattvas, not shared by the two vehicles. "Distinctive principle" means the distinctiveness of the storehouse consciousness containing the principle of conventional truth numerous as the sands of the Ganges. "Distinctive wisdom" is the wisdom of the aspects of the path. "Distinctive severance" is the severing of unknowing numerous as dust and sand, and of view, thought, and fundamental ignorance beyond the realms. "Distinctive practice" is the distinctiveness of cultivating the various pāramitās through eons numerous as dust and sand, practicing for one's own benefit and transforming others. "Distinctive stages" is the distinction wherein the thirty minds subduing fundamental ignorance constitute the stages of the worthy, and the ten grounds realizing the real and severing fundamental ignorance constitute the stages of the noble. "Distinctive cause" is the unobstructed vajra cause. "Distinctive fruit" is that the four virtues of liberation and nirvāṇa differ from those of the two vehicles. Although there are eight distinctive meanings, it is simply termed the distinctive teaching because without relying on the distinctive teaching, one would not know the distinctive principle, nor ultimately attain the distinctive fruit. Question: "Why not speak of it as the unshared teaching, rather than using the name distinctive teaching?" Answer: "The Dà zhìdù lùn clarifies 'unshared prajñā' as that which is not expounded in common with people of the two vehicles, as in the Inconceivable Sūtra. Now in clarifying the distinctive teaching, as when expounding the Vaipulya and Dàpǐn, the two vehicles hear it together yet it distinctively instructs bodhisattvas; therefore the name 'distinctive' is used. In addition, it is intended to distinguish it from the perfect teaching; and although 'distinctive' differs from 'shared,' it is still a designation for that which is not yet perfect."

1.9

Fourth, explaining the name 'perfect teaching': 'perfect' takes being unbiased as its meaning. This teaching clarifies inconceivable causes and conditions, being complete in the two truths and the middle way, in phenomena and principle, neither biased nor distinct, transforming only persons of the supreme sharp faculties; therefore it is named 'the perfect teaching.' The Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: 'Manifesting unimpeded power, / He preaches the complete sūtras for them; / Limitless sentient beings / Are all bestowed prophecies of bodhi.' This sūtra [Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa] says: 'All sentient beings are identical to great nirvāṇa, and cannot be extinguished again.' The 'Chapter on Completeness' in the Dàpǐn jīng says: 'Although all dharmas are empty, one mind is complete in the myriad practices.' The Lotus Sūtra says: 'Joining palms with reverent minds, / They wish to hear the complete path.' The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'The adamantine treasure-store has nothing lacking or diminished.' Hence it is named 'the perfect teaching.' In speaking of 'perfect,' its meanings are manifold, but to speak briefly there are eight: first, perfect teaching; second, perfect principle; third, perfect wisdom; fourth, perfect severance; fifth, perfect practice; sixth, perfect stages; seventh, perfect cause; eighth, perfect fruition. Perfect teaching: it directly expounds the middle way, and is therefore said to be unbiased. Perfect principle: the middle way is identical to all dharmas, and its principle is unbiased. Perfect wisdom: sarvākārajñatā (knowledge of all aspects) is perfect. Perfect severance: without severing, one severs the delusion of ignorance. Perfect practice: one practice is all practices. The perfect cause of the Mahāyāna and the perfect fruition of nirvāṇa are, right in cause and fruition, complete without lack—this is 'one practice is all practices.' Perfect stages: from the initial single stage, one is complete in the virtues of all stages. Perfect cause: illuminating both truths together, one naturally flows in. Perfect fruition: the fruition of wonderful enlightenment is inconceivable, and the three virtues are neither sequential nor lateral. Although there are eight meanings of 'perfect,' it is designated merely 'the perfect teaching' because without relying on the perfect teaching, one would not know the perfect principle, up to bringing to completion the perfect fruition. Question: If teaching and principle are perfect, how could there still be distinctions among practice, stages, cause, and fruition? Answer: It is precisely relying on teaching and principle being perfect that there are the distinctions of wisdom, severance, practice, stages, cause, and fruition. Just as in a worldly book of calligraphy, the exemplar of supreme skill admits of gradual gradations among those who cultivate and study it; although a beginner's practice is inferior to later practice, the exemplar itself has never differed.

