|
復次，佛欲說第一義悉檀相故，說是般若波羅蜜經。有四種悉檀：一者、世界悉檀；二者、各各為人悉檀；三者、對治悉檀；四者、第一義悉檀。四悉檀中，總攝一切十二部經，八萬四千法藏，皆是實，無相違背。佛法中實，有以世界悉檀故實，有以各各為人悉檀故實，有以對治悉檀故實，有以第一義悉檀故實。
世界悉檀
云何名世界悉檀？有法從因緣和合故有，無別性。譬如車，轅、輻、軸、輞等和合故有，無別車也。人亦如是，五眾和合故有，無別人也。
問曰：如佛說：我以清淨天眼，見諸眾生死此生彼，隨善惡業受果報：善業者生天人中，惡業者墮三惡道。復次，經言：一人出世，多人蒙慶，福樂饒益，佛世尊也。如法句中說：神自能救神，他人安能救！神自行善智，是最能自救。如瓶沙王迎經中佛說：「凡人不聞法，凡人著於我。」
又佛二夜經中說：「佛從得道夜，至般涅槃夜，是二夜中間所說經教，一切皆實不顛倒。」
若實無人者，佛云何說人等？答曰：人等世界故有，第一義故無。如：如、法性、實際，世界故無，第一義故有。人等亦如是，第一義故無，世界故有。所以者何？五眾因緣有故有人。
譬如乳，色、香、味、觸因緣有故有；若乳實無，乳因緣亦應無。今乳因緣實有故，乳亦應有；非如一人第二頭、第三手，無因緣而有假名。如是等相，名為世界悉檀相。
為人悉檀
云何名各各為人悉檀？觀人心行而為說法，於一事中，或聽或不聽。如經中所說：雜報業故，雜生世間，得雜觸，得雜受。更有破群那經中說：無人得觸，無人得受。
問曰：此二經云何通？
答曰：以有人疑後世，不信罪福，作不善行，墮斷滅見；欲斷彼疑，捨彼惡行，欲拔彼斷見故，說雜生世間，得雜觸，得雜受。是破群那計有我有神，墮計常中。
破群那問佛言：大德！誰受？若佛說某甲某甲受，便墮計常中，其人我見倍復牢固，不可移轉，是以不說有受者、觸者。如是等相，名為各各為人悉檀。
對治悉檀
云何名對治悉檀？有法，對治則有，實性則無。譬如重、熱、膩、酢、鹹藥草飲食等，於風病中名為藥，於餘病非藥；若輕、冷、甘、苦、澀藥草飲食等，於熱病名為藥，於餘病非藥；若輕、辛、苦、澀、熱藥草飲食等，於冷病中名為藥，於餘病非藥。佛法中治心病亦如是：不淨觀思惟，於貪欲病中，名為善對治法；於瞋恚病中，不名為善，非對治法。所以者何？觀身過失，名不淨觀；若瞋恚人觀過失者，則增益瞋恚火故。思惟慈心，於瞋恚病中，名為善對治法；於貪欲病中，不名為善，非對治法。所以者何？慈心於眾生中求好事，觀功德；若貪欲人求好事，觀功德者，則增益貪欲故。因緣觀法，於愚癡病中，名為善對治法；於貪欲、瞋恚病中，不名為善，非對治法。所以者何？先邪觀故生邪見，邪見即是愚癡。
待續
|
|
Additionally it was because the Buddha wished to set forth the characteristics of the supreme meaning siddhantas that he spoke this Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra. There are four kinds of siddhantas (teaching modes). The first is worldly siddhanta. The second is individually-adapted siddhanta. The third is the counteractive siddhanta. The fourth is the supreme meaning siddhanta. All twelve classifications of sutra text are generally subsumed within the four siddhantas. Every dharma among the 84,000 dharmas of the Dharma treasury is actual and mutually non-contradictory. The existence [of these dharmas] within the Buddha Dharma is an actual existence on account of the worldly siddhanta, is an actual existence on account of the individually-adapted siddhanta, is an actual existence on account of the counteractive siddhanta, is an actual existence on account of the supreme-meaning siddhanta.
Worldly Siddhanta
Cart Simile
What is meant by the “worldly siddhanta”? Existence dharmas exist on account of the coming together of conditions. Aside from this, they have no other nature. This is like a cart which exists on account of the coming together of shafts, axles, spokes, rims and so forth. Aside from this, there is no other “cart.” People are also like this. They exist on account of the coming together of the five aggregates. Aside from this, there is no other “person.” If it was the case that there was no worldly siddhanta, why would the Buddha, who is a man of true speech, say,“With the pure heavenly eye I see beings passing away here and being born there in accordance with good and bad actions, undergoing resultant retribution. Those whose actions have been good are born among the gods and men. Those whose actions have been bad fall into the three bad paths”?
Additionally, a sutra states, With the coming into the world of one single person, many people are given occasion for celebration and gain the benefit of blessings and bliss. He is the Buddha, the World Honored One. “As the Dharma Sentences (Dharmapada) Scripture states, It is the spirit itself which is able to deliver the spirit. How could some other person deliver [one's] spirit? It is one's own cultivation of wholesome wisdom which is most able to bring about one's own deliverance. And as the Buddha said in The Sutra on the Encounter with King Bimbisara, The common person does not hear the Dharma. The common person is attached to a self.”
