論佛學的修學

論佛學的修學

釋印順

法光學壇
第四期(2000)
頁3-18

頁3

　　說起佛學，應該有兩方面的含義：第一，佛學是佛法的修學，佛法的實踐。釋尊教示我們，修學佛法，不外乎「增上戒學，增上心學，增上慧學」——三學。聲聞乘的比丘戒，名為比丘學處。大乘的六度、四攝，名為「菩薩學處」。在三學、六度的學程中，名為「有學」。到了解脫生死，圓滿菩提，學程完畢了，名為「無學」。從這佛法以行證為本來說，佛法之學，就是佛法的實踐。但為了實踐的佛學，不能不有義解的佛學，理論的說明的佛學。釋尊的教導學眾，稱為「教授」，「教誡」；約內容說，名為「法（達磨）毘奈耶」；其後集成經與律。對於法與律的分別抉擇，釋尊與大弟子們，早就開展了論義，稱為「阿毘達磨，阿毘毘奈耶」。特別是法義的分別，經弟子們大大的發揚，終於獨立成部（論），與經、律合稱為三藏。經、律、論三藏，是文字章句的藄輯，是釋尊一代教義的集成，但內容不外乎三學（六度）。所以古德說，從三臟的偏重來說，經是明定學的，律是明戒學的，論是明慧學的。在實踐方面，戒、定、慧學如鼎的三足一樣，是不可偏缺的。在義解方面，經、律、論也一樣是不可偏廢的。這才是圓滿的佛學，中正的學佛之道。

　　行證的佛學，義解的佛學，也可說有淺深。因為在修學的學程中，聞、思慧位，主要是義解的佛學；思、修慧位，主要是行證的佛學。可以說：教義的佛學，是為了初學；行證的佛學，是為了久行。這就是『楞伽經』所說的說通與宗通了。但在完整的佛學中，這不但是先後次第，而且還是相依相成，如依言教而引入行證，從行證而流出言教。佛學是不能離此二方面的，所以說：「佛正法有二，謂教證為體，有持說行者，此便住世間」。

頁4

　　釋尊住世的時候，在佛是應機施教，在弟子是隨解成行，所以佛學的實踐與義解，是相依而不是相離的。如出家人，受了戒，就在僧團中。一方面依師而住，在五年內，不得一晚離依止師而自主行動；一方面依師有學，一切律儀，威儀——衣食行住等一切，都依律制而實習。但這決不是偏重戒學，在律儀的生活中，除出外乞食而外，不是去聽聞佛及弟子們的說法，便是水邊林下，「精勤禪思」；「初夜後夜，精勤佛道」——修習定慧。這種「解行相應」，「三學相資」的佛學，實是最理想的佛學模範！釋尊制立的清淨僧團，以戒學為本而「三學相資」，所以傳說的：「五夏以前，專精戒律；五夏以後，方許聽教參禪」，可說是事出有因，而不免誤解了！

　　釋尊晚年，弟子間由於根性不同，已經是「十大弟子各有一能」；不但是各有一能，而且是志同道合，各成一團，如說：「多聞者與多聞者俱，持律者與持律者俱」等。特別是結集三藏以後，佛教界就有經師，律師，論師，禪師或瑜伽師；後一些，還有（從經師演化而來的）通俗布教的譬喻師（神秘的咒師，更遲些）。對於三藏或三學，有了偏重的傾向。雖說偏重，也只是看得特別重要些。在印度的正法五百年中，小乘佛教盛行時代，始終是依律而住，三學與三藏，也保持密切聯繫。就是到了像法五百年，大乘佛教隆盛的時代，如龍樹、提婆、無著、世親等，也還是依律而在，大小並重的。這要到密宗大興，這才將依律而住的清淨僧團破壞了！