1.10

Second, examination and determination: this clarifies that speaking broadly of these four teachings, within one teaching there are each of the four teachings. Although there are the four teachings, when examining and determining their reality, three meanings do not hold, and thus each takes its teaching's name according to a single meaning. This comprises four points: first, examining and determining the Tripiṭaka teaching; second, examining and determining the shared teaching; third, examining and determining the distinctive teaching; fourth, examining and determining the perfect teaching. First, examining and determining the Tripiṭaka teaching. Question: If the Tripiṭaka teaching expounds impermanence and the three vehicles equally receive it and enter the path, that is the shared teaching; if it expounds the great vows and the six pāramitās specifically for bodhisattvas, that is the distinctive teaching; and if it expounds sarvākārajñatā (knowledge of all aspects) to lead them to seek the Buddha fruition, how is that not the perfect teaching? Answer: We now examine and determine the three meanings in this teaching: If one says that expounding impermanence to teach the three vehicles equally is the shared teaching, the two vehicles hear impermanence, give rise to the true [insight], sever the fetters, and enter nirvāṇa in a single lifetime; they indeed can be said to receive the teaching and see the principle of impermanence. Although the bodhisattva receives the teaching of impermanence, for three asaṃkhyeya kalpas he does not give rise to the true [insight] to sever the fetters—how does he see the principle of impermanence? Thus we know the meaning of the shared teaching of the principle of impermanence does not hold. Although it expounds vows and practices to transform beings, the meaning of the distinctive teaching does not hold because, properly discussed, the distinctive teaching elucidates a distinctive principle and severs distinctive delusions. The vows and practices clarified in the initial Tripiṭaka teaching are still aroused based on the four truths of arising and ceasing; in seeing the four truths of arising and ceasing, [the bodhisattva] does not even equal the two vehicles—how could this be the distinctive teaching? Although it expounds sarvākārajñatā to encourage bodhisattvas to admire the fruition and practice the cause, this is not called 'perfect' because a bodhisattva in the causal stage cannot right away be complete in sarvākārajñatā—how could one speak of it as 'perfect'? Furthermore, this knowledge of aspects only illuminates the two truths and does not illuminate the middle way; how could it be 'perfect'? Thus, although there seem to be three teachings, upon examining the meaning they do not hold, and it is named solely the Tripiṭaka teaching.

1.11

Second, examining and determining the shared teaching. Question: The shared teaching expounds morality, meditation, and wisdom—how is that not the Tripiṭaka teaching? It expounds knowledge of the modes of the path—how is that not the distinctive teaching? It expounds sarvākārajñatā—how is that not the perfect teaching? Answer: Although there seem to be these three teachings, upon examining the meaning they do not hold. Why is this? The shared teaching expounds non-arising morality, meditation, and wisdom as having one mark, which is markless, unlike the separate and different marks of morality, meditation, and wisdom in the Tripiṭaka. Furthermore, once attained, they are not lost; receiving its name from what is superior, it does not establish the name of Tripiṭaka, but receives the name of the shared teaching. Although it expounds knowledge of the modes of the path, it merely illuminates conventional truth within the realms, and does not expound the knowledge of the modes of the path of the Tathāgatagarbha and the Buddha-dharmas numerous as the sands of the Ganges; therefore the meaning of the distinctive teaching does not hold. Even though it also expounds sarvākārajñatā, it merely illuminates the two truths within the realms to clarify sarvākārajñatā, and does not illuminate the sarvākārajñatā of the inconceivable two truths of the middle way; therefore the meaning of the perfect teaching does not hold. Thus the meanings of the three teachings do not hold, and it is named solely the shared teaching.

1.12

Third, examining and determining the distinctive teaching. Question: The distinctive teaching also expounds morality, meditation, and wisdom; why is it not named the Tripiṭaka teaching? It also expounds the principle of non-arising emptiness; why is it not named the shared teaching? It also expounds the sarvākārajñatā of the middle way; why is it not named the perfect teaching? Answer: The distinctive teaching expounds Buddha-dharmas numerous as the sands of the Ganges, with measureless morality, meditation, and wisdom, distinct from the aforementioned morality, meditation, and wisdom of arising and ceasing; therefore it is not the Tripiṭaka. Although it expounds the principle of emptiness, this is non-apprehensible emptiness, not merely-emptiness, and is not seen in common with the two vehicles; therefore it is not the shared teaching. Although it expounds the sarvākārajñatā of the middle way, it is not that upon generating the mind at the initial abidance one is immediately complete in sarvākārajñatā; therefore it is not the perfect [teaching]. Thus the three meanings do not hold, and it is named solely the distinctive teaching.

