御注金剛般若波羅蜜經宣演 1.8.3

1.8.3

Phenomena are largely provisional, rather than solely establishing natures; nor is it entirely characteristics. The Lokottaravāda states that the mundane is not real, because it is all false and deceptive; the supramundane can be real, because it is not false and deceptive. In which of the four [schools] would such classes be included? Furthermore, the twenty Hīnayāna sects differ in their tenets and vary in the phenomena they posit; how could dividing them into four schools solely by nature and characteristic serve as an exact standard? Again, there is a Dharma Master who posits three schools: first, the School of Dharmalakṣaṇa; second, the School of Refuting Characteristics; third, the School of Dharmatā. He claims that sūtras such as the Saṃdhinirmocana and the Buddhabhūmi, and treatises such as the Yogācārabhūmi, are all the School of Dharmalakṣaṇa, because establishing all phenomena based on the approach of the three natures is taken as ultimate. Sūtras such as the Mahāprajñāpāramitā, and treatises such as the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, the Madhyamaka-śāstra, and the Śataka-śāstra, are all the School of Refuting Characteristics, because demolishing and eliminating all phenomena based on the approach of ultimate truth is taken as ultimate. Sūtras such as the Avataṃsaka, Nirvāṇa, and Laṅkāvatāra, and treatises such as the Ratnagotravibhāga and the Awakening of Faith, are all the School of Dharmatā, because harmonizing and unifying all phenomena based on the approach of the dharmatā-tathāgatagarbha is taken as ultimate. He further posits that the single flavor of principle cannot be revealed without words, yet words that reveal the principle cannot tally with reality; hence they all fall toward the extremes of emptiness, existence, and the like, from the Buddhas on high down to ordinary people, so that the verbal teachings they set forth do not differ. That the various teachings have these three distinctions [is his view]. That Dharma Master's preeminent fame was peerless across generations, his brilliant discernment surpassed the times, his learning was abundant in the five vehicles, and his principles were loftier than [those of Mount] Qiye. He moored the boat of wisdom in the ocean of Dharma, its cinnamon oars churning the waves; he wielded the sword of wisdom on the mountain of meaning, its frosty blade cleaving jade. In determining these doctrinal tenets, he could truly serve as a model. Yet where some points remain unclear, I venture to pose some questions. Why so? Although phenomena transcend speech and originally lack name and characteristic, provisional signifiers and designations are accepted as apprehending the entity of phenomena; otherwise, the sacred teachings would not be a valid means of knowledge (pramāṇa), indicating phenomena like the aggregates while precluding supreme natures and the like. Moreover, ordinary people are blind and lack the sun of wisdom, so their speech does not tally with phenomena and may fall into extremes. The sacred wisdom of the Buddhas directly realizes the entity of phenomena and, just as it is realized, unerringly proclaims it: when they speak of emptiness, it is definitely empty; when they speak of existence, it is likewise so, accordant and converging with the Middle Way. How could it be identical to ordinary beings? If it were not so, how could understanding arise in conformity with the teaching, producing true, supreme wisdom to attain liberation? If because speech does not tally with reality whatever utterance is made falls into emptiness, existence, and so forth, then there should be eighty-four thousand limitless schools; why only three? Furthermore, dividing into three schools lacks scriptural basis and is empty talk; how can one divide and categorize the sacred teachings by one's own intention? It is also said that Dharmalakṣaṇa preserves the paratantra and pariniṣpanna, while Refuting Characteristics refutes the three natures; phenomena are either preserved or refuted, each being ultimate joy. If one posits [some as] definitive and [others as] non-definitive, this causes teaching and principle to contradict each other, and also violates the ultimate, single real Middle Way. For by accepting that the Buddha taught three kinds of ultimates, vacillations would be manifold; how could they be verified and harmonized? Moreover, according to the Saṃdhinirmocana, the Buddha himself harmonized and explained the various teachings on emptiness as being spoken solely on the basis of parikalpita as the emptiness of all phenomena. How can it be