　　從自己的修學來說，三藏與三學並重。但由於宏傳佛學，經師、律師、論師、禪師、譬喻師，都是分類的專學，也可說是分科的專宏。正法五百年的佛教界，如下：

頁5

　　經師、律師、論師，是從佛的教授教誡中，精研深究，而精確了解佛說的真意。但三者的研求方法，各不相同，如說：「修多羅次第所顯，毘奈耶因緣所顯，阿毘達磨性相所顯」。

　　對於經——修多羅，最主要是了解經的文義次第，因為不了解一經的組織科段，是不能明了全經的脈絡，不能把握一經的關要。不是斷章取義，望文生義，就是散而無歸。這不但不能通經，反而會障蔽經義。所以佛說契經的意義，要從文義次第中去顯發出來。如無著以七句義十八住解說『金剛經』；世親以十六種相解說『寶積經』；彌勒以八段七十義解說『大般若經』；清涼以信解行證科分『華嚴經』等：都是從次第中綸貫全經，顯發全經的意趣。

　　毘奈耶——律的研求，是「因緣所顯」，是要從制戒的因緣中去顯發佛意。戒律，狹義是戒經，廣義是一切律制。這些，佛為什麼制？為什麼制了又開？開了又制？如不把制戒以及制訂僧團法規的原意弄明白，就不能判別是犯是不犯，犯輕或犯重；也不能隨時地環境的不同，而應付種種新起的事例。所以，律師不僅是嚴持律義，而是要善識開遮持犯，善識時地因緣，能判定犯與不犯，也能如法的為人出罪。我國的律學久衰，僧眾不能依律而住，這才學會口呼「一起向上排班」，也就以律師見稱了！

　　阿毘達磨——論，不重次第，不重因緣，而著重於「不違性相」。如來的隨機說法，是富有適應的，不一定都是「盡理之談」。所以要從如來應機的不同散說中，總集而加以研求，探求性相——事理的實義，使成為有理有則——的法義。這是被一般看作甚深哲理的部分，其實也抉擇佛說的了義與不了義，而作為思修的觀境。如天臺宗的二重事理三千，賢首家的十玄門等，都可說是論義。起初，阿毘達磨、中觀、瑜伽，我國的天臺、賢首宗學，都是從觀（修持）出教的；等到集成論而為後人承學時，就流為偏於義解的理論了。

　　依上面的解說看來，經師、律師、論師，或「三藏法師」，是何等重要？不是這些專門探求三藏深義的大德，展轉傳授，佛法早就晦

頁6

昧而被人遺忘，或變成盲修瞎煉的神教了。當然，大通家——三藏法師是最為理想的，但事實上，自修（維持）雖然該「三學相資」，而三藏的全盤深入探求，談何容易！真能深入一門，或經、或律、或論，也就能續佛慧命，為後學作依止了！

　　授教定慧的禪師，也稱瑜伽師。在我國的佛教史上，如安世高、佛陀跋陀羅、佛陀、達磨都是。禪師特重於定慧的修習，憑著傳承來的，自己經驗來的來教化，所以每有三藏所不曾詳說的。由於師資接受，下手功夫的多少不同，引起禪觀的分成別派。小大空有顯密的分化，大抵與此有關。舉譬喻說：三藏的深究，如純理論科學，也如儒家的漢學；禪師的傳授定慧，如應用科學及技工，也如儒學的理學。理學與實踐的互成，才是完滿的佛學。否則，脫離了理論的持行，與缺乏實行的空論，都容易走上偏失的歧途。

　　至於通俗教化的譬喻師，在向民間推行佛陀的教化時，功績比三藏法師及禪師更大。但通俗教化，不宜脫離三藏的研求與定慧的實習。如古代的大譬喻師，都是兼通三藏與有著修持的。假使不重三藏的修學，定慧的實習，通俗教化，容易使佛法庸俗化。如我國古代的通俗教化，從變文而演變到寶卷，就是一例。總之，三藏的深究，定慧的傳授，是少數的，但是佛教的中堅，佛教生命的根源。從此流出的廣大教化，時時承受三藏（義學）禪觀的策導，才能發為正確的通俗教化的佛學。

