法華經義記 3

English (machine translation) 3

Language: English

3.1

Composed by the monk Fayun of Guangzhai Temple

"At that time the World-Honoured One spoke in verse, saying": within praising the two wisdoms and vaguely opening the central tenets, there are two [parts]: the prose and the verse. What follows is the second [part], which properly explains the verse. However, the prose originally had two [parts]: first, relying on words to praise the two wisdoms, and second, clarifying reliance on the transcendence of words to praise the two wisdoms. Now, the seventeen and a half lines of verse are also divided into two: first, there are four lines of verse properly summarizing the above praise of the two wisdoms relying on words; second, from "Such great fruits and retributions" downward, there are thirteen and a half lines of verse summarizing the praise of the two wisdoms relying on the transcendence of words. But within the above prose praising the two wisdoms relying on words, there were originally two [parts]: first, wishing to praise Śākya's two wisdoms, he therefore first praised the two wisdoms of all buddhas; second, he properly praised Śākya's two wisdoms. Within each of these two pairs, there are three layers: first, properly praising the two wisdoms; second, the explanation; and third, the conclusion. Now, the substance of the four lines of verse is also divided into two: the first two lines of verse concurrently and repeatedly summarize all buddhas' and Śākya's proper praise of the two wisdoms, and the latter two lines again concurrently and repeatedly summarize all buddhas' and Śākya's explanation of the two wisdoms, concluding the two wisdoms in two layers. Moreover, regarding the two lines of verse that repeatedly summarize all buddhas' and Śākya's proper praise of the two wisdoms, the former line summarizes all buddhas' two wisdoms, and the latter line summarizes Śākya's two wisdoms. However, in the above praise of all buddhas' two wisdoms, he first praised the real wisdom and afterwards praised the expedient wisdom. Furthermore, within first praising the real wisdom, there were two phrases: first, raising the substance of the wisdom, saying "the wisdom of all buddhas"; the second phrase properly praised it, saying "is profound and measureless". Afterwards, in praising the expedient wisdom, there were three [points]: first, raising the substance of the wisdom, saying "the gate of its wisdom"; second, properly praising it, saying "is difficult to understand and difficult to enter"; third, pointing out the assembly who do not know, saying that "all śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas are unable to know it". Now, the single phrase "The Hero of the World is immeasurable" is able to concurrently summarize two phrases each of the real wisdom and the expedient wisdom: "the wisdom of all buddhas is profound and measureless" and "the gate of its wisdom is difficult to understand and difficult to enter", and so forth. All buddhas adapting to be identical throughout the ten directions is the meaning of "World"; subduing the four Māras and conquering non-Buddhists is the meaning of "Hero"; the two wisdoms, expedient and real, cannot be fathomed by inferior persons, hence it says "immeasurable". The following three phrases, "All devas and humans, / and all species of living beings, / none are able to know the Buddha", summarize the above expedient wisdom, and the third line below points out the assembly who do not know, where the above stated that all śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas are unable to know it. Now, using this one line of verse to summarize the previous prose, there are altogether four differences: in the prose above, it separately praised the real wisdom and the wisdom of skilful means, whereas in this verse, it combines and summarizes the two wisdoms, expedient and real—this is the first difference. Above, it praised the two wisdoms, expedient and real, in terms of their substance, whereas in this verse, it raises the person to praise the two wisdoms—this is the second difference. Above, it clarified that the persons who do not know were tied solely under the expedient wisdom, whereas in this verse, summarizing and pointing out the persons who do not know, they are doubly tied under both wisdoms—this is the third difference. In the prose above, pointing out the persons who do not know, it pointed out only two persons, the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha, whereas in this verse, it broadly points out humans, devas, śrāvakas, and pratyekabuddhas, reaching as far as bodhisattvas, collectively pointing out that the persons of all five vehicles are the assembly who do not know—this is the fourth difference. Why are there these differences? Commentators say: "This meaning is subtle, but there is a reason for its presence. As for why in the prose above the two wisdoms were praised separately, this clarifies that their meaning and function differ; but these two wisdoms are merely the sage's spiritual understanding engaging in functional application as meaning; when following capacities with curved explanations, it is not yet like expedient wisdom. However, this expedient wisdom must have an origin; therefore, it first separately praised real wisdom as the root of the expedient, and afterwards praised expedient wisdom as wisdom being the branch of the root. Therefore, expedient and real are mutually praised, which clarifies that functions have superiority and inferiority. In the verse, combining and summarizing them clarifies that although the two wisdoms have the two names 'expedient' and 'real', in luminous illumination their substance is one and no different. Therefore, the *Vimalakīrtinirdeśa Sūtra* says: 'The worlds of the ten directions are manifold, but their unhindered wisdom is not manifold.' Furthermore, in saying that above it praised the two wisdoms in terms of their substance, this is because of clarifying the original intent of this sūtra, hence praising them in terms of their substance; in the verse, clarifying the person who is accomplished by the two wisdoms, it therefore raises the person to comprehensively praise the two wisdoms. Furthermore, in saying that above, pointing out the persons who do not know was tied solely under expedient wisdom, whereas in this verse they are doubly tied under both wisdoms: above, it was appropriate to disparage and reprimand the wisdom of the two persons as narrow and inferior, for although they received the teaching of expedient wisdom in the past, they were unable to investigate it thoroughly; for this reason, pointing out the persons who do not know above was partial to being tied under expedient wisdom. Yet now in the verse, doubly tying them under both wisdoms clarifies that these two vehicles not only fail to understand the function of expedient wisdom, but real wisdom is also obscure and unfathomable [to them]; therefore, they are doubly tied under both wisdoms. Furthermore, in saying that the prose above pointed out only the two vehicles, while in the verse it says 'all species of living beings, / none are able to know the Buddha', broadly pointing out the persons of the five vehicles: this is to resolve the doubts of sentient beings. For today's teaching was originally to reprimand the clinging attachments of the two vehicles, hence the prose was directed partially toward the two vehicles; but at that time the assembly thought that the two wisdoms were not understood merely by the two vehicles, and that outside of the two vehicles there must be those who understand them. Therefore, the verse says that not only do the two vehicles fail to understand this principle of expedient and real, but humans, devas, and bodhisattvas also do not understand it. These classes of verse can be understood by extension in this way."