1.13

Fourth, examining and determining the perfect teaching. Question: The perfect teaching also has morality, meditation, and wisdom; why is it not named the Tripiṭaka? It also has the principle of true emptiness; why is it not the shared? It also has successive, differentiated stages and dharma gates; why is it not the distinctive? Answer: Morality, meditation, and wisdom expounded in the perfect teaching are all discerned in terms of suchness, the true mark, Buddha-nature, and nirvāṇa; how could they be identical to the biased and shallow morality, meditation, and wisdom of the Tripiṭaka? The equal principle of Buddha-nature and true emptiness cannot be known by śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, much less entered by them; therefore it is not the shared. Its diverse dharma gates, stages, practices, and ranks all accord with the true mark and encompass all dharmas; from the initial single stage, there are none not complete in all stages; therefore it is not the distinctive. Since the three meanings do not hold, it is named solely the perfect teaching. Thus, although the four names of the four teachings are mutually shared in common, when probing their principles and realities, names are established according to their proper teaching and must not be conflated. If the perfect teaching gathers the other three, it is like having yet many servants and attendants guarding it.

1.14

Third, citing evidence: To elucidate and propagate the Buddha-Dharma, matters require explicit texts from sūtras and treatises. However, the Buddha's teachings are vast and boundless, and their profound purport is difficult to trace; if one does not establish names and distinguish meanings, how could one know their purport? In clarifying this meaning now, there are briefly three intentions: first, clarifying that without explicit texts, establishing names and creating meanings serves to open up the sūtras and teachings; second, citing specific sūtras and treatises as evidence; third, citing sūtras and treatises in general as evidence. Regarding the first, that without explicit texts, establishing names and creating meanings serves to open up the sūtras and teachings: Question: If the establishment of the names and meanings of the four teachings lacks explicit texts from sūtras and treatises, how can they be inherited and applied? Answer: In the lectures of ancient masters, why must all have had explicit texts from sūtras and treatises? For example, the elucidation of the five periods by [Baozhi of] Kaishan and [Fayun of] Guangzhai, the classification of teachings into four periods by [Sengmin of] Zhuangyan, the four, five, and six traditions of the Dilun [masters], the single, double, middle, and provisional of Sheshan [Sengquan], and the four provisionals of Xinghuang [Falang]—none of these have explicit texts; all were established according to their understanding to assist in propagating the Buddha's transformation. Those who had affinity with them all inherited and practiced them, faithfully understanding and widely proclaiming them. Question: Why do you not rely on the passages in the sūtras and treatises that fortunately appear regarding the half and full, and the five flavors? Answer: The Buddha's teachings fully possess the gradual, sudden, and indeterminate; the half, full, and five flavors each occupy only one side—how could they comprehensively explain all these teachings? As long as the meaning accords with the sūtras and treatises, why should a lack of explicit texts cause doubt? The Dà zhìdù lùn says: 'The gift of Dharma means relying on the sūtras and teachings to broadly construct meanings and principles, and establish names for them—all this is called the gift of Dharma.' Now our lineage's explanation of the Buddha-Dharma everywhere creates meanings according to names, and establishes names according to meanings, sometimes with textual evidence, sometimes without textual evidence. If there is textual evidence, one certainly should not doubt it; where there is no textual evidence, one must also grasp the essential meaning. For example, Shennong, Bian Que, and Hua Tuo were all ancient sage physicians who devised remedies to cure illnesses and compiled worldly recipe collections. At that time, whatever they treated was without exception cured, but when people today rely on them and use them, they are not necessarily all healed. Conversely, ordinary physicians of later generations, although adding or subtracting ideas based on ancient formulas, administer medicine according to the illness and rarely fail to cure. If one deeply understands this analogy, when opening up sūtras and preaching the Dharma, discerning what is appropriate to the times and circumstances to create meanings and establish names, what fault could there be? In now explaining this single scripture [the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa], creating meanings and establishing names from beginning to end is not done in just one instance. If one does not comprehend this intention, how could one give rise to doubts merely about the names of the four teachings? Sūtras and treatises are precisely directed toward the faculties and conditions of the people before them; students of later generations cling to thousands of views, and obstacles arising in the practice of the path are not singular. How can one just sit and wait by the stump [like the farmer waiting for the hare], which will surely incur this reproach? Moreover, the Buddha's teachings are inexhaustible, beyond the metaphor of the sands of the Ganges; among those flowing to the east, not one in ten thousand comprehends them. May wise men and gentlemen examine this more thoroughly.

