---
title: "楞嚴經四依解 · 二决定說時"
description: "楞嚴經四依解是明代高僧觀衡法師對佛教重要經典大佛頂首楞嚴經的註釋。該書撰於明末佛教復興時期，作者秉承天台宗教觀雙修傳統，以四依止為原則闡釋經義。全書系統解說楞嚴經的心性論、修行次第與禪觀方法，重點闡發常住真心性淨明體等核心思想。此解被視為楞嚴學研究的重要文獻，在天台宗典籍中具有權威地位，對後世理解楞嚴經的實修體系產生深遠影響。"
url: "https://rushiwowen.co/en/r/cmglzsucb03gxl204sbph5xa4"
---

二决定說時者謂如來所說一代教法分為五時華嚴屬第一時阿含屬第二時方等屬第三時般若屬第四時法華湼槃屬第五時其餘教法按其義各歸屬此五時此五時收盡一切教法唯此經歷來教家分屬不定今决定分屬一時以斷後疑葢此經有權乘决定非初時以華嚴會上二乘人如聾若啞故又此經雖有權乘皆發大心此經圓彰法界清淨實相屬最上乘决定非第二時二時唯小非大故又此經二乘人皆知作佛自己明言已蒙如來授記方等會上雖屬大乘正彈偏斥小賛大褒圓不許二乘作佛二乘亦自知無成佛分是此經决定非第三時以二乘皆知作佛皆冀佛果故又此經開示常住真心如來藏性清淨本然周徧法界非屬般若空宗又般若屬轉教使二乘轉教菩󷨊發菩提心自謂無分以教㫖機宜考之此經决定非第四時以不唯破相故二乘知成佛故按上四義知此經决定不可分屬已上四時也葢此經為結法華未盡之案法華特示實相之果此經圓示實相之因因果唯一常住真心是知此經與法華是一體一相一性一味一宗一案但稍次先後耳是知此經决定與法華同第五時但在法華後湼槃前也同時之㨿有四一名字同此經亦名大方廣妙蓮華王二開佛知見同經云得陀羅尼入佛知見又云脩菩󷨊乘入佛知見又云云何世間三有眾生及出世間聲聞緣覺以所知心測度如來無上菩提用世語言入佛知見是知此經開示三如來藏極顯如來圓融無礙之知見此知見有性󳠦脩成二義性󳠦即本覺即三藏一心脩成屬始覺即三觀一智總上二義即妙奢摩他三摩奢那是也三示清淨實相同此經圓會四科七大極示一心清淨本然周徧法界經云汝等聲聞狹劣無知不能通達清淨實相又云亦令當來脩大乘者通達實相又云疑惑銷除心悟實相四所被機同初時唯大無小二時唯小非大三時賛大斥小四時使小教大此經與法華三根普被五性齊收要在䇿發小乘速趨菩提故此經與法華旨同所被機亦同是與法華同第五時之教也又此經决次法華後者葢法華會上二乘初聞如來出定揚德諸有所作常為一事皆驚疑難信皆疑佛為魔是初開權時頓然難信如來以種種因緣譬喻方便開示心方安隱始信作佛至楞嚴會上心皆通達佛慧自知成佛為本分事如孫陀羅難陀圓通󷜞云世尊記我當得菩提是權乘等比已經法華授記自願成佛是知法華為開權先鋒此經為顯實收席也以上五義比知此經决定在法華後不須強生疑端正脉曰確定說時者良由諸師因一二別典所傳事󵊝稍不投合遂於此經異說紛然判時不定則權實藏教等義悉不可定故今確定說時則諸門皆有攸歸也夫凢時懸曠古地隔遐方者其事跡多不可以考定如此方上古今世殊邦訛傳交互不可考㨿之事何限况西天佛世時與地皆懸隔之甚而欲於參差不備之梵文以求考㨿之真不亦難哉今㨿經中明文了義阿難以二乘求佛道滿慈以羅漢歇即菩提十二類生與六十聖位敵體相番初無五性分半之拘限而顧有疑其在法華前以至下淪於方等般若者則是法華以前小乘已無化城之滯異生皆許成佛及至說法華時復有何權可開何實可顯哉况顯言耶輸陀羅已蒙授記若非法華在前與之授記復是何時與之授記耶又出現惟為知見惟佛究盡實相法華已前聲聞未蒙與說也斯經實相三出知見四稱若在法華前則是前此已向聲聞屢說法華何謂聞所未聞乎凢此文義炳著是可見在法華之後無疑矣而智圓諸師判在法華湼槃之間當必見同於此安可以一匿王父子區區事跡而妄非之哉古今諸師多因經初匿王現在而經尾瑠璃已墮斯經一期何太時長宜其眾疑不决故分屬不定今為决之古德已言斯經非一會前後異時結集收之類為一聚自足斷疑况法華湼槃中間八年之久何事不變且匿王埀老豈當佛之早年須在法華之後更後七八年間瑠璃逆事何不可畢但判經兩會不曾的指其處今疑當在結經之後阿難請談七趨如來自說五魔之處全似後會別說以前大定三名連答經之五號結終文勢連環豈可中斷至於七趨五魔自是經外別義若齊此另為一會文固判然可見而匿王父子之疑亦渙然氷釋矣。

> Now I will explain when this sutra was spoken. The Buddha's teachings throughout his lifetime are traditionally divided into five periods: the Avatamsaka (Flower Adornment) is the first, the Agamas the second, the Vaipulya (Expanded) teachings the third, the Prajna (Wisdom) the fourth, and the Lotus and Nirvana sutras the fifth. All other teachings can be classified into these five periods according to their meaning. These five periods encompass all the Buddha's teachings. However, past teachers have disagreed on how to classify this particular sutra. Now I will definitively assign it to one period to put an end to all doubt. This sutra contains teachings for those of lesser capacity, so it is definitely not from the first period—because at the Avatamsaka assembly, the two-vehicle practitioners (those seeking only personal liberation) were like the deaf and the dumb, unable to comprehend the teaching. Although this sutra also includes lesser capacities, they all aspire to great enlightenment. This sutra fully reveals the pure reality of the Dharma Realm and belongs to the supreme vehicle, so it is definitely not from the second period—because that period was exclusively for lesser practitioners, not the great vehicle. In this sutra, practitioners of the two vehicles all know they can become Buddhas, and they state clearly that they have already received the Buddha's prediction of their future enlightenment. At the Vaipulya assembly, although the great vehicle was taught, the teachings primarily criticized the one-sided lesser vehicle and praised the great vehicle. Practitioners of the two vehicles were not yet allowed to become Buddhas, and they themselves knew they had no share in Buddhahood. Therefore, this sutra is definitely not from the third period—because here the two-vehicle practitioners all know they can become Buddhas and all aspire to that fruit. Furthermore, this sutra reveals the everlasting true mind, the Treasury of the Thus-Come One (Tathagatagarbha), which is originally pure and pervades the entire Dharma Realm. This does not belong to the Madhyamaka (Empty) school of the Prajna period. Moreover, the Prajna period was a transitional teaching where the two-vehicle practitioners were being guided to teach the Bodhisattva path; they were encouraged to arouse the aspiration for enlightenment but felt they had no share in it themselves. If we examine the intent of the teaching and the capacity of the listeners, this sutra is definitely not from the fourth period—because it does not merely emphasize emptiness, and the two-vehicle practitioners know they can become Buddhas. Based on these four