3.3

"The Buddha's powers and fearlessnesses": this one line of verse properly summarizes the proper praise of Śākya's two wisdoms. In the above proper praise of Śākya's two wisdoms, it first praised expedient wisdom and afterwards praised real wisdom; now, in this single line of verse, the first half-line first summarizes the praise of Śākya's real wisdom, and the second half-line retroactively summarizes the expedient wisdom. However, in the above praise of Śākya's real wisdom, it first properly praised real wisdom, and afterwards raised the powers, fearlessnesses, and so forth; now this half-line properly succeeds in briefly summarizing the above phrases on the various virtues, without summarizing the phrase of proper praise. "And the Buddha's other dharmas, / none are able to measure them": this half-line in reverse summarizes the above phrase praising Śākya's expedient wisdom. In the above praise of Śākya's expedient wisdom, the proper praise had three layers: first, "Since I attained buddhahood" clarifies the time period of the expedient wisdom; from "by various causes and conditions" downward properly praises it; and from "guiding living beings" downward reveals it. Now this half-line only summarizes the second phrase of proper praise, without summarizing the first or [third] phrases. As for why it says now "and the Buddha's other dharmas", because expedient wisdom comes afterwards, it is called "other". Because this expedient wisdom is preached diversely for persons of the three faculties, it is called "various". Moreover, using this single line of verse to again summarize the prose, there are three differences. What are they? In the prose, it first praised Śākya's expedient wisdom and afterwards praised real wisdom, whereas in this verse, it first summarizes real wisdom and afterwards summarizes expedient wisdom—this is the first difference. In the prose above, saying "the Tathāgata's knowledge and vision are vast, profound, and far-reaching" properly praises real wisdom, and afterwards raising the various virtues together explains and praises it; now in the verse, it only summarizes the phrase raising the various virtues to explain and praise real wisdom, briefly omitting the phrase that properly praises real wisdom—this is the second difference. In the prose above, praising Śākya's two wisdoms did not point out the assembly who do not know, whereas in the verse it says "none are able to measure them"—this is the third difference.

