法華玄義釋籤 10.19

10.19

次別位為大樹者，為三：標章，列門，正釋。初二如文。釋中有三：初又為六：初得名，次位法所依，三「無量」下通列，四「別教」下判，五「然」下判傍正，六「既有」下結示不同。前二可知。三通列中三：先舉四數，次「有無量」下列四法，三「云何」下釋四法。初二如文。釋意者，所以四教斷伏皆名無量，若斷若伏相狀非一故通名之。此中皆約菩薩故也。初如三藏云伏見思即指菩薩，今明無量多在出假故，且置二乘故；通教中亦指出假，助謂助別。別教中云「內外四諦」者，當知別人具四四諦。言「乃有斷無明義」者，若據始終雖登地斷，既證道同圓當知教道有斷義耳。故今從事且判地前屬於別教，則迴向中伏望於圓理，故得事名。圓人破無明位長，故指初住去以為無量四判。五傍正者，約別教始終以判，可知。六結示同異，中二：初略示，次「若華嚴」下示教不同，於中為三：先列教，次「又斷」下明教相不同，三「所以然者」下明不同意。初又二：先經，次論。《十地論》唯釋《華嚴．十地品》，《攝大乘》第七釋第四因果勝相中，亦但明歡喜等十地而已，《地持》中明種性等六位，如《止觀》第五所引論文，《十住婆沙》，初文但明十地而已。次釋地相亦無諸位，《大論》略出通別，文但引例，故知諸論明位麁略。次明教相斷伏不同，如文。三明意中二：先明聖教大意，次「今若」下明今家用聖教意。又四：初總列大意，意在為成初心行人入道正意，若無位次，將何以為聞賢思齊？將何以越增上慢罪？若赴機異轍任彼所忻，故使如上參差不等。若為成初心教觀，故且用三經。次「諸聖」下誡勸修行。三「今判」下正示用三經意。是故今家不同世人解釋經論，但依法相列位而已。今一家別位若不依《纓珞》則位無始終，若不依《大品》則諸位全無斷惑高下用觀分齊，若不依《涅槃》則菩薩願行淺深相狀遠近莫知，三經相成佛旨無失。四釋三文，自為三：初依《纓珞》、《仁王》中言「前四時般若」者，古判般若總有五時：一《摩訶》，二《金剛》，三《天王》，四《光讚》，五《仁王》。此亦未可全用，雖然，《摩訶》定在《仁王》之前。何以知然？《仁王》云：「如來成道二十九年，先已為我說《摩訶般若》」，故知《仁王》在後明矣。若《光讚經》準諸經目錄，弘始五年四月二十三日譯《大品》竟，二十七卷成者是也。後竺法護晉太康元年譯上帙為《光讚》，又朱仕衡譯為二十卷，名《放光般若》，羅什又重譯為十卷，名「小品」，支讖又譯為十卷，名「道行」。又有人譯為五卷，名「大明度」。又有人譯略《光讚》，名「大明度」。又有人譯略《光讚》，名「大智無極」。又有人譯，名「大品」，當知《光讚》秖是《大品》上帙，在後譯之，故不可以為別時義也。為是義故，與《仁王》、《天王》而為次第者，未可全用。《法華》意雖該攝且名位不彰，故但用二經。言「地持九種戒定慧」者，論文既云六度皆九，今但云三者或以三攝六，或略舉三要，然諸位功用、願行法相、斷惑品類、被物廣狹、依土淨穢、示迹多少、真應優劣、對當法門等，非可具列，是故今文但明一轍，所以不暇廣明法相，今順文體亦不委曲，廣尋經論恐添雜本文，故知依此文相足辨權實也。

