法華經義記 3.23

3.23

「爾時世尊告舍利弗，汝已慇懃三請豈得不說」，自此下竟〈授學無學人記品〉有七品半經，明因中本經四段，此下是第三廣說開三顯一斷疑生信。上請中有二種疑：一疑如來所以歎二智，二自疑所得之法。今者如來只答第二疑，第二疑自去不須別答也。又此第三即廣上品初第一略開三顯一、動執生疑段。前又解言，第一第二各開為二，第三第四各開為三，今此歎第三疑中有三重者，即化三根人為三段：第一從「汝已慇懃三請」以下，入第二卷中言「我所有福業，今世若過世，及見佛功德盡迴向佛道」以還，此詺為法說開三顯一，化上根人舍利弗等也。第二從「爾時舍利弗白佛言：世尊！我今無復疑悔親於佛前得受三菩提記」盡〈受記品〉以還四品經，詺為譬說開三顯一，化中根人迦葉、須菩提等四大弟子也。第三從〈化城品〉竟〈授學無學人記品〉以還三品經，詺為宿世因緣說開三顯一同歸之理，化下根人富樓那等也。是則上根人聞法說三一之義，同歸之理便解；中根人再聞三一之義，可悟同歸之理；下根人三過聞說，方解同歸無三差別。但法說中亦有譬說義，譬如優曇華也。亦有宿世因緣說義，即言「我昔曾於二百億佛所常教化汝也」。雖有譬說，根本大意為歎法希有故來不可示詺；雖有宿世因緣說此，乃是述成上根人得悟，說此往古因緣根本大意非正是因緣也。第二譬說中亦有法說義亦有宿世因緣義，故下言「是諸所說教化菩薩故」，此則是法說義。但文句少不足，可以發悟中根之人，從結父子因緣之中昔日波若座席已言示其金銀等，此則是宿世因緣說義，但此意非是正譬中有，時眾已於正譬得悟，如窮子領解中方有此語，非是正宿世因緣說中。宿世因緣說中亦有法說義，即〈化城品〉初明先佛之時神通感動之相，十方諸梵請轉法輪，此則是法說也。又言「譬如五百由旬」此是譬說，雖有此唱，原其根本只為明宿世因緣之義。何以得知？又四大弟子授記品末言「我及汝等宿世因緣，吾今當說汝等善聽」，即復為下根人說往古之時已曾大乘化汝。下又言「我在十六數曾互為汝說，以此本因緣今說法華經」，大意聞此宿世因緣說方得解，故宿世因緣說也。所以有三根人差別解有前後者，置教論理者，何容羅漢斷三界正使盡、得三明六通之人，一向不知同歸之理、無三之別，且自《涅槃經》言：「若人不知一體常住三歸者，尚不得聲聞、緣覺、菩薩，何況當得無上菩提？若不知佛是常住，則四信不成、五根不立。」且自《勝鬘經》言：「三乘初業不愚於法。」又言「聲聞緣覺自知住有餘地，必當得無上菩提。」就理為論，何容三乘聖人執三乘決定言別異、不解同歸耶？若爾，所以有聲聞、緣覺者，此人自有知有佛果可求，只自心志弱未能捨頭目髓腦發曠濟之心，且作聲聞、緣覺自調自度，如此類例皆是實有。而會中舍利弗是上根，富樓那等是下根者，若談其實行，皆行內祕菩薩行、外現是聲聞，所以有此三種信解悟者，皆應同狀外凡淺識之徒，執昔日三乘別教或同歸之義，是故如來作此三種，初始明法說竟，外凡夫中有利根得解，舍利弗示同領解；譬說既竟，外凡夫中有中根者得解，須菩提等仍示同領解；宿世因緣竟，外凡夫中有下根者得悟，富樓那等示同領解。若置理而論教者，具得羅漢亦有此執。又理教合論作三根差別者，但外凡中有兩種人：自有一種人易可迴轉，如《大品》所明輕毛之位；自有一種人實欲進行者。今只就此實欲進行者根性利鈍遂有三種，既有三種皆因宿習濃淡以理惑教，有時以教惑理，故言踟蹰理教之間，故受悟有前後。利根者執理情多、疑教情少，鈍根者執教情多、疑理情少，中根者迷教惑理正等也。執理情多疑教少者，言無生之理是一，等觀無生智應同。此人執理既是一，如來何故說有三乘別趣，言有三果之別，此是疑教也。鈍根者執教情多疑理少者，言佛教既說有三因三果之異，三乘所觀無生之理何必是同？此是執教多疑理少。中根者有時執理惑教，言理一，教那得言異？有時執教疑理，言佛教既有三，理何必同？此則教理等執而疑也。夫得道成聖必由見理，是故利根之執理多者則與理相符，是故一聞法說便悟一理無三之別；執教情多疑理少者則與理不相扶，是故三過聞說方悟一乘之理無三之別。理教等執者據在中間，再聞得解。但於此理教上生疑者，有學人與無學人通有。又有執教疑果者，亦有三種：利根者執果情多疑教情少，鈍根執教情多疑果心少，中根之人果教等執也。果者只是斷滅涅槃，利根者執果心多疑教少者，自觀理智慧分明見習氣猶在，知斷惑未盡作觀未來身盡滅耶？此是執果情多疑教心少。鈍根執教多疑果少者，言既說言神明可滅佛語不虛，何敢不信受？此是執教多；未知神明之道實滅不耶？此是疑果少。中根人或執果疑教或復執教疑果，但此果上生疑者，唯無學人也。雖有此三種疑執，開三顯一一同，說法既竟同得悟解，但有先後文異也。

"At that time the World-Honoured One addressed Śāriputra: 'Since you have now earnestly requested three times, how could I not speak?'" From this point down to the end of the Chapter on the Bestowal of Prophecy on Learners and Non-learners, comprising seven and a half chapters of the sūtra, explains four sections of the fundamental sūtra in the causal stage. What follows here is the third, the detailed exposition unfolding the three to reveal the one, severing doubts and generating faith. In the request above there were two kinds of doubts: first, doubting why the Tathāgata praised the two knowledges; second, self-doubt regarding the dharma they themselves had attained. Now the Tathāgata only answers the second doubt; the second doubt having departed on its own, it requires no separate answer. Furthermore, this third [part] is precisely an elaboration of the initial first section of the previous chapter, which briefly unfolded the three to reveal the one, shook attachments, and generated doubts. Previously it was also explained that the first and second sections are each divided into two, while the third and fourth are each divided into three. Here, as for there being three tiers in resolving the third doubt, this means transforming persons of the three capacities through three sections: First, from "Since you have now earnestly requested three times" onwards down to the second fascicle, ending at "May whatever meritorious deeds I have done, whether in this life or past lives, and the merit of seeing the Buddha all be dedicated to the Buddha path"—this is designated the exposition by dharma that unfolds the three and reveals the one, transforming persons of superior capacity such as Śāriputra. Second, from "At that time Śāriputra said to the Buddha: 'World-Honoured One! I now have no further doubts or regrets, having personally received the prophecy of supreme enlightenment before the Buddha'" through to the end of the Chapter on Bestowal of Prophecy, comprising four chapters—this is designated the exposition by parable