　　佛學的修學傳習，到了大乘佛教時，義學的分科修學，與初五百年略有出入。我們時常憧憬印度那爛陀寺的佛學，那寺成為印度佛教中心的時代，佛學的修學次第與類別，在唐義淨三藏的著作中，有著明白的敘述。如『南海寄歸傳』說：「學法次第先事聲明。……必先通文字，而後方能了義」。然後，「致想因明，虔誠俱舍。然後函丈傳經（指大乘法），多在那寺，或伐臘毘」。義淨在『求法高僧傳』中，說到玄照的修學次第，是：「沈情俱舍，清想律儀。後之那寺，就勝光學中百，寶師子受瑜伽」。智弘的修學次第是：「既解俱舍，

頁7

後善因明。至於那寺，則披覽大乘」。法朗的修學次第是：「習因明之秘冊，聆俱舍之幽宗。既而虔誠五篇（律）」。這可見，當時的修學佛法，首先是通文字。其次是佛教的論理學——因明，代表三藏——法毘奈耶的俱舍與律義。然後修學大乘，即是中觀與瑜伽（唯識）。大乘佛教時代，不重經而重論，因為契經都是適應一類眾生，闡明某部分的法義，而論才是究盡性相的實義。這種重論的學風，到超岩寺為印度佛教中心的時代，也還是如此。如傳入西藏的佛學，主要的稱五大部，就是『因明』，『戒律』，『俱舍』，『中觀』，『現觀莊嚴論』。這與義淨時代傳學的佛學，可說大體一致。只是以傳說為彌勒所造的『現觀莊嚴論』，代替傳說為彌勒所造的『瑜伽論』而已！印度大乘佛教時代的佛學，分科與修學次第，是這樣的，這應該可以作為今日中國佛學研求的參考！

　　太虛大師為我們近代的大師，他倡議的佛學院，晚年修正為：一、律儀院，二、教理院，三、參學處（定慧實習）。教理院的修學，主張從五乘共法，到三乘共法，再進學大乘不共法。大乘法中，分為三系，也就是在『中觀』與『瑜伽』外，增入中國特別發揚的法界圓覺學——臺、賢等義學。這一修學次第，戒定慧三學，理解與實踐，都圓滿無缺，與印度傳統的佛學修習法也相近。如中國佛教而能開展出這樣理想的佛學院，這是足以媲美那爛陀的。只是在近代的中國佛教環境中，還不易實現而已。

頁8

Cultivating the Study of Buddhism

Master Yin-shun

When we talk about the study of Buddhism two levels of meaning should be taken into consideration. One is the cultivation of buddhadharma or the practice of the Buddha's law. 'Saakyamuni taught us that the cultivation of the study of Buddhism encompasses the three learnings -“the higher learning of morality”, “the higher learning of meditation”, and “the higher learning of wisdom”. The monk's vows of the Hearer Vehicle are referred to as “the points a monk has to train himself in” while the six perfections and four means of attraction of the Universal Vehicle are called “the points a bodhisattva must familiarize himself with”. During the course of mastering the three learnings and the six perfections, one is labelled a “learner”; having attained liberation from samsaara or perfect awakening by completing the course, one's title becomes “non-learner”. The essence of buddhadharma lies in practice and realization, and thus the study of buddhadharma amounts to putting the buddha's law into practice. But in order to practice the study of Buddhism, one must have an understanding of the meaning of Buddhist learning or an explanation of its theory. The guidance 'Saakyamuni offered his students is called “advice” or “instructions”. From the viewpoint of content, these teachings are referred to as “law (dharma) and vinaya (discipline)”. They were later compiled into the Discourses and the Discipline. Regarding the discrimination of the finer points of dharma and vinaya, 'Saakyamuni and his great disciples engaged very early on in discussion which was known as “abhidharma” and “abhivinaya” respectively. Especially discernment regarding the meaning of dharma became highly developed by the disciples until it finally was given independent status as the Treatises. These