3.4

Commentators say: "As for why the prose above first praised expedient wisdom and afterwards praised real wisdom, this clarifies that the intent of Śākya's appearing in the world was first the expedient and afterwards the real; as for why in the verse it first summarizes real wisdom and afterwards summarizes expedient wisdom, this clarifies that when it is today's real function, these are all mutually raised back and forth, alternately reflecting each other so that their meaning naturally becomes manifest. Furthermore, in saying that in the prose there was the proper praise of real wisdom and there was an explanation, whereas the verse only summarizes the explanatory phrase: this clarifies the meaning that their substance is one while their functions differ. The prose above speaks of the meaning that their functions differ. How is this known? Wisdom has discerning illumination as its meaning. Wishing to clarify that the objects illuminated by real wisdom possess the fourfold unity—the unity of teaching, the unity of principle, the unity of capacity, and the unity of person—the Tathāgata's wisdom illuminates these four objects, hence it is called real wisdom. Various virtues such as the powers and fearlessnesses are not called discerning illumination; hence we know that the prose relies on their functions. That the verse only summarizes the various virtues clarifies that virtue and wisdom are merely a single substance; apart from these powers, fearlessnesses, liberations, and samādhis, there is no separate wisdom, nor is there any separate virtue apart from this wisdom. Therefore, we know that their substance is one, while relying on function there is the difference between virtue and wisdom; setting aside function to discuss substance, wisdom and virtue are merely a single substance. These are all mutually raised back and forth, both meanings being elucidated together. Furthermore, in saying that the prose praising Śākya's two wisdoms did not point out the persons who do not know, whereas now the verse says 'none are able to measure them', which points out the persons who do not know, this also mutually raises them back and forth. If the verse points out the persons who do not know, the prose should also have pointed them out; since the prose did not point them out, the verse should also not have had them; yet one has it and one lacks it: this is mutual illumination to clarify the meaning."

3.5

"Originally from countless buddhas, / fully practicing the various paths": these two lines of verse below repeatedly summarize all buddhas' and Śākya's explanation and conclusion in two layers. The first line of verse summarizes all buddhas' explanation and conclusion of the two wisdoms, and the latter line of verse summarizes Śākya's explanation and conclusion of the two wisdoms. Regarding the first verse, "Originally from countless buddhas, / fully practicing the various paths": this half-line of verse summarizes all buddhas' second explanation of the two wisdoms. Why is this so? The Buddha formerly approached in person hundreds of thousands of myriads of koṭis of countless buddhas, practicing to the utmost the measureless paths and dharmas of all buddhas. "Dharmas profound and subtle, / difficult to see and difficult to comprehend": this half-line of verse summarizes the third [layer] in the prose above concluding all buddhas' two wisdoms. This half-line then constitutes two meanings: "Dharmas profound and subtle", this single phrase summarizes the above conclusion of real wisdom, which said that he accomplished profound, unprecedented dharmas; "difficult to see and difficult to comprehend", this single phrase summarizes the above conclusion of expedient wisdom, which said that what is spoken in accordance with suitability has an purport difficult to understand. "Throughout measureless koṭis of kalpas": this one line of verse repeatedly summarizes Śākya's explanation and conclusion in two layers. This single line then constitutes two meanings: "Throughout measureless koṭis of kalpas, / having practiced these various paths", this half-line summarizes Śākya's explanation of the two wisdoms; but the prose briefly did not point out past causes; since it is present in the verse, reflecting the former it then constitutes the meaning of summarizing the explanation. "On the bodhimaṇḍa attaining the fruit": this following half-line properly summarizes Śākya's solitary conclusion of real wisdom above. The conclusion above stated that he accomplished all unprecedented dharmas, above merely speaking of real wisdom; here it points out the occasion of attaining real wisdom, which is simply when the Tathāgata sat beneath the Bodhi tree to attain buddhahood, the moment when the World-Honoured One's great awakening was luminous and clear, attaining this real wisdom; therefore it says 'On the bodhimaṇḍa attaining the fruit, / I have already fully known and seen it.'"