Again, in The Sutra on the Two Nights the Buddha said, “From the night in which the Buddha realized the way to the night of the parinirvana: the sutra teachings which have been spoken between these two nights are all actual and not in error.”
If in actual fact there is no person,“why did the Buddha say, With my heavenly eye I see living beings...”? One ought to know from this that [where the scriptures speak of] the existence of persons, it is on account of the worldly siddhanta. It is not the case that it represents the supreme-meaning siddhanta.
Question: The supreme-meaning siddhanta is true. It is because it is true that it is referred to as supreme. The others should not be [regarded as]true.
Reply: Not so. Truth exists in each of these four siddhantas. From the worldly siddhanta standpoint, true suchness, the nature of dharmas and the reality limit do not exist. From the supreme-meaning siddhanta standpoint, they do exist. This is also the case for ‘persons“ and so forth. From the standpoint of worldly siddhanta they exist. From the standpoint of the supreme-meaning siddhanta, they do not exist. Why is this? It is on account of the existence of the causes and conditions of the five aggregates that “persons” and so forth exist.
This is like milk which exists on account of the existence of the causes and conditions of color, odor, flavor, and tangibility. If milk were actually nonexistence, then the causes and conditions of milk should also be nonexistent. Now, because the causes and conditions of milk actually do exist, milk should [be admitted as] existing also. It is not as if [we were speaking of] a person's second head or third hand, in which case there would be no corresponding causes and conditions but only the existence of false names. {Teachings with} characteristics such as these fall within the scope of the orldly siddhanta.”
Individually-adapted Siddhanta
What is meant by “individually-adapted siddhanta”? One contemplates the way a person's mind works and then speaks Dharma for him [accordingly]. With regard to a given matter, perhaps he will take heed or perhaps he won't [depending upon one's skillfulness].
For instance, as stated in a sutra, “On account of various retributions for actions, one takes up various rebirths in the world, experiencing various types of contact and various feelings.” [But] in addition to this, we have what is said in the Phalguna Sutra: “There is no person who experiences contact. There is no person who experiences feeling.”
Question: How can these two sutras be reconciled?
Reply: It was on account of there being a person who doubted future existences, who did not believe in offenses or blessings, who engaged in unwholesome conduct and who had fallen into the annihilationist view, that, out of desire to cut off his doubts and cause him to forsake his unwholesome conduct and out of a desire to extricate him from his annihilationist view, it was therefore said, “One takes up various rebirths in the world, experiencing various types of contact and feelings.”
[However], this Phalguna believed in the existence of a self and in the existence of a spirit and [thus] had fallen into an external belief. Phalguna asked the Buddha,“Venerable one, who is it that experiences feelings?” If the Buddha had replied that it was such-and-such or so-and-so who experiences feelings, then {Phalguna] would have fallen [even further] into externalist beliefs and his views [which clung to the concepts] of a “person” and a “self” would have become doubly solidified and impossible to reverse. On account of this [the Buddha] did not say that there was anyone who experiences feelings or who experiences contact. [Teachings with] characteristics such as these fall within the scope of the “individually-adapted siddhanta.”
Counteractive Siddhanta
Dharma as Medicine
As for the “counteractive siddhanta,” where there is counteraction in the sphere of existent dharmas, it exists. As for its actual nature, it does not exist. For example, intensely hot, greasy, sour, or salty herbs, drinks or foods are good medicine in the case of wind diseases but are nonmedicinal in other diseases. Mildly cold, sweet, bitter, or acrid herbs, drinks or foods are medicine in the case of hot diseases but are nonmedicinal in other diseases. Mildly pungent, bitter, acrid or hot herbs, drinks, or foods are medicine in cold diseases but are nonmedicinal in other diseases. In the Dharma of the Buddha, treatment of diseases of the mind is undertaken accordingly.
Deliberation based upon the contemplation of impurity is a good counteractive dharma with respect to the disease of desire, but with regard to the disease of hatefulness, it is not good and it is a non-counteractive dharma. Why is this? This is because the contemplation of the faults and deficits of the body is what is intended by “contemplation of impurity.” If a hateful person contemplates faults and deficits, then this shall increase the fire of hatefulness.
Deliberation on kindheartedness is a good counteractive dharma with respect to the disease of hatefulness, but with regard to the disease of desire it is not good and it is a non-counteractive dharma. Why is this? Because kindheartedness with regard to beings seeks out choice features and contemplates meritorious qualities. If a desire-laden person seeks out choice features and contemplates meritorious qualities, then this increases desire.
The Dharma of the contemplation of causes and conditions is a good counteractive dharma with respect to the disease of delusion, but with regard to the diseases of desire and hatefulness it is not good and it is a non-counteractive dharma. Why is this? It is due to prior falsely-based contemplation that one generates false views. False views are just [the product of] delusion.
To be continued |