頁9

form together with the Discourses and the Discipline the so-called three baskets which are, as edited language and text, the collection of all the teachings 'Saakyamuni gave during his lifetime. Their contents cover the three learnings (and the six perfections) wherefore the masters of old said that in terms of emphasis the Discourses elucidate the learning of samaadhi, the Discipline that of morality, and the Treatises that of wisdom. From the viewpoint of practice, morality, meditative absorption, and wisdom are like the three legs of a tripod none of which must be missing. Likewise, from the viewpoint of the understanding of the meaning, neither the Discourses nor the Discipline or the Treatises can be one-sidedly discarded. Only in this way is the study of Buddhism complete, a middle way in learning to become a Buddha.

There is a difference in depth between the study of Buddhism which consists in practice and realization and that which deals with understanding of the meaning since in the course of studying and cultivating, the stages of the wisdoms resulting from listening and pondering respectively belong mainly to the study of the understanding of Buddhism while the stages of the wisdoms resulting from pondering and meditating primarily have to do with the study of the cultivation and realization of Buddhism. One might well say that the study of the doctrines of Buddhism is for the beginner and the study of the actual realization of Buddhism for one experienced in practice. The La^nkaavataara Suutra refers to them as the penetrations of the spoken teaching and of the principle. From the point of view of the complete study of Buddhism, this is, however, not only a matter of a sequence in time, but also one of mutual dependence. For example, one enters practice and realization through the spoken teaching, and one's own teaching flows from practice and realization. The study of Buddhism cannot be separated from these two. Thus it is said: “The right law of the Buddha has two aspects, i.e. its es-

頁10

sence is the teaching and realization. One who practices only by sticking to the spoken word is bound to remain in the world.”

During his lifetime, 'Saakyamuni gave advice in accordance with the conditions of sentient beings and his disciples put into practice whatever they had understood. This means the practical realization and the theoretical understanding of the study of Buddhism went hand in hand and were not divorced from each other. Monks, for example, remained in the monastic community after taking the vows. On one hand, they stayed following their master. For five years, they were not allowed to leave their spiritual guide and do something on their own even for one night. On the other hand, they studied all the monastic vows and rules of deportment following their master, and trained to do everything -wearing the robes, eating, walking, standing etc.- in accordance with the regulations of the discipline. This, however, does in no way imply one-sided emphasis on the learning of ethics. Leading a life of proper conduct, they left the monastery compound besides the regular alms round to beg for food only to listen to teachings given by the Buddha and his great disciples or “to practice vigorous meditation” on the bank of a river or in the forest, “spending the first and last parts of the night in the serious practice of the Buddha's path”, i.e. they cultivated meditation and wisdom. Such a study of Buddhism in which understanding and practice are unified and the three learnings enrich each other, really represents the most ideal model of studying Buddhism. The pure monastic community established by 'Saakyamuni took the learning of ethics as its foundation but had the three learnings support each other. Thus we can understand that the traditional saying “the first five years in the community one exclusively concentrates on the monastic rules, only after the fifth year is one allowed to listen to teachings and get instruction in meditation”, though not completely groundless, is tainted by misconception.