3.6

Second, from "such great fruit and recompense" onward, the thirteen and a half verses versify the second [section] above, praising the two knowledges by relying on the transcendence of speech. However, within the transcendence of speech above there were three parts: first, identifying the dharma on account of which speech is transcended; second, directly clarifying the praise transcending speech; and third, explaining the intent of transcending speech. Now these thirteen and a half verses also contain three points, which versify [the prose] in reverse order from the end: first, the one verse beginning with "such great fruit and recompense" first versifies in reverse order the third [section] in the prose above, which explains the intent of transcending speech; second, the twelve verses versify the second [section] above, which directly praises by transcending speech; third, the one and a half verses versify in reverse order the first [section] above, which identifies the dharma on account of which speech is transcended. However, within the third [section] above, explaining [the intent of] transcending speech, there were two parts: first, praising the persons possessing the two knowledges as being lofty and unspeakable; second, identifying the objects of the expedient and real knowledges as profound and therefore unspeakable. Now they are also versified in reverse order: the half-verse "such great fruit and recompense" first versifies the profundity of the objects; the half-verse "I and the Buddhas of the ten directions alone can know these matters" subsequently versifies the loftiness of the persons. However, within the profundity of the objects above there were originally three parts: first, opening both headings together; second, explaining both together; and third, concluding both together. Now it does not versify the first and third, but only versifies the middle second [part], which explains both headings together. In the explanation of both together above, there were first five clauses explaining the heading of the objects of expedient knowledge, followed by four clauses explaining the heading of the objects of real knowledge; now it also versifies them in reverse order. The single clause "such great fruit and recompense" first versifies the explanation of the objects of real knowledge, versifying only fruit and recompense and omitting cause and condition; here, by adducing the fruit, one verifies and knows that there are causes and conditions, which is why it is called "great." This also resolves sentient beings' doubts: the causes of the three vehicles are also causes, and the fruits of the three vehicles are also fruits; for this reason, the word "great" is used to mark the difference, clarifying that these are the cause and effect of the Great Vehicle, not the cause and effect of the Small Vehicle. The single clause "and the meanings of their various natures and characteristics" subsequently versifies the objects of expedient knowledge. Among the objects of expedient knowledge there were originally five clauses; now it versifies only "nature" and "characteristic," while the remaining three clauses are omitted and not versified; this clause is also versified in reverse order: above it said "such characteristics, such natures," whereas now it versifies "nature" first and "characteristic" second. The reason it says "various" is also to resolve sentient beings' doubts: the Great Vehicle also has natures and characteristics; for this reason, the designation "various" is used to signify that these are not the natures and characteristics of the Great Vehicle, but because the natures and characteristics of the three vehicles are not identical, it says "various." "I and the Buddhas of the ten directions alone can know these matters": this half-verse subsequently versifies the first part within the explanation of transcending speech, which clarifies the loftiness of the persons, [corresponding to] where it was said above, "Only a Buddha and a Buddha can exhaustively fathom it."

3.7

From "This dharma cannot be demonstrated" onward, there are eleven verses subsequently versifying the second [section] above, which directly transcends speech. Above, it said: "Stop, Śāriputra! It is not necessary to speak further." Now, within these eleven verses, only a half-verse directly versifies the praise transcending speech above; the remaining ten and a half verses, in terms of meaning, emerge to reveal the reason why speech is transcended, directly clarifying that it is because the śrāvakas do not know it and the bodhisattvas do not know it. Now this half-verse has two points: "This dharma cannot be demonstrated" directly versifies the "Stop, Śāriputra!" above; "The characteristics of words and speech are extinguished and quiescent" versifies the clause "It is not necessary to speak further" above. From "Of all the other kinds of living beings, / there is none that can understand" onward, the ten and a half verses are the second [part], which emerges in terms of meaning. Now within these ten and a half verses, there are of themselves three sections: first, this present half-verse generally clarifies the assembly that does not know; second, a half-verse sets aside those who do know; third, nine and a half verses individually identify the assemblies that do not know. As for the second, setting aside those who do know, it directly states that except for those among the bodhisattva assembly who possess resolute faith-power, they of themselves can come to know it; yet this is not knowing by direct seeing, but is still knowing by faith; this thereby leads the śrāvakas and others toward the Great Vehicle, causing them to change their narrow and inferior minds and establish the great resolve of a bodhisattva. "The assemblies of the disciples of the Buddhas": from here onward, there are nine and a half verses, which are the third [section], individually identifying those who do not know. There are in all three kinds of people who do not know these two knowledges: first, four verses clarify that the śrāvakas do not know; second, two verses clarify that pratyekabuddhas do not know, from "Pratyekabuddhas of sharp faculties" downward; third, three and a half verses clarify that bodhisattvas do not know, from "Newly resolved bodhisattvas" downward. Within the first, clarifying that śrāvakas do not know, there are again three passages: the first one and a half verses directly clarify that śrāvakas do not know; the next verse clarifies by hypothesis that they do not know; the next one and a half verses resolve doubt. The doubt states: "Even granted that all were like Śāriputra, that is only one kind of spiritual understanding and of no benefit to the matter." Now the explanation states: even granted that they were like the other disciples, each possessing their own understanding, they would still not be able to know. Within the third, clarifying that bodhisattvas do not know, there are two parts: the first two and a half verses clarify that ordinary-person bodhisattvas do not know; the next verse clarifies that bodhisattvas from the first stage up to the sixth stage do not know; this is discussed here in terms of the doctrinal teachings. "He further addressed Śāriputra: The untainted and inconceivable": within this, there are one and a half verses that subsequently versify the first [section] in the transcendence of speech, which identifies the dharma on account of which speech is transcended. Above it said that the Tathāgata can make various distinctions, first identifying the expedient knowledge; here this is omitted and not versified. It only versifies the clause identifying the real knowledge above: "To state the essential, the Buddhas have fully accomplished all immeasurable, boundless, and unprecedented dharmas." However, within these one and a half verses, the first verse directly versifies [that], and the lower half-verse adduces all Buddhas as confirmation. This was explained at Shanshe Temple.