1.15

Second, citing specific sūtras and treatises to substantiate the four teachings: In the previous explanation of the names, passages from the sūtras were already cited in full; now we set them forth again briefly. As the Jiexin says: 'One should study the sūtras, vinaya, and abhidharma.' When the Buddha was in the world, how could there not have been the Tripiṭaka teaching? Hence the Tattvasiddhi-śāstra says: 'I now directly desire to discuss the real meaning within the Tripiṭaka.' Next, substantiating the shared teaching: In this sūtra [Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa], Vimalakīrti explains the five meanings for Kātyāyana, and two hundred bhikṣus' minds attain liberation. The 'Chapter on the Three Wisdoms' in the Dàpǐn jīng clarifies that 'sarvajñā (all-knowledge) is attained equally by the three vehicles.' The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: 'The true mark of all dharmas is entered in common by the three persons.' Next, substantiating the distinctive teaching: This sūtra clarifies that by receiving nothing, one receives all feelings, and having not yet perfected the Buddha-Dharma, one also should not extinguish mind and feeling to realize the fruit. The Innumerable Meanings Sūtra says: 'The ocean-like emptiness of Mahāprajñā and Avataṃsaka proclaims the bodhisattva's practice over kalpas'—this is a passage of the distinctive teaching. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra's clarification of the five practices is precisely the meaning of the distinctive teaching. The Dà zhìdù lùn says: 'There are two kinds of fetters: one is severed in common with the two vehicles, and the other is severed not in common.' That which is severed not in common means that uncommon prajñā severs distinctive delusions. Next, substantiating the perfect teaching: The Avataṃsaka Sūtra says: 'For them he preaches the complete sūtras.' This sūtra says: 'The liberation of all Buddhas should be sought within the mental conduct of sentient beings.' The Dàpǐn jīng says: 'Wishing to know all dharmas through sarvākārajñatā, one should study prajñā.' The Lotus Sūtra clarifies that Prabhūtaratna Tathāgata praised him, saying: 'Excellent! Śākyamuni Buddha is able to teach the Dharma for bodhisattvas with equal great wisdom, expounding it for the great assembly; all that he has spoken is true and real.' The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'There is yet another practice which is the Tathāgata's practice, namely the Mahāyāna great parinirvāṇa.' The Dà zhìdù lùn says: 'The three wisdoms are in reality attained within a single mind.' Investigating the Mahāyāna sūtras and treatises in this manner, the textual passages expressing the meanings of the four teachings exist everywhere.

1.16

Third, comprehensive citations from sūtras and treatises as proof: establishing the names and meanings of the four teachings here by drawing upon the Mahāyāna sūtras and treatises is like the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra explaining that "the four are ineffable; yet because of causes and conditions, they can also be spoken of." The four kinds of expounding, using these to transform beings according to their capacities, are precisely the meaning of the four teachings. Furthermore, the Nirvāṇa-sūtra states: "The four kinds of turning the wheel of the four truths," which is precisely the meaning of the four teachings. Furthermore, the Lotus Sūtra explains that "the three herbs and two trees receive the moisture differently," which metaphorically describes the expedient teachings, that is, the three teachings; "grown from the same earth, moistened by the same rain" metaphorically describes the most real truth, that is, the perfect teaching. The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, having completed its refutation of the various heterodox attachments, further explains the four propositions of causes and conditions, which penetrates the Buddha's four expoundings; this is precisely the meaning of the four teachings. Such four methods of expounding the Dharma transform beings according to their capacities, which is the meaning of the four teachings. The four expoundings are simply alternative names for the four teachings.