頁11

When 'Saakyamuni reached old age, all of his ten major disciples had, thanks to their individual dispositions and potential, already developed specific abilities. Not only this, each of them had gathered similarly inclined disciples around himself forming a congregation. Thus it was said that “the learned ones stayed together with the learned ones, those keeping the rules strictly with those keeping the rules strictly” and so on. Especially after the compilation of the three baskets, one could find masters of the Discourses, masters of the Discipline, masters of the Treatises, and masters of meditative absorption or of yoga within the community. Somewhat later masters of parables who had branched off from the masters of the Discourses and specialized in popular preaching appeared (and, even later, the mystical masters of magical spells). In terms of the three baskets or three learnings, these teachers showed a tendency to specialize, which means however only that they placed somewhat more emphasis on certain aspects. During the five hundred years of the proper law in India when the Smaller Vehicle was flourishing, life strictly in accordance with the discipline was the norm, and the three baskets and three learnings were closely connected. Even during the five hundred years of the semblance law when the Universal Vehicle reached its pinnacle with Naagaarjuna, Deva, Asa^nga, Vasubandhu etc., the sangha still lived in observance of the discipline with equal emphasis on the mahaayaana and the hiinayana. It was only when tantric Buddhism reached its height that the pure monastic community which abided by the discipline was finally destroyed.

In terms of the cultivation and practice of an individual, the three baskets and the three learnings were of equal importance but for the sake of spreading the study of Buddhism, the masters of the Discourses, of the Discipline, of the Treatises, of meditative absorption, and of parables became specialists in their respective fields. We can call this specialised propaga-

頁12

tion. The Buddhist community of the five hundred years of the proper law looked like that:

I. teaching others: preaching according to specialisation (while abiding in the discipline):

　A. doing special research into the meaning of the law
　　1. the masters of the Discourses
　　2. the masters of the Discipline
　　3. the masters of the Treatises
　B. giving special instructions in the practice of meditative absorption and wisdom - the masters of meditative absorption
　C. teaching in a popular way - the masters of parable
II. practising oneself: the three learnings supporting each other

The masters of the Discourses, the Discipline, and the Treatises studied the advice and instructions given by the Buddha in depth and detail and gained a correct understanding of the real meaning of the Buddha's words. However, they differed in their methods of research wherefore it was said that “the suutras are made clear through their progressive stages, the vinaya through the incidents, and the abhidharma through essence and appearance.”

Regarding the Discourses (or suutras), the most important thing is to understand the progressive stages of textual meaning because, in case you do not comprehend the structure and arrangement of a discourse, the train of thought of the whole text will escape you, and you will be unable to get hold of the important points of the complete scripture. You will either misquote out of context and offer unfounded interpretations, or merely understand bits and pieces lacking the view of the whole. In this way it is not only impossible to penetrate the discourse, one will in addition obfuscate the purport to the text. Therefore the Buddha said the meaning of discourses had to

頁13

be made clear through the progressive stages of textual meaning. Asa^nga, for example, explained the Diamond Suutra by way of the meaning of seven sentences and eighteen stages, Vasubandhu expounded the Ratnakuta Suutra through sixteen aspects, Maitreya employed seventy topics in eight sections to elucidate the Praj~naapaaramitaa Suutra, and Ch'ing-liang divided the Avatamsaka Suutra under the headings “trust”, “understanding”, “practice”, and “realization”. They all integrated the whole text through its progressive stages and thus made its meaning obvious.

The study of the vinaya or Discipline consists in elucidation by means of instances, i.e. in making the Buddha's intent clear through the incidents which lead to the introduction of rules. In its narrow sense, “monastic rules” refer to the text containing the vows; in its broader sense it encompasses all regulations by means of discipline. Why did the Buddha introduce the rules? And why did he allow for exceptions when he introduced rules in the first place and set further rules despite exceptions? If one cannot win clarity about the purpose behind the introduction of the rules and the establishment of a set of prescriptions for the monastic community, then one is in no position to judge what constitutes a transgression and what not, what a-mounts to a grave offence and what is a minor. Neither is one in a position to deal with new cases which happen in different historical or geographic settings. Thus a master of the Discipline is not only strictly keeping to the rules and regulations of deportment, but is also well versed in the definitions of exception and prohibition, maintenance and break. He must be familiar with the temporal and special setting of cases so that he is able to judge whether anything falls under transgression, and is also knowledgeable about how to help others expiate offences in accordance with the law. The study of the Discipline has been declining in China for a long time wherefore the sangha is unable to live together in accordance with the vows. Under these

頁14

circumstances, those who manage to call everybody to queue up in front of the altar are called “masters of the Discipline”!