3.8

"Śāriputra, you should know / that the words of the Buddhas do not differ": from here onward, the three and a half verses are the second [part], which clearly and briefly explains the opening of the three and revealing of the one, bringing about the sentient beings' state of agitated clinging and arising doubt. Within these three and a half verses, there are also two sections: first, one and a half verses reveal the one with respect to the Buddhas; second, the remaining two verses open the three based on Śākya. Each of these two levels has three tiers. Within revealing the one with respect to the Buddhas, there are three tiers: first, saying "Śāriputra, you should know / that the words of the Buddhas do not differ," this half-verse first unites the Buddhas in having the same Path; "Towards the Dharma spoken by the Buddhas, / one should give rise to great power of faith": this half-verse is the second, an encouraging exhortation and admonition commanding them to have faith; "The Dharma of the World-Honoured One, after a long time, / will certainly speak the real": this half-verse is the third, directly revealing the one with respect to the Buddhas, the one principle being the real. Within Śākya's opening of the three, there are three tiers: first, "He told the multitude of śrāvakas / and those seeking the pratyekabuddha vehicle": this one verse identifies that Śākya's opening of the three was done for the people of the two vehicles; since the people of the two vehicles have heavy attachment to views, he first addresses these people of the two vehicles; second, "The Buddha, with the power of skilful means, / showed them the teaching of the three vehicles": this half-verse directly concerns Śākya's opening of the three; third, "Living beings cling in every place; / he guides them so they can escape": this half-verse explains Śākya's intent in bestowing the three, which is solely because sentient beings encounter objects and cling to them, giving rise to defilement in every place; therefore the Tathāgata set up expedients to entice and transform them. Briefly explaining the opening of the three and revealing of the one to agitate clinging and give rise to doubt is completed.

3.9

"At that time, in the great assembly there were śrāvakas": from this point down to the earnest triple request, within clarifying the cause there are four sections; from here downward is the second section, in which the assembly harbours doubt and presents a request. Within this, there are of themselves two parts: first, from "At that time, in the great assembly" down to "and now they do not know what this meaning tends toward," it first clarifies that the compiler of the sūtra sets forth the doubt of the great assembly; second, from "At that time, Śāriputra knew the doubt in the minds of the four assemblies, and also did not understand it himself" through to the end of the triple request, this is termed Śāriputra directly raising the doubt and presenting the request. Since the Buddha had said that by the power of skilful means he showed the teaching of the three vehicles, whereas in the past he had not said that the three vehicles were skilful means, yet now suddenly proclaimed that the three vehicles are skilful means, this then contradicted what was said in the past; therefore, Śāriputra raised the doubt and presented the request to seek a definitive decision from the Great Sage. Furthermore, within the compiler of the sūtra setting forth the doubt of the great assembly, there are of themselves two sections: first, from "At that time, in the great assembly there were śrāvakas" down to "upāsakas and upāsikās," this is termed the compiler of the sūtra setting forth and citing the living beings who doubted; second, from "each had this thought" down to "and now they do not know what this meaning tends toward," it directly identifies what they doubted, and what they doubted were the two knowledges. Furthermore, each of these two sections opens into two parts. Within the compiler of the sūtra setting forth and citing the doubting assembly, there are two: first, saying "twelve hundred people," this means the non-learners had doubts; second, saying "as well as those who had resolved their minds on being śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas" down to "upāsikās," this identifies that the learners had doubts. Within the second [section], identifying what they doubted, there are two parts: first, from "each had this thought" down to "beyond the reach of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas," it first identifies the doubt: why did the Buddha praise the two knowledges above? This doubt arose from the first [part], vaguely opening the essential tenet by praising the two knowledges; second, from "The Buddha spoke of the meaning of a single liberation" down to "and now they do not know what this meaning tends toward," it clarifies that the great assembly doubted within themselves whether the liberation they had attained was ultimate or not ultimate; this doubt arose from the second section, clearly opening the three and revealing the one.

