御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 1.10.2

1.10.2

[The sūtra says:] '[The Tathāgata] speaks of the One Vehicle, the single path, the single practice, and the single object of focus.' And further: 'My disciples, upon hearing this discourse, did not understand my meaning, and proclaimed: "The Tathāgata says that from srotāpannas up to arhats, all will attain buddhahood."' If all attain buddhahood and there is no fixed lineage, then they would have understood the Buddha's meaning; why then was this discourse necessary? If so, why is it that in the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sūtra the One Vehicle alone is taught as ultimate? Answer: Just as in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha ten meanings are used to reconcile [this] with the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, there is also a reconciliation of the One Vehicle. In general, relying on the sūtras and treatises, Buddha-nature is of three kinds, śrāvakas are of four kinds, and icchantikas are of three kinds. The three kinds of Buddha-nature are: first, the nature of principle, which is tathatā; second, the nature of practice, which is untainted seeds; third, the concealed nature, which is the class of afflictive defilements. The four kinds of śrāvakas are: first, those of transformation; second, those who retreat from the bodhicitta; third, the overly arrogant; fourth, those who incline toward extinction. The three kinds of icchantikas are: first, those of great compassion; second, those who have severed good roots; third, those who lack lineage. The scriptural passages cited above by both masters contain explicit explanations. The resolution of objections and reconciliation of contradictions are investigated one by one in detail as in the separate record; those who delight in extensive debate and diligently explain the Dharma should recount them all. The third position says: That there are those with lineage and those without lineage is the Tathāgata's esoteric realm, scattered throughout the various sūtras, which the Buddha did not teach determinately. How can the previous interpretations presume to determine right and wrong? Because this is known by the power of knowing the various realms among the ten powers, only a buddha together with a buddha can realize and fully understand it. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, fascicle seventeen, says: 'Concerning the Dharma of the three vehicles, I speak of the One Vehicle; concerning the Dharma of the One Vehicle, according to suitability I speak of three.' And further: 'Because the Tathāgata clearly sees the capacities of sentient beings, he is utterly free from falsehood; because he has severed transgressions and faults. Although he is free from falsehood, if he knows that sentient beings will obtain the benefit of the Dharma through a false teaching, according with suitability and skillful means, he will then speak it for them.' This, then, is the profound realm of the buddhas, beyond the knowledge of the two vehicles. Relying on this scriptural passage, how can ordinary worldly mortals erroneously speculate? Furthermore, fascicle thirty-four of that sūtra says: 'Good sons, for the sake of sentient beings, the Tathāgata, the World-Honoured One, speaks briefly within the extensive, and speaks extensively within the brief.' And up to: 'Therefore, according to the person, according to the intention, and according to the time, it is called the Tathāgata's power of knowing the various faculties. Good sons, if I were to make a fixed statement on such meanings, I could not be called a Tathāgata endowed with the power of knowing faculties.' Fascicle thirty-five says: 'Good sons, such disputes are the realm of the Buddha, not what is known by śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas. If someone gives rise to doubt concerning this, they can still destroy immeasurable afflictions, [lofty] as Mount Sumeru. If in this matter one gives rise to a fixed view, this is called attachment.' And up to: 'Good sons, such attachment is not called good. Why is that? Because it cannot destroy the net of doubts.' Kāśyapa said again to the World-Honoured One: 'Such a person originally had no doubt; why do you say they do not destroy the net of doubts?' 'Good sons, that which has no doubt is itself doubt.' Fascicle thirty-six says: 'Good sons, although I say that all sentient beings have Buddha-nature, sentient beings do not understand such words spoken according to the Buddha's own intent. Good sons, such words cannot even be known by a bodhisattva in their final existence, much less by the two vehicles and other bodhisattvas.' Furthermore, a passage says: 'If anyone says that all sentient beings definitely have Buddha-nature, or definitely do not have Buddha-nature, such people are all called slanderers of the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Saṅgha.' Relying on these passages, one should attribute the merit to the Buddha and respectfully narrate it. Therefore, among the various interpretations, one may adopt or reject according to one's own inclination; because both doctrine and reasoning are equally balanced, one should not give rise to an attached mind within them, forcefully generating one-sided views and claiming they accord with the Buddha's words—this is impossible. However, one should fully recount the teachings and principles of the various traditions, desiring to let students know their foundations. Question: Principle has only one superior truth; both should not be displayed simultaneously. In explicating the treasury of teachings, one must specify a definitive conclusion. Now, merely blending the light and making indeterminate statements, what will later students have to receive and uphold? Answer: Among meanings, there are those that can be determined and those that cannot. Indeterminate meanings are open to multiple interpretations; how could one insist on requiring a fixed explanation? When even the Buddha does not make it determinate, who would dare to determine it? Question: The secret is difficult to know, truly as you have said. Sentient beings in this land delight in hearing of Buddha-nature; why did the Tathāgata not make a definitive statement? Answer: Who says they exclusively delight in hearing that it exists? Rather, sentient beings naturally fall into two classes: the first, upon hearing of Buddha-nature, rejoice and have something to rely upon, advancing vigorously; whereas if they hear of having no nature, having nothing to depend on, they cease their striving mind. The second, if they hear that one portion lacks the nature, fearing they may fall into this class, exert extra effort in practice; whereas if they hear that all possess it, relying on this Buddha-nature, they instead give rise to indolence and negligence. Because the teaching is indeterminate in response to different capacities, it is clear that one should merely be diligent, firmly gather practices and vows, and behold the golden countenance in person—then one will naturally know. The above explains the differences in lineages and faculties. As for those addressed by the sūtra: if relying on the first explanation, there is no divergent thesis. The tradition of the five natures requires critical assessment. In terms of the primary audience addressed, it is solely the Great Vehicle, for the sūtra says: 'Spoken for those who set forth on the Great Vehicle.' That is, as other sūtras say: 'For all bodhisattvas, expounding the six pāramitās, causing them to attain sarvākārajñatā.' In terms of secondary audience, it extends to all of the two vehicles as well as those without lineage, for below it lists the four assemblies and the eight classes, without exclusion. The Great Prajñāpāramitā says: 'Prajñāpāramitā can explain the stages of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas.' That is, the passage on [the bodhisattva] Subikrāntasaṃpanna cited earlier also addresses the two vehicles. Below, the vast and great mind of the bodhisattva causes [beings of] the three realms and the four modes of birth all to attain nirvāṇa. Asaṅga Bodhisattva asked: Why is this vow [made]? The explanation has two parts: first, explaining the title; second, explaining the text of the sūtra. Regarding the title of the sūtra: the versions of the Qin, Wei, and Liang all have the title Vajra-prajñā. The two versions of the Tang and Zhou both have the title Vajracchedikā. The translation of the Sui dynasty, relying on that treatise, subsequently named it Vajracchedikā. The former three versions are brief; the latter three are complete. In presenting the essence to encompass the function, they merely indicate the names of the Dharma and the metaphor. In manifesting both essence and function, they additionally state the cause of cutting through. Although the extensive and the brief differ, in meaning there is no contradiction. First is the separate explanation, then the combined explanation. In Sanskrit it is *vajra*.