that unfolds the three and reveals the one, transforming persons of middling capacity such as the four great disciples, Kāśyapa, Subhūti, and the others. Third, from the Chapter on the Apparitional City through to the end of the Chapter on the Bestowal of Prophecy on Learners and Non-learners, comprising three chapters—this is designated the exposition of past-life conditions that unfolds the three and reveals the principle of one convergence, transforming persons of inferior capacity such as Pūrṇa and the others. Thus, persons of superior capacity hear the exposition by dharma of the meaning of the three and the one, and immediately understand the principle of one convergence; persons of middling capacity, upon hearing the meaning of the three and the one a second time, can awaken to the principle of one convergence; and persons of inferior capacity, only after hearing it explained three times, finally understand that in the one convergence there is no distinction of three. However, within the exposition by dharma there is also the sense of exposition by parable, as in the udumbara flower. There is also the sense of exposition of past-life conditions, namely the words: "Formerly, in the presence of two billion buddhas, I constantly taught and transformed you." Although there is an exposition by parable, the fundamental main idea was to praise the rarity of the Dharma, and therefore it cannot be designated a [proper parable]; although there is an exposition of past-life conditions, this merely confirms the awakening attained by persons of superior capacity, and in recounting these ancient conditions the fundamental main idea was not properly one of conditions. Within the second [section], the exposition by parable, there is also the sense of exposition by dharma and the sense of past-life conditions; hence it says below, "All that has been spoken was for the sake of teaching and transforming bodhisattvas," which is the sense of exposition by dharma. Yet because the phrasing is brief, it is insufficient to trigger awakening in persons of middling capacity. From within the recounting of the conditions between father and son, referring to the former prajñā assembly where it was already said that he showed him the gold and silver, this is the sense of exposition of past-life conditions; however, this meaning is not present in the primary parable itself. The assembly having already attained awakening from the primary parable, these words only appear in the poor son's expression of understanding, not in a primary exposition of past-life conditions. Within the exposition of past-life conditions there is also the sense of exposition by dharma: namely, the beginning of the Chapter on the Apparitional City clarifies the signs of supernormal movements in the era of the previous buddha, where the Brahmās of the ten directions requested the turning of the wheel of the Dharma—this is exposition by dharma. Furthermore, the words "Just as if five hundred yojanas..." are an exposition by parable; although this is proclaimed, when tracing its origin it is fundamentally only to clarify the meaning of past-life conditions. How is this known? Furthermore, at the end of the Chapter on Bestowal of Prophecy on the Four Great Disciples it says: "The past-life conditions between me and you—I shall now explain them, listen carefully!" That is, it again explains to persons of inferior capacity that in ancient times [the Buddha] had already transformed them through the Mahāyāna. Below it also says: "I, being the sixteenth, previously took turns preaching for you; by virtue of these fundamental conditions I now preach the Lotus Sūtra." The main idea is that only upon hearing this exposition of past-life conditions could they attain understanding; hence it is an exposition of past-life conditions. Why is there a difference among persons of the three capacities, with their understanding occurring earlier or later? Setting