四明尊者教行錄 2.41

2.41

有客忽問余曰：《起信論》於天台四教攝屬何耶？余偶對曰：《起信論》是唐朝藏法師製疏申通，天台不見文句解釋。此乃各是一家製作，難可和會。客乃動容問曰：聞天台一宗最能融會，如云以五時八教判釋東流一代時教，罄無不盡。此語何為？余乃立理對曰：只恐不許天台融會。若信天台攝屬，容有其理。則起信攝屬何難，亦乃自見諸家妍醜。今試為先將教攝論，次為以教會疏。且夫此論宗百洛叉經，而首題大乘，則理合通於衍門三教。故天台《淨名玄義》云：佛性唯識等論，通申大乘三教。唯識尚具三教，起信何不具三？況與佛性大同小異。今且於論初後，撮略教文以對三教。論以一心為宗，乃云：總攝世出世法。此則正在圓門，亦兼餘二。真如門有離言依言空不空義，則三教之理明焉。生滅門明初發心住，能少分見於法身，八相成道（《涅槃》云：十住能少分見法身，見不了了。天台判為圓位。妙樂云：唯《華嚴》、《起信》明初住八相最為顯著），豈非圓位耶？次第翻九相，豈非別位耶？八地得無功用道，豈非通教被接之位耶？略引此文，諸可悉例。客曰：藏師製疏，分齊如何？對曰：賢首立義，望於天台，乃是別教一途之說，未是通方別教。何者？別有教道證道，彼則唯論教道。別有四門被機，彼乃只論雙。亦別有自他橫竪，彼乃獨論自行竪入。別有多義，彼所不云，未是別教通方，蓋是一途之說。客乃難曰：彼疏隨緣不變為宗，天台亦以隨緣不變證於三因體遍乃是圓意，何言別耶？余曰：藏師雖用圓名，而成別義。何者？彼云：真如隨緣作一切法，而真如體性常不變。却謬引《釋論》云：無情唯有法性而無佛性。此則名雖在圓，而義成別。客曰：別明凝然為理。今以隨緣真如而為別理，此據何文？余返曰：別理隨緣，其文稍顯。凝然為理，出自何文？客曰：此宗講者皆有此言，而未見文疏所出。余曰：盛將隨緣以凝然二理，簡於性相二宗，此乃出自賢首，天台未見此文。據理，隨緣未為圓極。彼宗尚自判終教，未及於圓，豈天台之圓同彼之終？須知若凝然、若隨緣，但據帶方便義邊，皆屬別教。客曰：天台立別理隨緣，文據如何？對曰：《止觀》立別教發心境云：只觀根塵一念為迷解本，記別如來藏為善不善因。妙樂云：別教從無住本立一切法，乃云無明覆理，能覆所覆俱名無住。又云：真如在迷生一切法。又云：無明為因能生九界，必須法性為緣。文證若此，足可依憑。客曰：疏義在別，此則已明。論具三教，更冀剖析。余曰：儻有微礙，盡望陳述。客曰：真如門屬理，具三教可然。生滅門論於地住修證，須依一轍，別則始終俱別、圓則初後俱圓，如何三教位次並陳？對曰：此論宗經既多明理，是故非一。理既不一，依位修證如何一途？如《華嚴經》明圓初住，乃云初發心時便成正覺等。後明地位，却云八地得無功用道。又《仁王》一偈頌中，三賢十聖住果報在圓，十四般若為別，五忍屬通。此一兩經明位尚爾，況此論宗百洛叉經，豈可止有一翻地位。文中缺於三藏位者，既以大乘標題，只可唯明衍教。客曰：且如賢首，學通性相、位繼四依，因何釋義全下天台？余曰：菩薩弘教各逗機宜，蓋是一類之機宜聞一途之說，所以作此申通，未必四依有不了也。客曰：既各擅一美、各逗機宜，何須彼此攝屬？對曰：既知二宗各逗機宜，何須致問？既令攝屬，如上所陳。若論被機，不須和會。客乃唯唯而退。

A guest suddenly asked me: "Under which of Tiantai's four teachings is the Awakening of Faith subsumed?" I replied offhand: "The commentary on the Awakening of Faith was composed by Master Zang of the Tang dynasty to expound and interpret it; Tiantai [Zhizhe] did not explain its words and phrases. These are works of different houses, and can hardly be reconciled." The guest, his expression changing, asked: "I have heard that the Tiantai school is best at harmonising and reconciling, as it is said that it classifies and explains the entire lifetime of teachings that flowed eastward using the five periods and eight teachings, leaving nothing unexhausted. What of this statement?" I then established the principle and answered: "I only fear you will not grant Tiantai's harmonization. If you trust Tiantai's subsumptions, there is certainly a principle for it. Then subsuming the Awakening of Faith is not difficult at all, and one will also naturally see the beauties and defects of the various houses. Now let me first subsume the treatise by means of the teachings, and next bring the commentary into accord by means of the teachings. Furthermore, this treatise is based on a hundred thousand sūtras, and its title begins with 'Mahāyāna'; thus in principle it must apply to all three teachings of the Great Vehicle. Therefore Tiantai's Xuan yi on the Vimalakīrti says: 'Treatises such as those on Buddha-nature and Consciousness-only broadly expound the three teachings of the Mahāyāna.' If Consciousness-only already possesses the three teachings, why should the Awakening of Faith not possess all three? Moreover, it largely agrees with the Buddha-nature Treatise, differing only in minor ways. Now, from the beginning and end of the treatise, I shall briefly extract passages of teaching to correlate with the three teachings. The treatise takes the One Mind as its doctrine, saying: 'It comprehensively subsumes worldly and world-transcending dharmas.' This directly falls within the perfect portal, while also including the other two. The portal of true suchness has the meanings of 'beyond words' and 'conforming to words', 'empty' and 'not empty'; thus the principles of the three teachings are clear here. The portal of arising and ceasing explains that upon the stage