reasons, we know this sutra cannot be assigned to any of the first four periods. This sutra completes what the Lotus Sutra left unfinished. The Lotus Sutra specifically reveals the fruit of ultimate reality, while this sutra fully reveals the cause of ultimate reality. Cause and fruit are one and the same—the everlasting true mind. Thus we know this sutra and the Lotus Sutra share the same essence, same nature, same flavor, same principle, same teaching, and same purpose; they differ only slightly in sequence. Therefore, this sutra definitely belongs to the same fifth period as the Lotus Sutra, spoken after the Lotus but before the Nirvana Sutra. There are four pieces of evidence supporting this simultaneous classification: First, they share the same name. This sutra is also called the "Great Expanded King of the Wonderful Lotus Flower." Second, they both open the Buddha's knowledge and vision. The sutra says, "Having attained the dhāraṇī, one enters the Buddha's knowledge and vision." It also says, "Those who cultivate the Bodhisattva vehicle enter the Buddha's knowledge and vision." And again: "How can sentient beings in the three realms and the voice-hearers and condition-enlightened ones of the world attempt to fathom the unsurpassed bodhi of the Thus-Come One with their limited minds, or use worldly language to enter the Buddha's knowledge and vision?" Thus we know that this sutra reveals the three Treasuries of the Thus-Come One, fully exhibiting the perfect, unobstructed knowledge and vision of the Buddha. This knowledge and vision has two aspects: inherent nature and cultivated accomplishment. The inherent nature is fundamental awakening—the one mind of the three Treasuries. The cultivated accomplishment belongs to initial awakening—the three contemplations and one wisdom. Together these two aspects constitute the wonderful shamatha, samapatti, and dhyana. Third, they both reveal the pure ultimate reality. This sutra fully explains the four aggregates (skandhas), five components, and six elements (or the twenty-five categories of existence), extremely revealing the one mind as originally pure and pervading the entire Dharma Realm. The sutra says, "You voice-hearers are narrow and inferior in understanding; you cannot penetrate the pure ultimate reality." It also says, "I will also cause those who cultivate the great vehicle in the future to penetrate ultimate reality." And again: "Doubt and confusion will be eliminated, and the mind will awaken to ultimate reality." Fourth, they both have the same scope of recipients. The first period was exclusively for the great vehicle with no lesser vehicle. The second period was exclusively for the lesser vehicle with no greater vehicle. The third period praised the greater vehicle and criticized the lesser. The fourth period guided the lesser vehicle to teach the greater vehicle. But this sutra and the Lotus Sutra universally cover all three capacities and include all five types of beings. The key aim is to spur the lesser vehicle practitioners to quickly advance toward bodhi. Thus this sutra and the Lotus Sutra have the same purpose and the same scope of recipients. This confirms it is a teaching from the same fifth period as the Lotus Sutra. Moreover, this sutra definitely comes after the Lotus Sutra because at the Lotus assembly, the two-vehicle practitioners, upon first hearing the Buddha emerge from samadhi and proclaim that all his deeds were for one single purpose, were all astonished, doubtful, and found it hard to believe. Some even suspected the Buddha was a demon. At that initial stage of opening up the provisional teachings, they found it suddenly hard to accept. Only through the Buddha's various causes, conditions, analogies, and skillful means were their minds finally settled, and they began to believe they could attain Buddhahood. By the time of the Shurangama assembly, their minds had fully penetrated the Buddha's wisdom, and they knew that becoming a Buddha was their own fundamental task. As Sundarananda said in his account of perfect penetration, "The World-Honored One predicted that I would attain bodhi." These lesser-vehicle practitioners had already received predictions in the Lotus Sutra and voluntarily aspired to Buddhahood. So we know the Lotus Sutra was the vanguard for opening up the provisional, while this sutra concludes the