aside the teaching and discussing the principle: how could arhats who have completely severed the active fetters of the three realms and attained the three knowledges and six supernormal powers be entirely ignorant of the principle of one convergence and the lack of distinction among the three? Moreover, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra itself states: "If a person does not know the three refuges as one single essence and permanently abiding, they do not even attain [the fruit of] a śrāvaka, pratyekabuddha, or bodhisattva, much less will they attain unsurpassable awakening. If one does not know that the Buddha is permanently abiding, then the four faiths will not be accomplished and the five faculties will not be established." Furthermore, the Śrīmālā Sūtra itself says: "The initial undertakings of the three vehicles are not deluded about the Dharma." It also says: "Śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas know for themselves that they abide in the stage with remainder, and must certainly attain unsurpassable awakening." Discussing it in terms of principle, how could the holy ones of the three vehicles adhere to the three vehicles as definitive, assert that they are distinct, and fail to understand the one convergence? If so, why are there śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas? These persons themselves knew that there was a buddha fruition to be sought; it was merely that their own resolve was weak, being unable to renounce head, eyes, marrow, and brain to generate a mind of vast salvation, so they temporarily acted as śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas to tame and save themselves. Instances of this kind are truly existent. Yet, that Śāriputra was of superior capacity in the assembly while Pūrṇa and the others were of inferior capacity—if one speaks of their actual practice, they all practiced the hidden bodhisattva practice internally while outwardly manifesting as śrāvakas. The reason there are these three kinds of faith, understanding, and awakening is that they all matched the condition of the external ordinary persons of shallow knowledge, who adhered to the former distinct teachings of the three vehicles or the meaning of one convergence. Therefore the Tathāgata acted in these three ways: initially, when the exposition by dharma was completed, those of sharp capacity among the external ordinary persons attained understanding, and Śāriputra manifested as sharing that understanding; when the exposition by parable was completed, those of middling capacity among the external ordinary persons attained understanding, and Subhūti and the others likewise manifested as sharing that understanding; and when the past-life conditions were completed, those of inferior capacity among the external ordinary persons attained awakening, and Pūrṇa and the others manifested as sharing that understanding. If one sets aside principle and discusses the teaching, even those who have fully attained arhatship possess this adherence. Furthermore, if one synthesises principle and teaching to discuss the distinction of the three capacities: among external ordinary persons there are two kinds of people. There is one kind of person who is easily swayed, like the stage of the light feather explained in the Pañcaviṃśati; and there is another kind of person who genuinely wishes to progress. Now, taking only those who genuinely wish to progress, their capacities are sharp or dull, resulting in three kinds. Since there are three kinds, they are all due to the depth or lightness of past conditioning: they use principle to confuse the teaching, or sometimes use the teaching to confuse principle; hence it is said that they hesitate between principle and teaching, and thus their reception of awakening has an earlier and a later. Those of sharp capacity have much attachment to principle and little doubt toward the teaching; those of dull