said that in the School of Refuting Characteristics, all three natures are eliminated? The remaining points each contain many difficulties; mentioning them briefly suffices to know this, so I need not elaborate. One should know that the Yogācārabhūmi was proclaimed by the Bodhisattva of One More Birth (Maitreya) to explain all sūtras comprehensively; do not say that it only explains teachings such as the Saṃdhinirmocana. Therefore, the verse of homage in the commentary on that treatise says: / 'This treatise is sublime like a lotus, / Resembling a treasure trove and an ocean; / It fully reveals the vast meaning of the vehicles, / And skilfully explains their texts without omission.' / It also says: 'Now, what is the reason for expounding this treatise? It is that sentient beings from beginningless time have had ignorance, doubt, error, and perverse clinging regarding the Middle real characteristic of all phenomena. [...] Down to the Tathāgata appearing in the world, who, in accord with what was fitting, expediently taught various wonderful dharmas, the Middle real characteristic, causing sentient beings to know that all phenomena, being as such and as such empty, are therefore not as such and as such existent, and thus are not empty; thoroughly comprehending that all phenomena are neither empty nor existent, they depart from doubt, error, and perverse clinging, practice the cultivation that eradicates hindrances, attain the three bodhis, and realize the bliss of quiescence. After the Buddha's nirvāṇa, demonic affairs arose in turmoil, sectarian clingings competed and flourished, and many attached to the view of existence. Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna realized the pramuditā-bhūmi, gathered the Mahāyāna teaching of signless emptiness, and composed the Madhyamaka-śāstra and others, thoroughly elucidating the true essentials to eliminate those views of existence. The great treatise masters such as holy Āryadeva composed the Śataka-śāstra and others, broadly expounding the great meaning. Because of this, sentient beings again attached to the view of emptiness. Bodhisattva Asaṅga, having ascended to the first bhūmi and realized the prior samādhi of Dharma, attained great supernatural powers, served the Great Merciful One (Maitreya), and requested the expounding of this treatise. There is no principle it does not exhaust, no phenomenon it does not fully encompass, no text it does not explain, no meaning it does not express, no doubt it does not dispel, no clinging it does not shatter, no practice it does not cultivate, and no fruit it does not realize. It is primarily for bodhisattvas, to enable them to gain skill in the objects, practices, and fruits of all the vehicles, diligently cultivate the Mahāyāna, realize great bodhi, and constantly and unerringly preach it broadly for sentient beings; secondarily, it is for the other vehicles, to cause them to rely on their own Dharma, cultivate their own portions of practice, and attain their own realizations of fruit. Such is a brief explanation of the reason for this treatise.' / Hence we know that it comprehensively explains all sacred teachings, eliminates the views of emptiness and existence, and gives rise to Middle practice. How could one say that the Yogācārabhūmi is solely the School of Dharmalakṣaṇa? Question: Do not the various sūtras mostly teach dharmalakṣaṇa, or mostly refute characteristics, or again harmonize them? Why should schools not be divided? Answer: Who says the various teachings lack these three meanings? It is merely saying that definitively deciding that such-and-such sūtras and treatises are subsumed under such-and-such schools is untenable, because none are void [of the others]. Therefore, it should be said that according to principle in the Mahāyāna, whatever sūtra it may be, it possesses dharmalakṣaṇa, the refutation of characteristics, and harmonization. Although there are places where one meaning is predominantly illuminated, in reality these three do not separate from each other, because clarifying the entity of phenomena, removing attachments, and achieving harmony are meanings that are omnipresent. Question: If so, why within the Mahāyāna are there the Central School and the Peripheral School, Bhāviveka and Dharmapāla, signlessness and dharmalakṣaṇa, with each school distinct? Answer: This is merely due to the differing compositions of the commentators. In accordance with the intentions of the commentators, the tenets are stated differently; it is not that the Buddha's words fall into extremes so that distinct schools were established previously.