法華經義記 3.2

3.2

"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."