1.17

Fourth, resolution of objections: Question: The Lotus Sūtra says, "The Buddha expounds equally, like rain of a single flavor." When was there ever a distinction into four expoundings? Answer: Earlier it was cited everywhere that "the four are ineffable; yet because of causes and conditions, they can also be spoken of." When there has never been fixedly a single expounding, when could there ever have been fixedly four teachings? Therefore this sūtra says: "The Buddha expounds the Dharma with a single voice, and sentient beings each obtain understanding according to their kinds." Understanding differently according to their kinds is precisely the different characteristics of the four teachings. Moreover, sūtras explain meanings differently: there are speaking differently and understanding differently, speaking as one and understanding as one, speaking differently and understanding as one, speaking as one and understanding differently, and speaking nothing and understanding nothing. Therefore this sūtra says: "The one who expounds the Dharma neither speaks nor demonstrates; the one who listens to the Dharma neither hears nor attains." If one grasps this meaning, what doubt can there be in designating and establishing the meaning of the four teachings? Question: From what do the four teachings arise? Answer: The four teachings explained now arise from the three contemplations explained earlier. In order to fulfill the three contemplations, the initial contemplation of entering emptiness from the provisional possesses two different ways of entering emptiness: analyzing and embodying, clumsy and skillful. From entering emptiness by analyzing the provisional, the Tripiṭaka teaching arises; from entering emptiness by embodying the provisional, the shared teaching arises. If regarding the second [contemplation of] entering the provisional from emptiness, within this the distinctive teaching arises. Regarding the third, the correct contemplation of the middle way in a single mind, the perfect teaching arises. Question: From what, then, do the three contemplations arise? Answer: The three contemplations in turn arise due to the four teachings. Question: From what do contemplation and teaching arise? Answer: Contemplation and teaching both arise from the four propositions born of causes and conditions. Question: From what do the four propositions born of causes and conditions arise? Answer: The four propositions born of causes and conditions are precisely the mind; the mind is precisely the inconceivable liberation of all buddhas. The inconceivable liberation of all buddhas is ultimately non-existent, which is precisely the ineffable; therefore Vimalakīrti kept his mouth closed and remained silent without speaking. That "because of causes and conditions they can also be spoken of" means using the four siddhāntas to speak of the four propositions born of causes and conditions of the mind, spoken to meet sentient beings constituted by the four kinds of faculties and capacities and the dharmas of the twelve links of dependent origination. The four kinds of faculties and capacities are: first, inferior faculties; second, middling faculties; third, superior faculties; and fourth, supreme faculties. To meet these four kinds of faculties and capacities, teaching and contemplation arise unimpeded because of this, universally benefiting sentient beings so that they obtain the benefits of the two practices of faith and Dharma. This is precisely the meaning of either noble speech or noble silence. Question: The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says: "Faculties are of three kinds: first, inferior faculties; second, middling faculties; third, superior faculties. For people of middling faculties, he turned the lesser wheel of Dharma three times at Vārāṇasī; for people of superior faculties, he turned the great wheel of Dharma at Kuśinagara; for people of inferior faculties, the Tathāgata never turned the wheel of Dharma." How can you now say there are four kinds of faculties and capacities, and that he spoke the Tripiṭaka teaching for people of inferior faculties? Answer: The Buddha's doctrinal gates are indeterminate according to conditions: sometimes he speaks of one faculty, sometimes of two faculties, sometimes of three faculties, and sometimes of four faculties; sometimes he says he speaks for those of inferior faculties, and sometimes he says he does not speak for those of inferior faculties. Saying that he speaks for those of inferior faculties is like the Lotus Sūtra's "three herbs and two trees all grow by receiving moisture." Saying that he does not speak for those of inferior faculties is just like the passage cited from the Nirvāṇa-sūtra. Question: The Tiwei jing expounds the five precepts to explain the good of humans and devas; why not open it into the meaning of five teachings? Answer: The teaching of humans and devas was spoken by the old physician; it is the ordinary way of the world and does not transcend birth and death. When the Dharma King appeared in the world, desiring to transform sentient beings and make them escape the burning house, he therefore turned the wheel of Dharma three times in the Deer Park, and humans and devas attained the path. Taking this as real, there is the Tripiṭaka teaching. This sūtra, the Dàpǐn, the Lotus, the Nirvāṇa, and other Mahāyāna sūtras all say that he turned the wheel of the four truths at Vārāṇasī; furthermore, the Dà zhìdù lùn explains that the compilation of the Dharma canon also began from the Deer Park, not taking the Tiwei jing as the beginning. Question: If one does not open the good of humans and devas [as a separate teaching], how can the Lotus Sūtra explain that the three herbs and two trees receive moisture? Answer: The Tripiṭaka teaching's explanation of mundane giving, morality, and meditation is precisely the teaching of humans and devas, all of which are wholesome dharmas born of correct causes and conditions. Since this is already subsumed by the Tripiṭaka teaching, there is no need to make five. Question: Is the meaning of the four teachings identical to the meaning of the four tenets of the Dilun masters or not? Answer: If someone asks, "Are the four truths identical to the four great elements or not?" this is a false question. Our not relying on the four tenets to establish the four teachings now is due to many reasons, of which three faults are briefly presented: first, in the four tenets' elucidation of principles, the phrasing seems rigid; second, upon close investigation and examination, their establishing names and formulating meanings seem inconvenient; third, although the four tenets are said to be rich and broad, looking at them from our school's view, their subsumption of the meaning of the Buddha's Dharma still has deficiencies. First, regarding the four tenets' elucidation of principles where the phrasing seems rigid: because they do not rely on the four ineffables and use the four siddhāntas to speak according to conditions, this results in rigidity. Second, regarding the close investigation and examination where establishing names and formulating meanings seem inconvenient: of their four tenets, the Abhidharma attains the