of initial resolve, one can partially see the Dharmakāya and accomplish the path through the eight aspects (The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'At the ten abodes one can partially see the Dharmakāya, but sees it unclearly.' Tiantai classifies this as a stage of the perfect [teaching]. Miaole says: 'Only the Avataṃsaka and the Awakening of Faith are most explicit in explaining the eight aspects at the initial abode.') Is this not a stage of the perfect [teaching]? Its sequential overturning of the nine marks—is this not the separate teaching? Its attainment of the path of non-effort at the eighth stage—is this not the stage where one is received and led forward in the shared teaching? By briefly citing these passages, all others may be analogised." The guest said: "Master Zang composed his commentary; what is its scope?" I replied: "The doctrine established by Xianshou, viewed from the perspective of Tiantai, is an exposition of only one approach of the separate teaching; it is not yet the comprehensive separate teaching. Why so? The separate teaching has the teaching path and the realization path; he treats only the teaching path. The separate teaching uses four doors to respond to capacities; he treats only the door of 'both'. The separate teaching also has vertical and horizontal dimensions of self and other; he treats exclusively the vertical entry of self-cultivation. The separate teaching has many other meanings that he does not mention; it is not the comprehensive separate teaching, but merely an exposition of a single approach." The guest then objected: "His commentary takes 'accordance with conditions yet unchanging' as its doctrine. Tiantai also uses 'accordance with conditions yet unchanging' to prove that the three causes are universally present in essence, which is the perfect intent. Why do you say it is separate?" I said: "Although Master Zang uses the name of the perfect, he establishes the meaning of the separate. Why so? He says: 'True suchness accords with conditions to produce all dharmas, yet the nature of true suchness remains perpetually unchanging.' But he mistakenly cites the Explanatory Treatise, saying: 'Inanimate things have only dharmatā and lack Buddha-nature.' Thus, although its name lies in the perfect, its meaning belongs to the separate." The guest said: "The separate teaching explains immutable quiescence as the principle. Now you take true suchness that accords with conditions to be the principle of the separate [teaching]—on what text is this based?" I countered: "The accordance of the principle of the separate [teaching] with conditions is relatively clear in the texts. But where does 'immutable quiescence as the principle' appear?" The guest said: "Lecturers of this school all make this statement, but I have not seen which commentary it comes from." I said: "Widely using the two principles of 'accordance with conditions' and 'immutable quiescence' to distinguish the nature and characteristics schools originates with Xianshou; this text is not found in Tiantai. In principle, accordance with conditions is not yet the ultimate of the perfect. That school itself still classifies it as the final teaching and not yet reaching the perfect; how could Tiantai's perfect be identical to their final [teaching]? One must understand that whether immutable quiescence or accordance with conditions, insofar as they carry an expedient meaning, both belong to the separate teaching." The guest said: "What is the textual evidence for Tiantai's establishing that the principle of the separate [teaching] accords with