3.10

Furthermore, within the first [part], doubting the Buddha's praise of the two knowledges, there are two: first, "Each had this thought: 'Now, for what reason does the World-Honoured One earnestly praise skilful means?'" This doubts Śākya's praise of expedient knowledge above. Śākya's praise of expedient knowledge above was where he said: "Śāriputra, since I attained Buddhahood, through various causes and conditions and various parables I have broadly expounded the verbal teachings"; they should also have doubted Śākya's praise of real knowledge above, but the text is abbreviated and does not mention it. Second, from "and made such a statement: 'The Dharma attained by the Buddha is profound and subtle'" onward, they doubt the praise of the two knowledges of all Buddhas above; this clause doubts the praise of the real knowledge of all Buddhas, corresponding to where it was said above: "He addressed Śāriputra: The wisdom of the Buddhas is profound and immeasurable." "Whatever is spoken, its intention is difficult to know": this doubts the praise of the expedient knowledge of all Buddhas above, corresponding to where it was said above: "The gateway of their wisdom is difficult to understand and difficult to enter; all śrāvakas cannot know it"; now it corresponds with this clause.

3.11

"The Buddha spoke of the meaning of a single liberation": from here downward is the second [part], directly doubting within themselves whether what they had attained was ultimate or not ultimate. This doubt arose precisely from the second [part] above, clearly opening the three and revealing the one, where it said, "The Buddha, with the power of skilful means, showed them the teaching of the three vehicles." Within this there are two parts: first, from "The Buddha spoke of the meaning of a single liberation" down to "arriving at nirvāṇa," it first identifies what was doubted; second, "and now they do not know what this meaning tends toward" directly clarifies the arising of the doubt. Now I will first explain the two kinds of fruit of the persons of the three vehicles: first, conditioned fruit; second, unconditioned fruit. The conditioned fruit is precisely the knowledge of exhaustion and the knowledge of non-arising: illuminating the causes in the three realms as exhausted is the knowledge of exhaustion; not receiving future existence is the knowledge of non-arising. The second is the unconditioned fruit: when the causes in the three realms of the persons of the three vehicles are exhausted, this is nirvāṇa with remainder; when the fruits in the three realms are exhausted, this is nirvāṇa without remainder. However, the two kinds of unconditioned [nirvāṇa] occur at one single time: the time when causes are exhausted is precisely the time when fruits are exhausted; the time when fruits are exhausted is the time when causes are exhausted. Even though according to the convenience of the meaning they may be placed as before and after, one may say that because causes are exhausted, fruits are exhausted, but one cannot say that because fruits are exhausted, causes are exhausted.

3.12

The questioner asks: "If it is said that when causes are exhausted, fruits are exhausted, then when the arhat's path of remedy exhausts the causes of the three realms, shouldn't his recompense body immediately perish?" The commentator explains: "This recompense body is exhausted naturally by the residual momentum of the cause. Just as when a stick is used to turn a wheel, suppose the stick is immediately destroyed, the wheel still turns; when the arhat's causes in the three realms are exhausted, at that time the residual momentum of the recompense body is like the wheel."

3.13

The questioner says: “If the liberation of the three houses is of one equal grade, there ought not to be distinctions in their receiving the three carts.” The interpreter says: “The reason the liberation of the three houses is of one equal grade is that all alike take the unconditioned [state] wherein the causes and effects of the three realms are exhausted; since the unconditioned is not distinct, all are therefore designated ‘one liberation.’ As for why there is the parable of the three carts and differences in superior and inferior conveyed causes, this is based on their power and function having shorter and longer reaches. The śrāvakas exhausting the primary fetters of the three realms is likened to the goat cart; the pratyekabuddhas encroaching upon a small portion of residual propensities is likened to the deer cart; and the bodhisattvas exhausting the residual propensities altogether is likened to the ox cart.”