capacity have much attachment to the teaching and little doubt toward principle; and those of middling capacity are equally confused by the teaching and bewildered by principle. Those who have much attachment to principle and little doubt toward the teaching say: the principle of non-arising is one, and the knowledge of non-arising that contemplates it equally should be identical; since this person attaches to principle as being one, why did the Tathāgata say there are distinct destinations for the three vehicles, stating that there are distinctions among the three fruitions? This is doubting the teaching. Those of dull capacity who have much attachment to the teaching and little doubt toward principle say: since the Buddha's teaching states that there are differences among the three causes and three fruitions, why must the principle of non-arising contemplated by the three vehicles be the same? This is much attachment to the teaching and little doubt toward principle. Those of middling capacity sometimes attach to principle and are confused by the teaching, saying: since the principle is one, how can the teaching say it is different? Sometimes they attach to the teaching and doubt principle, saying: since the Buddha's teaching has three, why must the principle be the same? This is equal attachment to and doubt toward both teaching and principle. Attaining the path and becoming a sage must proceed from seeing the principle; therefore, those of sharp capacity who attach more to principle conform with principle, and hence upon hearing the exposition by dharma once, they immediately awaken to the single principle without the distinction of three. Those who have much attachment to the teaching and little doubt toward principle do not accord with principle; hence, only after hearing it explained three times do they awaken to the principle of the One Vehicle without the distinction of three. Those who are equally attached to principle and teaching occupy the middle position; upon hearing it a second time, they attain understanding. However, as for generating doubts over this principle and teaching, learners and non-learners alike have it. Furthermore, there are those who attach to the teaching and doubt the fruition, and these also have three kinds: those of sharp capacity have much attachment to the fruition and little doubt toward the teaching; those of dull capacity have much attachment to the teaching and little mind doubting the fruition; and persons of middling capacity are equally attached to fruition and teaching. As for the fruition, it is merely the nirvāṇa of extinction. Those of sharp capacity who have much attachment to the fruition and little doubt toward the teaching observe principle for themselves with clear wisdom, seeing that residual habit-energies still remain; knowing that their severing of defilements is not yet complete, how could they contemplate that future bodies are entirely extinguished? This is having much attachment to the fruition and little doubt toward the teaching. Those of dull capacity who have much attachment to the teaching and little doubt toward the fruition say: since it is said that the conscious spirit can be extinguished, the Buddha's words are not false—how could I dare not have faith and accept it? This is much attachment to the teaching; yet they do not know whether the path of the conscious spirit is truly extinguished or not—this is having little doubt toward the fruition. Persons of middling capacity either attach to the fruition and doubt the teaching, or attach to the teaching and doubt the fruition. However, those who generate doubt over this fruition are exclusively non-learners. Although there are these three kinds of doubtful attachments, the unfolding of the three to reveal the one is identical; when the exposition of the Dharma is completed, they equally attain awakening and understanding, differing only in the sequence of the text.