Next, the separate stages as the large tree has three [parts]: presenting the heading, listing the sections, and the main explanation. The first two are as in the text. The explanation has three: the first further has six: first, deriving the name; second, that on which the stages and dharmas rely; third, from "immeasurable" onward, the comprehensive listing; fourth, from "Separate Teaching" onward, the determination; fifth, from "however" onward, determining secondary and primary; sixth, from "since there are" onward, concluding by showing the differences. The first two can be known. In the third, the comprehensive listing, there are three: first raising the number four; next, from "there are immeasurable" onward, listing the four dharmas; third, from "how so" onward, explaining the four dharmas. The first two are as in the text. The intention of the explanation is that the reason severance and subduing in the four teachings are all called "immeasurable" is that the characteristics of either severing or subduing are not single, hence they are comprehensively so termed. Here, all are discussed in terms of bodhisattvas. First, as in the Tripiṭaka where subduing views and thoughts refers precisely to bodhisattvas, here explaining "immeasurable" mostly lies in emerging from emptiness into provisionality, thus setting aside the two vehicles for now; in the Shared Teaching it also points to emerging into provisionality, "auxiliary" meaning aiding the Separate. In the Separate Teaching, saying "internal and external four truths" means one should know that people of the Separate possess four [sets of] four truths. As for saying "there is then the meaning of severing ignorance", if based on beginning to end, although it is severed upon mounting the bhūmis, since the path of realization is identical to the Perfect, one should know that the teaching path has the meaning of severance. Therefore, now proceeding from phenomena, before the bhūmis is temporarily judged as belonging to the Separate Teaching; then subduing in the dedication of merit, when viewed from the perspective of the perfect principle, thus obtains the name "phenomenal". For persons of the Perfect, the stages of breaking ignorance are long, hence pointing to the first abodement onward as the immeasurable four determinations. Fifth, secondary and primary: determined in terms of the beginning and end of the Separate Teaching, which can be known. Sixth, concluding by showing similarities and differences has two: first briefly showing; next, from "if the Huayan" onward, showing that the teachings differ. Within this there are three: first listing the teachings; next, from "moreover severance" onward, explaining the differences in teaching-aspects; third, from "the reason it is so" onward, explaining the reason for the differences. The first further has two: first sūtras, next treatises. The Daśabhūmikā Sūtra-śāstra only explains the "Daśabhūmika Chapter" of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra. Fascicle seven of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, in explaining the fourth, the superior characteristics of cause and fruit, also only explains the ten bhūmis such as Pramuditā; the Bodhisattvabhūmi explains the six stages such as lineage, as in the treatise text quoted in the fifth fascicle of the Zhiguan; the Daśabhūmika-vibhāṣā, in its initial text, only explains the ten bhūmis. Next, in explaining the characteristics of the bhūmis, it also lacks the various stages; the Da zhidu lun briefly sets forth the shared and separate, its text merely citing precedents. Hence we know the various treatises explain the stages roughly and sketchily. Next, explaining that severance and subduing in the teaching-aspects differ is as in the text. Third, explaining the intention has two: first explaining the general intention of the sacred teachings; next, from "now if" onward, explaining our school's intention in using the sacred teachings. This further has four: first generally listing the great intention, the purpose being to bring about the correct intention of entering the Path for beginners. If there were no succession of stages, how could one emulate the worthy upon hearing of them? How could one overcome the offense of overweening pride? If adapting to differing paths of capacities in accordance with what they take joy in, it is caused to be uneven as above. If it is to accomplish teaching and contemplation for beginners, we therefore temporarily use three sūtras. Next, from "the sages" onward, admonishing and encouraging practice. Third, from "now determining" onward, directly showing the intention of using three sūtras. For this reason, our school is unlike ordinary people who interpret sūtras and treatises merely by enumerating stages according to dharma-characteristics. Now, for our single school's separate stages, if one does not rely on the Yingluo, the stages will have no beginning or end; if one does not rely on the Large Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra, the stages will entirely lack the gradations of severing delusions and the limits of applying contemplation; if one does not rely on the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, the depth and shallowness, form, distance and proximity of the bodhisattva's vows and practices cannot be known. The three sūtras complement each other, and the Buddha's intent is not lost. Fourth, explaining the three texts itself has three: first, relying on the Yingluo and Renwang, saying "the prajñā of the preceding four periods": ancient [masters] judged prajñā to have five periods in total: first the Mahā, second the Vajra, third the Devarāja, fourth the Guangzan, fifth the Renwang. This also cannot be entirely adopted. Even so, the Mahā is definitely prior to the Renwang. How is this known? The Renwang states: "Twenty-nine years after the Tathāgata achieved enlightenment, he had already previously preached the Mahāprajñā for our sake." Hence we know that the Renwang is definitively subsequent. As for the Guangzan Sūtra, according to the catalogues of sūtras, on the twenty-third day of the fourth month in the fifth year of Hongshi, the translation of the Large Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra was completed, forming twenty-seven fascicles—this is it. Later, Dharmarakṣa translated the upper case in the first year of Taikang of the Jin as the Guangzan; further, Zhu Shixing translated it into twenty fascicles, titled the Fangguang banruo; Kumārajīva retranslated it into ten fascicles, titled "Aṣṭasāhasrikā"; Lokakṣema also translated it into ten fascicles, titled "Daoxing"; someone else translated it into five fascicles, titled "Damingdu"; another translated an abridgement of Guangzan, titled "Damingdu"; another translated an abridgement of Guangzan, titled "Dazhi wuji"; someone else translated it, titled "Dapin". One should know that Guangzan is merely the upper case of the Large Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra, translated later, so it cannot be taken as meaning a separate period. For this reason, arranging it in sequence with the Renwang and the Devarāja cannot be entirely adopted. Although the intent of the Lotus Sūtra encompasses them, its names of stages are not made manifest, so we only use two sūtras. Saying "the nine kinds of precepts, concentration, and wisdom of the Dichi": since the treatise text states that the six perfections each have nine, now only mentioning three is either subsuming the six under three, or briefly raising three essentials. However, the functions, dharma-characteristics of vows and practices, grades of severing delusions, breadth of converting beings, purity or defilement of lands of reliance, number of manifested traces, superiority or inferiority of the true and response [bodies], corresponding dharma-gates, and so forth of the various stages cannot all be listed. Therefore, the present text merely clarifies a single track; hence there is no leisure to explain the dharma-characteristics extensively. Now, conforming to the style of the text, we do not go into fine detail; broadly investigating sūtras and treatises would, it is feared, add clutter to the root text. Thus one knows that relying on these textual characteristics is sufficient to discern the provisional and the real.