3.14

The questioner also says: “Since the severance of delusion admits of superior and inferior, the unconditioned also ought to be unequal.” The interpreter also says: “Drawing on past [teachings] to formulate the doctrine, it is not said that residual propensities receive rebirth; though they sever residual propensities, fruition is not established upon the locus where residual propensities are exhausted. Rather, the three houses alike establish the knowledge of exhaustion and knowledge of non-arising at the point where the causes and effects of the three realms are exhausted. If speaking of their liberation, the three houses are of one equal grade; but if discussing their efficacy and function, there are differences of broad and narrow, and distinctions of long and short. Likening them to the three carts, it is therefore said: ‘The Buddha preached the principle of one liberation.’ Liberation is nirvāṇa with remainder and without remainder, which is the truth of cessation. ‘Principle’ refers to the truth of the path. Indicating the cause by adducing the fruit: ‘In the past, relying on the Buddha’s teaching, we cultivated the truth of the path and verified the fruit of the truth of cessation; hence it is said, “The Buddha preached the principle of one liberation, and we also attained this principle and arrived at nirvāṇa.”’”

3.15

From “And now we do not know whither this principle tends,” this is the second part, which directly clarifies the arising of doubt: ‘And now we do not know whether the truth of the path that we practiced in past days simply tends toward this fruit of liberation, or whether it tends toward something further.’ All of the above constitutes the scripture-compiler’s narration of their doubtful intent.

3.16

“At that time Śāriputra, knowing the doubt in the minds of the fourfold assembly, and being himself not yet clear…” From here down to the conclusion of the three requests is the second part, which clarifies Śāriputra’s conveying their doubts and presenting the requests. Within these requests, there are themselves two sections: First, from “Śāriputra, knowing the doubt in the minds of the fourfold assembly, and being himself not yet clear…” clarifies the scripture-compiler’s preface indicating Śāriputra’s intention to convey the doubts and make a request. Second, from “and addressed the Buddha, saying…” down through the three requests is designated the formal request. Furthermore, within the scripture-compiler’s preface there are two points: First, saying “Śāriputra, knowing the doubt in the minds of the fourfold assembly,” is the scripture-compiler’s preface indicating Śāriputra’s wish to convey the doubt in the minds of the great assembly. Second, saying “and being himself not yet clear,” clarifies the scripture-compiler’s narration of Śāriputra himself possessing doubt in mind. In the second part, the formal requests, there are five tiers: Śāriputra makes three requests and the Tathāgata issues two refusals; guest and host alternating makes precisely five tiers. Śāriputra’s three requests are: first, requesting by adducing the presence of doubt; second, requesting because those of sharp faculties will certainly believe; third, requesting because there are those with understanding. In the first request based on doubt, there are two parts: first, prose; second, verse. Within the prose there are itself three tiers: first, doubting the above praise of the two knowledges of all buddhas; second, reiterating the assembly’s doubt to request the exposition; third, doubting the above praise of Śākya’s two knowledges. Now, the first doubts the two knowledges of all buddhas, namely “and addressed the Buddha, saying: ‘For what cause and for what condition do you praise the foremost skilful means of all buddhas?’” This doubts the above praise of the expedient knowledge of all buddhas. From “the profound, subtle, and difficult-to-understand dharma,” this doubts the above praise of the profundity of the real knowledge of all buddhas. From “From the past until now, I have never heard such an exposition from the Buddha; now the fourfold assembly all have doubts; we only pray that the World-Honoured One will elaborate on this matter,” this is the second tier, reiterating the assembly’s doubt to request the exposition. From “For what reason does the World-Honoured One earnestly praise the profound, subtle, and difficult-to-understand dharma?” is the third tier, doubting the real knowledge praised above by Śākya. There ought also to be doubt regarding the knowledge of skilful means, but the text of the sūtra omits and does not present it; it is present in the verses below, so we know it ought to be in the prose; it is only that in the above narration the scripture-compiler brought out doubt of the knowledge of skilful means without mentioning the real knowledge, each adducing one to clarify the meaning mutually.