path by seeing existence, so one may grant causes and conditions as a tenet. The Chapter on the Three Provisionals is conventional truth; how could it be a tenet? The Chengshi attains the path by seeing emptiness; why not take emptiness as the tenet? Furthermore, the Zhìdù lùn explains that the Tripiṭaka teaching has three gates of entry into the path: first, the gate of existence; second, the gate of emptiness; and third, the gate of provisional designation. Furthermore, the Zhìdù lùn criticizes the Vaipulya meaning, saying: "Directly stating that all dharmas neither arise nor cease by taking the ten similes misses the meaning of prajñā." How could one use dreams and illusions as the non-true tenet? Now I ask: if the non-true tenet is the shared teaching, and the true tenet is the shared tenet, then 'tenet' pervades both true and non-true; why did the non-true submerge 'tenet' and use 'teaching', while the true tenet had no 'teaching' and established 'tenet'? If a tenet has no teaching, how can the true be known? If the true tenet submerges 'tenet' and has 'teaching', then it would equally be called the shared teaching. If both submerged 'teaching' and retained 'tenet', they would equally be called the shared tenet. If both established 'teaching', they would equally be called the shared tenet-teaching. If they retained 'true' and 'non-true', they would be called the shared non-true tenet. If the teaching connects to the true tenet and the teaching connects to the non-true tenet, it could be shared practice for the three vehicles; the shared true tenet should also be shared practice for the three vehicles. If it is said that this 'shared' (tong) means harmonious interpenetration, then the shared teaching is also the 'shared' that reaches the true. In this case, the two names are conflated, and there is no difference in meaning. Answer: The Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra says: "The shared teaching is taught to the childish and naive; the shared tenet is taught to bodhisattvas," therefore taking the true tenet as the shared tenet. Then I ask again: If so, then the previous tenets of causes and conditions, provisional designation, and non-true are all teachings for the childish and naive, and should not all be established with the name of tenet. Having critically examined and refuted this, is their intention determined? I consider establishing the names and meanings of the four tenets not very convenient. Now in speaking of the four teachings: from the Buddha's initial attainment of the path up to his Mahāparinirvāṇa, showing all Dharma gates is nothing other than verbal teaching. Third, even if clever defenses are posited and the names and meanings of the four tenets could be established, and although they are rich and broad compared to ancient and modern [systems], looking at them from our school's view, their subsumption of the meaning of the Buddha's Dharma still has great deficiencies. Now, gathering various sūtras and treatises to establish the meaning of the four teachings, each teaching has four gates, totaling sixteen gates. Their two tenets of causes and conditions and provisional designation seem to overlap with the two gates of existence and emptiness of the Tripiṭaka teaching explained here, yet they still lack the Peṭaka gate and the gate of neither existence nor emptiness. Their non-true tenet explains all dharmas as illusory and transformative, which seems to overlap with the gate of existence of this shared teaching, while the remaining three gates are unexplained by them. Their true tenet seems to overlap with the gate of existence of this distinctive teaching, while the remaining three gates are unexplained by them. Thus the four tenets' elucidation of meaning can only overlap with the four gates of these three teachings, while the four gates of this perfect teaching are completely unexplained by them. The four teachings still have twelve gates elucidating meaning that are not explained by their four tenets. Furthermore, Dharma Master Hùshēn used five tenets to elucidate meaning; his four tenets are as before, and he additionally established the dharmadhātu tenet, which seems to overlap with the gate of existence of this perfect teaching. The four teachings still have eleven gates unexplained by him. Dharma Master Qíshé used six tenets to elucidate meaning; three tenets seem to overlap with these three gates, differentiated as above. His true tenet seems to overlap with the gate of emptiness of this shared teaching; his permanent tenet seems to overlap with the gate of existence of this distinctive teaching; his perfect tenet seems to overlap with the gate of existence of this perfect teaching. The four teachings still have ten gates unexplained by his six tenets. Therefore we know that although the four tenets, five tenets, and six tenets have been said to be rich and broad in elucidating meaning from ancient times to the present, looking at them from our school's view now, their subsumption of the meaning of the Buddha's Dharma still has great deficiencies. The reason for explaining the meaning of the four siddhāntas earlier was precisely to set forth our school's penetration of sūtras and expounding of Dharma, which differs from the common usage of ancient and modern accounts. Therefore, earlier we explained the three contemplations vertically breaking down all dharmas in briefly several dozen rounds; those who examine them will know that the intention differs from what various meditation masters and Sanlun masters have taught. Now in explaining the four teachings, each teaching has four gates, so the four teachings have sixteen gates. Furthermore, opening the four gates of the Tripiṭaka teaching, as when the five hundred arhats each explained the causes of the body, these are five hundred gates. Therefore the sūtra says: "Nirvāṇa is the true Dharma treasure; sentient beings enter the path through diverse gates." If even the four gates of the Tripiṭaka teaching open into immeasurable gates of entry into the path, how could the shared teaching, distinctive teaching, and perfect teaching, each possessing four gates, fail to each open into immeasurable gates? Therefore the Avataṃsaka-sūtra explains that the youth Sudhana visited forty-two spiritual friends, each of whom said, "I only know this one Dharma gate"; visiting one hundred and twenty spiritual friends, and even immeasurable spiritual friends in this way, each said, "I am only able to know this one Dharma gate"; thus Mahāyāna Dharma gates are immeasurable and boundless. In this sūtra, thirty-two bodhisattvas each explained entering the Dharma gate of non-duality, up to eight thousand bodhisattvas who all explained entering the Dharma gate of non-duality. Therefore the Lotus Sūtra says: "Through diverse Dharma gates, he declares and shows the Buddha path." Such a Dharma storehouse, within the ineffable, uses the four siddhāntas to raise doctrinal gates, causing all sentient beings to escape the suffering of the three realms through the Buddha's doctrinal gates. If one retains this idea and compares and determines the four tenets, five tenets, and six tenets, one will naturally know their distinct differences.