The abhidharma or Treatises emphasize neither progressive stages nor instances but stress compliance with the essence and the appearances. The Tathaagata taught in accordance with given situations which is a highly adaptable method but does not necessarily produce thoroughly philosophical speech. Thus there was the need to gather the scattered teachings given in compliance with all kinds of situations, to pursue in-depth research and find out the real meaning of the essence and the appearances, or of the principle and phenomena, so that it could be transformed into a well-structured system of the meaning of the law. This part is generally regarded as profoundly philosophical. Actually, it also involves the differentiation between what is ultimate and what is provisional in the Buddha's teachings so that it can become the object of analytical meditation. The twofold triple thousand world of phenomena and principle T'ien-t'ai is talking about or the ten profound doors of the Hua-yen tradition are all examples of this meaning of the Treatises. In the beginning, the abhidharma, the Madhyamaka, the Yogaacaara, and the teachings of T'ien-t'ai and Hua-yen in China, all originated from the practice of meditation. However, after they were compiled into treatises and became accepted by later scholars, they degenerated into the mere theoretical understanding of philosophical meaning.

Judging from the explanation just given, the masters of the Discourses, the Discipline, the Treatises or “masters of all the three baskets together” were extremely important. If it had not been for these virtuous ones who studied the profound meaning of the three baskets in detail and then handed it down generation after generation, buddhadharma would have been lost and forgotten long ago, or would have turned into a theological teaching of blind practice. Of course, those who penetrate the whole, i.e. the masters of the

頁15

three baskets, are the ideal case but in reality, though the three learnings should support each other in one's personal practice, to probe deeply into the three baskets in their completeness is much easier said than done. If someone is able to really address one aspect in depth, be it the Discourses, the Discipline or the Treatises, he will be able to prolong the life of Buddhist wisdom and is in a position to be relied upon by future generations.

The meditation masters who taught the wisdom of stable absorption were also called yogis. Examples are, in Chinese Buddhist history, An Shih-kao, Buddhabhadra, and Bodhidharma. They put special emphasis on the cultivation of the wisdom arising from meditative absorption and gave instructions in what they had received through their lineage or through personal experience. Thus there was always something which had not been explained in detail in the three baskets. Due to the personal way of learning from a master, there were differences in the methods they used which in turn led to the appearance of separate schools of meditation. The split into the Smaller and Universal Vehicles, into proponents of emptiness and of existence, into exoteric and exoteric is probably related to this. To give an example: the in-depth study of the three baskets is like pure theoretical science or like Han Dynasty Confucianism, while the meditation masters' teaching of the wisdom arising from meditative absorption resembles applied science and technology or Neo-Confucianism. Only if theory and practice accomplish each other, the study of Buddhism is perfect. Otherwise cultivation removed from theory or empty talk which lacks practical application easily lead to extreme aberration.

As to the masters of parable who educated in an easily accessible way, they got much better results than the masters of the three baskets or those of meditation when it came to propagate the Buddha's teaching among the general public. However, popular teaching should not become divorced

頁16

from research and study of the three baskets and the practice of the wisdom of meditative absorption. All the great masters of parable of yore had at the same time a thorough grasp of the three baskets and experience in practical cultivation. If they did not emphasize the practical study of meditation and the actual realization of the wisdom resulting from meditative stabilisation, popular teaching easily led to the vulgarisation of the buddhadharma. That “transformation texts” developed into “precious scrolls” is one example related to popular preaching in ancient China. To sum it up, those who studied the three baskets in-depth or transmitted the wisdom resulting from meditative stabilisation, though a minority, were the pillars of the Buddha's teaching and the very root of living Buddhism. The vast teachings flowing from them received constant guidance from the three baskets (the study of the meaning) and meditative contemplation thus being able to develop into a correct popular presentation of Buddhist study.

