來搭大乘的船吧(2)
結集真相的一些討論
(2) 問: 據學者某人所言，他認為說比較多大乘法名相的增一阿含、雜阿含都是第二次七
百結集時才出現
答：某人引用的多不是原始資料，而是後人加工的資料，他的研究偏向主觀、自己的直覺
與臆測居多，像之前已經舉例般泥洹經、摩訶僧祇律、毘尼母經等都已提過四阿含被完整
結集，某人這麼說是有他的理由，我們分兩部份說，一是從某人的心態來說，二是就史實
來說，
從某人的心態來看，就像他只認同性空唯名與部分的般若經典，而不認同真常唯心與唯識
經典一樣，充滿主觀臆測的態度，但又不敢明講，所以處處用暗示的手段，來暗示跟他斷
滅論不合的法教，都是後世演化而來，這樣就可以達到他割裂佛法整體性的一個目的，事
實上他對般若系經典的解釋也完全是斷滅論的那套解釋；回到四阿含，雜阿含與增一阿含
為何要被某人說成是第二次七百結集時才出現?因為裡面太多次提到大乘法義的名相了，
這是他無法忍受的，比如說雜阿含經卷20第558經提到「無相心三昧」，另外演說五陰與
真實我本識之間關係的「非我、不異我、不相在」或「是我、異我、相在」共有270處之
多，更別說央掘摩羅經大篇幅的明說如來藏；如果看增一阿含經，那某人就更要說它是後
期演化的了，因為增一阿含部一直提到三乘佛法、三乘部眾、六度波羅蜜、十度波羅蜜、
諸地菩薩、一切種智、涅槃真實、常住不變等大乘法名相，他當然要說這是後世演化變造
出來。
再從結集的史實來看，聲聞眾由聲聞僧迦葉帶領的五百結集，由於心態傲慢與智慧狹劣兩
個原因，將大乘法義經典排除在外，只剩大乘名相，這當然引起在家菩薩與少數出家菩薩
的不滿，所以才有富樓那、文殊、彌勒等「我等亦欲結集」的強烈要求，讓阿難主持窟外
的萬人結集，這實在不是因為菩薩要與聲聞人爭，而是不忍見大乘法義就此湮沒無聞，而
歷史上所謂佛滅百年之後的七百結集，純粹是聲聞眾對於戒律看法不同，只是專門結集十
事非法的聲聞戒律，而沒有結集法藏。那時 大迦葉及阿難尊者，以及 彌勒、文殊菩薩等
人，都已經不在人世了，可見大乘經典或雜阿含、增一阿含遲到「第三次或其後才結集」
，更不可能是事實。
頌曰:
聲聞眾五百結集， 大乘法義被排除。 菩薩在外不忍心， 強烈要求結集救。
富樓那、文殊、彌勒， 紛紛要求結集開。 阿難主持萬人會， 大乘經典得以傳。
某人妄說演化論， 主觀臆測荒唐語。 心態主觀又偏見， 割裂佛法整體性。
阿含處處隱覆說，五陰本識非一異， 央掘摩羅更明說， 真實不虛如來藏。
增一阿含提大乘， 証實佛法有三乘、六度十度波羅蜜。 某人卻言是變造。
七百結集非法藏， 只是聲聞戒律爭。 迦葉阿難已逝去， 雜阿含、增一阿含早收集。
某人主觀臆測多， 不要信以為真實。 實際史料揭真相， 不被偏見所迷惑。
Question: According to scholar Someone, he believes that the Mahayana teaching
s of the Abhidharma and miscellaneous Agama Sutras did not appear until the se
cond Seven Hundred Sangha Council.
Answer: Someone's references are not original data but rather processed data b
y later scholars. His research is mostly subjective, based on his intuition an
d speculation. For example, the complete collection of the Four Agama Sutras,
including the Anguttara Nikaya and the Samyutta Nikaya, have been mentioned in
the Nītivattaka Sutta, the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya, and the Vinaya of the Mū
lasarvāstivāda, among others. Someone's claims are therefore questionable. W
e can divide the discussion into two parts: Someone's attitude and the histori
cal facts.
From Someone's attitude, we can see that he only agrees with the Madhyamaka an
d some Praj napāramitā texts and disagrees with the Yogācāra and the Yog
ā
cāra texts. His attitude is subjective and speculative, and he uses insinuati
on to suggest that the teachings that differ from his belief are derived from
later developments. This approach allows him to separate Buddhist teachings fr
om their holistic context. In fact, his interpretation of the Praj napāramit
ā texts is entirely based on the doctrine of nihilism. Returning to the Four
Agama Sutras, why did Someone claim that the miscellaneous Agama Sutras and th
e Anguttara Nikaya appeared only in the second Seven Hundred Sangha Council? B
ecause they contain many references to the Mahayana teachings of names and cha
racteristics, which Someone cannot tolerate. For example, the twentieth scroll
of the miscellaneous Agama Sutras mentions the "samadhi of formlessness." In
addition, there are 270 references to the relationship between the five skandh
as and the true self in the sutras, such as "not self, not different from self
, not dependent on self," or "is self, is different from self, exists in self,
" not to mention the lengthy description of the Tathagata-garbha in the Ugrapa
rip cchā Sūtra. If we look at the Anguttara Nikaya, Someone would have to c
laim that it was a later development because it frequently refers to the Mahay
ana teachings of the Three Vehicles, the disciples of the Three Vehicles, the
six paramitas, the ten paramitas, the various stages of bodhisattva, all kinds
of wisdom, true nirvana, and the unchanging nature.
From a historical perspective, it's clear that the followers of the rāvaka
school, led by the monk Kā yapa, excluded the Mahāyāna sutras due to their
arrogant mentality and limited wisdom. This caused dissatisfaction among the
lay and a few ordained bodhisattvas, such as Vimalakīrti, Manjusrī, and Mai
treya, who strongly demanded that they be included in the collection. This was
not because the bodhisattvas wanted to argue with the rāvakas, but because
they couldn't bear to see the profound teachings of Mahāyāna ignored. The s
o-called "700 assemblies" that occurred 100 years after the Buddha's passing w
ere merely the rāvaka's differing views on precepts, and only gathered to d
iscuss the ten unwholesome actions in the rāvaka precepts, without collecti
ng the Mahāyāna scriptures. By that time, venerables like Mahākā yapa,
nanda, Maitreya, and Manjusrī had already passed away, so it's impossible fo
r the Mahāyāna sutras, such as the Saṃyukta gama or Ekottarika gama, to
have been gathered only in the third or later council.
The verses say:
Five hundred rāvakas gathered, Leaving out Mahayana sutras, Bodhisattvas ou
tside felt dismay, Urged for a gathering to save the way.
Manjushri, Maitreya, and others, All called for a gathering to recover. Ananda
presided over ten thousand, Mahayana sutras spread as a result.
Someone’s theory of evolution, Is subjective, absurd conjecture, Biased minds
et and prejudice, Splitting Buddhism's unity and structure.
Agama sutras contain hidden teachings, Five skandhas and consciousness not one
, Mādhyamaka explains clearly, Tathāgatagarbha is real and not undone.
The Ekottara gama verifies, Three vehicles, six and ten perfections too. Som
eone claims these are forged lies, But evidence disproves his skewed view.
Seven hundred gatherings not for scriptures, Only disputes over monastic disci
pline. Ka yapa and Ananda are long gone, Agamas and Ekottara collected early
on.
Someone's subjectivity and conjecture abound, Don't take his words for truth u
nbound. Actual historical records reveal, Not misled by prejudice to conceal.