来搭大乘的船吧(2)
结集真相的一些讨论
(2) 问: 据学者某人所言，他认为说比较多大乘法名相的增一阿含、杂阿含都是第二次七
百结集时才出现
答：某人引用的多不是原始资料，而是后人加工的资料，他的研究偏向主观、自己的直觉
与臆测居多，像之前已经举例般泥洹经、摩诃僧祇律、毘尼母经等都已提过四阿含被完整
结集，某人这么说是有他的理由，我们分两部份说，一是从某人的心态来说，二是就史实
来说，
从某人的心态来看，就像他只认同性空唯名与部分的般若经典，而不认同真常唯心与唯识
经典一样，充满主观臆测的态度，但又不敢明讲，所以处处用暗示的手段，来暗示跟他断
灭论不合的法教，都是后世演化而来，这样就可以达到他割裂佛法整体性的一个目的，事
实上他对般若系经典的解释也完全是断灭论的那套解释；回到四阿含，杂阿含与增一阿含
为何要被某人说成是第二次七百结集时才出现?因为里面太多次提到大乘法义的名相了，
这是他无法忍受的，比如说杂阿含经卷20第558经提到“无相心三昧”，另外演说五阴与
真实我本识之间关系的“非我、不异我、不相在”或“是我、异我、相在”共有270处之
多，更别说央掘摩罗经大篇幅的明说如来藏；如果看增一阿含经，那某人就更要说它是后
期演化的了，因为增一阿含部一直提到三乘佛法、三乘部众、六度波罗蜜、十度波罗蜜、
诸地菩萨、一切种智、涅槃真实、常住不变等大乘法名相，他当然要说这是后世演化变造
出来。
再从结集的史实来看，声闻众由声闻僧迦叶带领的五百结集，由于心态傲慢与智慧狭劣两
个原因，将大乘法义经典排除在外，只剩大乘名相，这当然引起在家菩萨与少数出家菩萨
的不满，所以才有富楼那、文殊、弥勒等“我等亦欲结集”的强烈要求，让阿难主持窟外
的万人结集，这实在不是因为菩萨要与声闻人争，而是不忍见大乘法义就此湮没无闻，而
历史上所谓佛灭百年之后的七百结集，纯粹是声闻众对于戒律看法不同，只是专门结集十
事非法的声闻戒律，而没有结集法藏。那时 大迦叶及阿难尊者，以及 弥勒、文殊菩萨等
人，都已经不在人世了，可见大乘经典或杂阿含、增一阿含迟到“第三次或其后才结集”
，更不可能是事实。
颂曰:
声闻众五百结集， 大乘法义被排除。 菩萨在外不忍心， 强烈要求结集救。
富楼那、文殊、弥勒， 纷纷要求结集开。 阿难主持万人会， 大乘经典得以传。
某人妄说演化论， 主观臆测荒唐语。 心态主观又偏见， 割裂佛法整体性。
阿含处处隐覆说，五阴本识非一异， 央掘摩罗更明说， 真实不虚如来藏。
增一阿含提大乘， 証实佛法有三乘、六度十度波罗蜜。 某人却言是变造。
七百结集非法藏， 只是声闻戒律争。 迦叶阿难已逝去， 杂阿含、增一阿含早收集。
某人主观臆测多， 不要信以为真实。 实际史料揭真相， 不被偏见所迷惑。
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.