3.17

“At that time Śāriputra spoke in verse, saying…” In the first section presenting the request, there were originally two parts: prose and verse. What follows is the second part, the verses, numbering eleven stanzas in total. The verses are also divided into two: first, six and a half stanzas directly versify the preceding prose; second, from “Among the assembly of śrāvakas, the Buddha declared me foremost,” there are four and a half stanzas that directly state his own doubt regarding what he attained, not versifying the preceding prose.

3.18

Someone interprets: “Using these four and a half stanzas to versify the above ‘The Buddha preached the principle of one liberation’ and ‘we also attained this dharma and arrived at nirvāṇa,’ the phrasing is quite similar.” My view is that it is not so. How is this known? In the preceding prose, it was the scripture-compiler narrating that the assembly of that time had this doubt; how could Śāriputra versify the scripture-compiler’s intent? Thus we know they are simply verses of direct statement.

3.19

However, within the six and a half stanzas versifying the prose, there were originally three parts: first, doubting the two knowledges of all buddhas; second, reiterating the assembly’s doubt to request the exposition; third, doubting Śākya’s real knowledge. Now, within the six and a half stanzas, two and a half stanzas first versify the third section, the next one stanza retroactively versifies the first section, and the next three stanzas versify the second section. The initial two and a half stanzas first versify the third section, Śākya’s two knowledges. Now, “The Great Holy Honoured One, Sun of Wisdom, has after a long time preached this dharma,” this following one and a half stanzas directly versifies the doubt regarding Śākya’s real knowledge. From “The dharma attained at the place of awakening,” this one stanza versifies the doubt regarding the above expedient knowledge, doubting why this knowledge was praised yet not spoken. “Spontaneously expounded without being asked,” this one stanza is the second part, versifying in reverse order the first part above: “For what reason do you earnestly praise the foremost skilful means, the profound, subtle, and difficult-to-understand dharma of all buddhas?” However, the prose did not bring out the past causes of all buddhas; now the upper half of this one stanza extensively brings out the past causes, and the lower half-stanza directly versifies it. “The unblemished arhats and those seeking nirvāṇa,” these following three stanzas are the third part, retroactively versifying the second part above which reiterated the assembly’s doubt to request the exposition; above it said: “From the past until now, I have never heard such a dharma from the Buddha; now the fourfold assembly all have doubts,” hence we know these three stanzas directly versify this. Above there were two: the initial stanza adduces the śrāvakas requesting the exposition; the second, from “Those who seek [the path of] pratyekabuddhas” down, two stanzas adduce the pratyekabuddhas requesting the exposition. “Among the assembly of śrāvakas, the Buddha declared me foremost,” these following four and a half stanzas are the second part of the verses, designated the verses of direct statement regarding his own doubt over what he attained. These four and a half stanzas themselves have two parts: first, “Among the assembly of śrāvakas, the Buddha declared me foremost,” this following one and a half stanzas directly clarifies Śāriputra’s own doubt over what he attained, whether it is definitively a cause or definitively a fruit. Second, from “Sons born from the Buddha’s mouth” down, three stanzas directly conclude the request for exposition. “At that time the Buddha addressed Śāriputra: ‘Stop, stop! There is no need to speak further,’” from here down is the second section, the first refusal: the meaning is that if he were to expound these two knowledges at length, the assembly at that time would mutually give rise to astonishment and doubt; for this reason there is no need to speak further.

3.20

“Śāriputra addressed the Buddha once again, saying: ‘We only pray that you speak it! We only pray that you speak it!’” From here down is the third section, the second request made because those of sharp faculties will certainly believe; from here down, by analogy with the three sections, all have two parts: prose and verse. The intention of the request here means: in this assembly all have sharp faculties and are capable of hearing the Buddha’s exposition; how could one say they would be astonished and doubtful?

3.21

“The Buddha again stopped Śāriputra: ‘If I speak of this matter…’” From here down is the fourth section, the second refusal: the meaning is that if I were to expound the two knowledges of expedient and real, the assembly at that time would not merely give rise to astonishment and doubt, but would furthermore give rise to slander and consequently fall into the evil destinies; how should it be spoken?

3.22

“At that time Śāriputra addressed the Buddha once again, saying: ‘We only pray that you speak it! We only pray that you speak it!’” From here down is the fifth section, the third request, requesting because there is understanding.

3.23

"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.

First 23 of 64 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

法華經義記 — Classical Chinese