1.18

Fifth, explaining the varying amounts of the four teachings used in the sūtras and treatises. If it is the sudden teaching of the Avataṃsaka, it uses the two teachings: the distinctive and the perfect. If it is the beginning of the gradual teaching, the Hīnayāna sūtras use only the Tripiṭaka teaching. If it is the Mahāyāna Vaipulya, then it possesses all four teachings. If it is the Mahāprajñā, it uses the three teachings: the shared, the distinctive, and the perfect. The Lotus Sūtra uses only the perfect teaching. The Mahāparinirvāṇa is named the dharmadhātu of all Buddhas, where all four teachings enter the Buddha-nature and nirvāṇa. The various amounts of teachings used across the treatises according to the sūtras can be understood along similar lines. Question: The four teachings pervade all the sūtras; why then are they extensively discriminated specifically in front of the text of this sūtra? Answer: It is not necessarily the case that all gradual and sudden sūtras explain the four teachings; it is only the Vaipulya, the Mahāsaṃnipāta, and this canonical text that fully possess passages on the four teachings; therefore, based on the meaning of this sūtra, we briefly explain the meaning of the four teachings. However, one constantly laments that propagators of the sūtras in the degenerate age gather the meanings of numerous sūtras to explain a single treatise, thereby causing later generations all to say that 'treatises are rich and sūtras are poor,' disparaging sūtras and esteeming treatises. Now, in gathering numerous sūtras and treatises to establish the meaning of the four teachings in order to penetrate the various Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna sūtras, my intention is that future worthy ones will revere the Buddha's words and discard the branches and tips. If one can focus one's mind on the Mahāyāna Vaipulya, listening to, preaching, receiving, upholding, reading, reciting, copying, and practicing it in accordance with what is taught, not only will the effort not be in vain, but one will also be able to tally with the essentials of principle.

First 18 of 20 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

四教義 — Classical Chinese