revelation of the true. Based on these five points, we can confidently conclude that this sutra was spoken after the Lotus Sutra. There is no need to force any doubt. The Correct Pulse of the Tradition says: The reason for definitively establishing the time period is that various masters, because of minor discrepancies in individual texts, have created endless confusion about this sutra, proposing different classifications. If the time period is uncertain, then all other classifications—provisional versus true, and the various classifications of teachings—become indeterminate. Thus by definitively establishing the time period, all other categories find their proper place. Consider that matters distant in time and separated by vast geography are difficult to verify. How much more so in this case, separated from the Buddha's lifetime in India by both time and distance? To expect to establish certain historical facts from incomplete Sanskrit texts is extremely difficult. However, based on the clear statements within this sutra itself—Ananda, a two-vehicle practitioner, seeking the Buddha's path; Purna, an arhat, realizing that cessation is bodhi; the twelve classes of beings and the sixty stages of sainthood standing in direct correspondence with complete awakening, with no limitation of the five natures or partial attainment—how could anyone still doubt that this sutra preceded the Lotus and placed it among the Vaipulya or Prajna teachings? If this sutra had come before the Lotus, then before the Lotus was spoken, lesser-vehicle practitioners would already have been free from the obstacle of the phantom city, and ordinary beings would already have been permitted to attain Buddhahood. In that case, when the Lotus was finally spoken, what provisional teaching would there have been to open up, and what real teaching to reveal? Moreover, the sutra clearly states that Yasodhara had already received the prediction. If the Lotus had not come first and given her that prediction, when else could it have been given? Furthermore, the Buddha's appearance in the world is solely for the sake of the knowledge and vision, and only the Buddha fully realizes ultimate reality. Before the Lotus Sutra, voice-hearers had never been told this. But this sutra mentions ultimate reality three times and discusses the knowledge and vision four times. If it had come before the Lotus, then the Buddha would already have spoken the Lotus teaching to the voice-hearers many times—how could they have said they had "never heard this before"? All these textual evidences make it clear beyond doubt that this sutra came after the Lotus Sutra. The masters Zhiyuan and others who classified it between the Lotus and the Nirvana Sutra must have seen this point. How could anyone criticize them based on the trivial incident of King Prasenajit and his son? Many ancient and modern masters, because King Prasenajit appears at the beginning of the sutra and his son Virudhaka's rebellion is mentioned at the end, have wondered: how could such a long time span occur within a single sutra? This is why they could not settle on a classification. Now let me resolve this. Ancient masters have already explained that this sutra was not spoken in a single assembly, but was compiled from multiple occasions at different times into one collection. This alone can resolve the doubt. Moreover, the eight years between the Lotus and Nirvana sutras were full of changes—what could not happen in that time? And King Prasenajit was already elderly; he certainly was not young in the Buddha's early years. It is entirely reasonable that the events with Virudhaka occurred seven or eight years after the Lotus. If we examine where the passages might divide into two assemblies, we can see that the section after Ananda requests an explanation of the seven destinies and the Buddha's discourse on the five demonic hosts appears to be a separate later assembly. The earlier section—the three names of the great samadhi, the five titles of the sutra, and the interconnected flow of the text—forms an unbroken continuum that cannot be split. As for the seven destinies and the five demonic hosts, these are additional topics beyond the main scope. If we recognize this as a separate later assembly, the division becomes clearly visible, and the doubts about King Prasenajit and his son dissolve like ice.