四教義 3.8

3.8

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.