conditions?" I replied: "The Zhi guan, in establishing the object for generating the aspiration in the separate teaching, says: 'One merely contemplates a single thought of the sense-faculties and objects as the root of delusion and awakening; the commentary explains that the tathāgatagarbha is the cause of both good and ungood.' Miaole says: 'The separate teaching establishes all dharmas from the non-abiding root; it says that ignorance conceals principle, and both that which conceals and that which is concealed are called non-abiding.' He also says: 'True suchness, while in delusion, produces all dharmas.' He also says: 'Ignorance as the cause can produce the nine realms, but must have dharmatā as the condition.' With textual evidence such as this, there is ample support to rely upon." The guest said: "That the meaning of the commentary lies in the separate teaching is now clear. But that the treatise possesses the three teachings—I hope you will analyse this further." I said: "If you have any slight obstruction, pray set it forth completely." The guest said: "That the portal of true suchness belongs to principle, and thus may possess the three teachings, is acceptable. But the portal of arising and ceasing discusses cultivation and realization through the stages and abodes, which must follow a single track: if separate, then it is separate from beginning to end; if perfect, then it is perfect from start to finish. How can the stages of the three teachings be set forth side by side?" I replied: "Since this treatise is based on many sūtras, its exposition of principle is not single. Since the principle is not single, how could cultivation and realization according to the stages follow only one approach? For example, the Avataṃsaka Sūtra explains the initial abode of the perfect teaching, saying: 'At the time of initial resolve, one immediately accomplishes right awakening,' and so forth. Later, in explaining the stages, it says on the contrary that at the eighth stage one attains the path of non-effort. Furthermore, in a single verse of the Benevolent Kings [Sūtra], the three worthies and ten sages abiding in the fruition of retribution belongs to the perfect; the fourteen prajñās belong to the separate; and the five patiences belong to the shared [teaching]. If even one or two sūtras expound stages in this way, how much more so this treatise, which is based on a hundred thousand sūtras—how could it have only a single set of stages? As for the omission of the stages of the Tripiṭaka [teaching] in the text, since it is titled 'Mahāyāna', it could only expound the Great Vehicle teachings." The guest said: "Now take Xianshou: his learning encompassed both nature and characteristics, and his status succeeded the four reliances; why would his interpretation of the meaning fall entirely below Tiantai?" I said: "When bodhisattvas propagate the teachings, each accommodates the capacities of the time. It was because a certain class of capacities was suited to hear an exposition of a single approach that he produced this explanation; it does not mean that one of the four reliances lacked complete understanding." The guest said: "Since each possesses their own excellence and each accommodates capacities, why is there any need to subsume one under the other?" I replied: "Since you know that the two schools each accommodate capacities, why did you raise the question? But since you asked for a subsumption, it is as I have set forth above. If we speak in terms of responding to capacities, no reconciliation is needed." The guest then assented respectfully and withdrew.