四教義 8.3

8.3

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.