When the practice and transmission of the study of Buddhism reached the stage of the Universal Vehicle, the divisions made in the course of the study of meaning were slightly different from those in the first five hundred years. We often think with longing about the Buddhist studies at Naalandaa Monastery when it was the centre of Indian Buddhism. Tripitaka Master Yi-ching of the T'ang Dynasty recorded in his works in detail which courses where taken there in the study of Buddhism and in which sequence. The Nan-hai chi-kuei chuan for example says: “As to the sequence of studying dharma, the primary subject is logic.... One must first have a firm grasp of letters before one can understand the definite meaning.” And then: “When one has applied one's mind to logic, one treats the Abhidharmako'sa full respect. After that, the master transmits the suutras (which means the teaching of the Universal Vehicle). Much of this happened in Naalandaa or Valabhii.” In his Ch'iu-fa kao-seng chuan, Yi-ching mentions the way

頁17

Hsüan-chao studied: “He immersed himself in the Abhidharmako'sa and devoted himself with pure mind to the rules of deportment. Later he came to Naalandaa where he studied with Jinaprabha the Maadhyamika and 'Sata, and with Ratnasi.mha the Yogaacaaryabhuumi.” The sequence of Chih-hun's study was: “After he understood the Abhidharmako'sa, he became well versed in logic. When he arrived in Naalandaa, he read Mahaayaana texts.” And in the case of Fa-lang: “He trained in the hidden works of logic and listened to the explanation of the profound essence of the Abhidharmako'sa. After that he devoted himself to the five parts (of the Discipline).” It is obvious that the first step in the training and study of buddhadharma at that time was the understanding of writing. This was followed by Buddhist logic (hetuvidyaa) and the representatives of the three baskets -Abhidharmako'sa for the law and the rules of deportment for the discipline. This was followed by the study of the Universal Vehicle, which means the Middle View and the Yogaacaara (Consciousness Only). In the time of the Mahaayaana, the treatises were emphasized, not the Discourses because the latter only fit one type of sentient beings, only explain one part of the meaning of dharma while the former treat the real meaning of essence and appearances in entirety. This emphasis on treatises was still in vogue when Vikrama'silaa became the centre of Indian Buddhism. The Buddhism which was transmitted to Tibet, for example, centres around the “five topics” of logic, monastic regulations, Abhidharmako'sa, Middle View, and Abhisamayaala^nkaara which is more or less the same as in the times described by Yi-ching. The only difference was that the Abhisamayaala^nkaara ascribed to Maitreya was substituted for the Yogaacaaryabhuumi which according to tradition was also Maitreya's work. Thus were the contents of and steps in the study of Buddhism during the time of the Universal Vehicle. Chinese Buddhism today might well get some inspiration therefrom.

頁18

Ven. T'ai-hsü was an outstanding monk in modern China. In his later days, he revised the concept of Buddhist Colleges he had proposed and suggested instead first the college for Monastic Rules, second the college for Doctrines, and third the Place for Engaging in Practice (i.e. the cultivation of the wisdom arising from meditation). For the study of doctrines, he envisioned a curriculum covering the dharma common to all five vehicles up to the dharma common to the three vehicles, and finally the uncommon dharma of the Universal Vehicle. Within the Universal Vehicle, he distinguished three systems -besides the Madhyamaka and the Cittamatra he introduced a system which became especially developed in China, the Dharmadhaatu Teaching of Perfect Awakening which includes the teachings of the T'ien-t'ai and Hua-yen Schools, among others. These courses of gradual study cover everything in a holistic manner: the three learnings of ethics, meditation, and wisdom, theoretical understanding and practical application. They are moreover quite similar to the traditional Indian method of engaging in the study of Buddhism. If ideal colleges like that could be developed within Chinese Buddhism, they could well compete with Naalandaa. However, this is not at all so easy within the context of modern Chinese Buddhism.