佛祖統紀 3.104

3.104

Third, regarding the Vaipulya period: One Buddha-land was shown to appear distinct in purity and defilement; one body was manifested to be variously great or minute; preaching the Dharma with a single voice was comprehended differently according to category. Because their supernatural powers are not shared, some saw purity and some defilement; some heard praise and some reprimand; some smelled campaka and some did not; flowers clung to some bodies and did not cling to others; wisdom seemed many or not many. This is like the Vimalakīrti and Vaipulya [sūtras] (Profound Meaning, scroll 10; supplementary note: ruogan should be written as ruogan, meaning a quantity such as myriad; pronouncing it gan has no meaning). Preaching the Vaipulya next means that after the small, the great was preached. Originally the Buddha bestowed the great, but sentient beings could not bear it, so he drew out the small from the great to enable them to sever bonds and become sages. Although there was this benefit, it was not the Buddha's original intention. Next, he preached the Vaipulya, Vimalakīrti, Viśeṣacintā, and Aṅgulimāla (Aṅgulimāla: translated here as 'Manifesting in All Worlds', the son of a brāhmaṇa, twelve years old, foremost in appearance, strength, and human marks. He spoke a verse facing the Buddha, and the Buddha said, 'Excellent!' Thereupon he became a śramaṇa, bowed his head at the Buddha's feet, and became an arhat. Śakra, Brahmā, the Four Heavenly Kings, the ten disciples, and Mañjuśrī were all rebuked by him. The Buddha said: 'In the south there is a land named Adorned with All Jewels; there is a Buddha named Great Vigour, who is none other than Aṅgulimāla.' Scroll 10 of the Wonderful Profound Meaning says: 'The Aṅgulimāla Sūtra was spoken in the sixth year.' This sūtra was spoken six years after attaining awakening; now the Great Master cites it as evidence for the teaching of the third period because of this). It rebuked the Hinayana addiction to preserving results (confined to the śrāvakas) and criticized the Tripitaka error of annihilationism (extending to dull-rooted bodhisattvas). Thus Śāriputra and Subhūti, identically trained, focused exclusively on the small and initially did not hear of the awe-inspiring virtue of the Mahāyāna. Subhūti stood dazed and dropped his bowl (the Vimalakīrti Sūtra states: Subhūti said, 'In the past when I was begging for food, Vimalakīrti took my bowl, filled it with rice, and said to me: "If you can be equal toward food, all dharmas are also equal; if all dharmas are equal, one is also equal toward food. Only by begging like this may one take food. Slandering all Buddhas, disparaging the Dharma, not entering the assembly, and ultimately not attaining extinction—if you are like this, then you may take the food." At that time, World-Honoured One, when I heard this I was dazed, not knowing what words these were, nor how to respond, so I set down the bowl and wished to leave his house'). Śāriputra was terrified and brushed off the flowers (in Vimalakīrti's room, a goddess said to Śāriputra: 'Because habit-energy is not yet ended, the flowers cling to your body; for those whose habit-energy is ended, the flowers do not cling'). They did not know what words these were, nor how to respond (the Commentary on the Profound Meaning notes: because wisdom of emptiness is principal in entering the path, these two persons were used). However, the teaching of Vaipulya rebukes came after the Tripitaka; the time of being rebuked must have been prior to the twelve years (because the twelve years at the Deer Park preceded the Vaipulya; the old reading 'within' must be an error). How is this known? They all retrospectively recount former rebukes, proving these were earlier events. Why? Formerly having received the teaching and attained the path, realized non-learning, deeply received the Buddha's grace, and inwardly trusted each other, they no longer felt anger. From the past to the present, they let Aṅgulimāla mock and yielded to Vimalakīrti's reproof, thereby gaining the benefit of feeling ashamed of the small and aspiring to the great (Profound Meaning, scroll 10). Rebuking the one-sided, reproving the small, praising the great, and commending the perfect (Profound Meaning, scroll 10; rebuking the one-sided: as in the Bodhisattva Chapter of the Vimalakīrti, rebuking Maitreya: 'When the World-Honoured One gave you, Benevolent One, the prophecy, with what birth did he give it? Past, future, or present?' It also says: 'All sentient beings practice the characteristics of bodhi. If Maitreya is extinguished, all sentient beings should also be extinguished.' It also says: 'Bodhi cannot be attained with the body, nor can it be attained with the mind.' Moreover, the Aṅgulimāla Sūtra says that the arhat Aṅgulimāla singled out for rebuke Mañjuśrī, the ten disciples, Śakra, Brahmā, and the Four Heavenly Kings; this is using the perfect to rebuke the bias of the three teachings. Reproving the small: as in the Disciple Chapter, when Maudgalyāyana preached the Dharma to householders, Vimalakīrti rebuked him: 'One who expounds the Dharma should preach in accord with the Dharma. It has no name or character, because speech is severed; the Dharma cannot be preached, because it is free from vitarka and vicāra.' This uses the three teachings of the Mahāyāna to demolish Maudgalyāyana's three inadequacies: first, outwardly expounding according to the characteristics of dharmas, inwardly understanding according to the characteristics of dharmas—this uses the Shared Teaching's identity with emptiness to rebuke non-identity with emptiness, since preaching the Dharma does not accord with principle; second, outwardly understanding faculties and conditions, inwardly skilled in seeing and knowing without hindrance—this uses the Distinct Teaching to refute; third, outwardly having compassionate regard for sentient beings, inwardly thinking of repaying the Buddha's kindness—this uses the Perfect Teaching to refute. Furthermore, Aṅgulimāla rebuking the ten disciples uses the greatness of the three teachings of the noble gate to reprove the smallness of the Tripitaka. Praising the great: as in the Sentient Beings Chapter, 'Just as an illusionist sees the person he created, so does the bodhisattva contemplate sentient beings. Just as a wise person sees the moon in the water, an image in a mirror, or a mirage in the heat, so does the bodhisattva contemplate sentient beings.' Now broadly analogizing sentient beings conveys the intention of both the Shared and Perfect teachings. Commending the perfect: Mañjuśrī addressed the Buddha, 'That superior person is difficult to converse with; he deeply penetrates true reality and skillfully expounds the essentials of the Dharma'—this commends Vimalakīrti. When Mañjuśrī entered Vimalakīrti's room, Vimalakīrti said, 'Welcome, Mañjuśrī! Coming without characteristics of coming, seeing without characteristics of seeing'—this commends Mañjuśrī). All four teachings were expounded: the Tripitaka is the half-word, while the Shared, Distinct, and Perfect are full-words. Because the full is expounded against the half, it is called the comparative teaching (the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'For instance, an elder has only one son, whom he always cherishes with earnest love day and night; he only teaches him the half-word and not the full-word, solely because the son's capacity is not yet able to bear it.' The half is the nine classes of the Hinayana; the full is the twelve classes of the Mahāyāna. In terms of persons and principles, it can be understood through comparison).