法華玄義釋籤 11.20

11.20

次判開中二：先約五味判，次「但說」下開。初如文。次「但說」下為二：初開成於圓教行位三皆不廢，次「無量義」下更重敘施。又三：初正明，次「成道」下引證，三「相傳」下釋疑。疑云：經但言餘，為七十一，為七十九？是故引證。言「相傳云佛七十二說法華」者，準菩提流支《法界性論》云：「但成道後，四十二年說。」《法華經論》非佛說，故云「相傳」。《法華》但云「四十餘年」，不的云「二」者，教法被物所見不同是故從容。次別約教行等者，於中為二：初正釋，次問答釋疑。初又五：初以教對行位為四句分別，次約廢不廢等教行位三四句分別，三「又廢教」下單約教以廢聞相對為四句分別，四「又廢智」下單約於智廢脩相對為四句分別，五「又廢位」下單約於位廢入相對為四句分別；一一四句中皆先列，次釋。初教對位行中言俱廢者，既指菩薩，當知前之二句並指二乘，二乘於法華前亦有密悟，故三藏菩薩於法華前顯密俱得。第四句者，教所錄行必留被後，通有二乘，望前三藏，義類可見。若約別教，但不須言住果及以密悟，餘者並同。何者？初句應云廢教道之教也。行位若至初地已上，即成法界，何須廢耶？行位廢者，接入後教、教逗後人。俱廢者初心便轉。俱不廢者亦逗後人。次四句中言「利根」者，並是菩薩初心即轉，鈍根二乘久住方便。言「合」者，共也。次聞教四句中言「如廢」者，舉三藏菩薩為語端耳，應通歷三教。第二句四教菩薩並須闕之，或是初心退墮者耳。第三句亦須歷諸教。第四句亦通諸菩薩，不必在密。次廢智四句中，初句者亦通三菩薩。次不廢智更脩智中云「又次第習者是也」者，凡云廢者，若法華前或廢權位，入權入實，廢權入實，廢高歸下。若次第脩習者，從初發心，本擬次第，自淺階深，何待廢淺而入深也。第三句者，三教菩薩闕之，亦據法華前故，引方等文意證也。言「逗後」者，人雖不脩，更須逗後。第四句者，四教初心並有此義，且約三藏事相便耳。「通教」至「如此」者，通有三乘，是故料簡全同三藏；別唯菩薩，故前明廢教，不更聞教，此句全闕。今不廢位而更入位句，闕二乘邊，由此別教次第入位其義可然。

Next, regarding classifying and opening, there are two parts: first, classifying according to the five flavors; next, opening from "Only explaining..." onwards. The first is as in the text. Next, from "Only explaining..." onwards, there are two parts: first, opening and accomplishing so that practice and stages in the Perfect Teaching are all three not abolished; next, from "Immeasurable Meanings..." onwards, reiterating the bestowal. This again has three parts: first, directly explaining; next, from "Attaining the Way..." onwards, citing proof; third, from "Tradition says..." onwards, resolving doubts. The doubt says: the sūtra only says "more than"; is it seventy-one, or seventy-nine? Therefore, proof is cited. Regarding "Tradition says the Buddha preached the Lotus Sūtra at seventy-two": based on Bodhiruci's Dharmadhātu-svabhāva-śāstra, it says, "He preached it only forty-two years after attaining the Way." The Upadeśa on the Lotus Sūtra was not spoken by the Buddha, hence it is called "tradition." The Lotus Sūtra only says "forty-odd years" without specifically saying "two," because the teaching's instruction of beings is perceived differently, and thus it is left open. Next, concerning treating teachings, practices, and so forth separately, there are two parts: first, directly explaining; next, resolving doubts through questions and answers. The first again has five: first, contrasting teaching with practice and stage in a fourfold analysis; next, a fourfold analysis regarding teaching, practice, and stage in terms of abolishing and non-abolishing; third, from "Moreover, abolishing the teaching..." onwards, a fourfold analysis solely regarding the teaching in terms of abolishing and hearing; fourth, from "Moreover, abolishing wisdom..." onwards, a fourfold analysis solely regarding wisdom in terms of abolishing and cultivating; fifth, from "Moreover, abolishing the stage..." onwards, a fourfold analysis solely regarding the stage in terms of abolishing and entering; in each and every fourfold analysis, he first enumerates and then explains. First, in contrasting teaching with stages and practices, where it says "both are abolished": since it refers to bodhisattvas, one should know that the preceding two propositions both refer to the two vehicles. The two vehicles also had secret awakenings prior to the Lotus Sūtra, so bodhisattvas of the Tripiṭaka Teaching attained both explicitly and secretly prior to the Lotus Sūtra. As for the fourth proposition: the practices recorded by the teaching must be preserved to instruct those who come after; the Shared Teaching includes the two vehicles, and when viewed against the preceding Tripiṭaka Teaching, the category of meaning can be seen. If in terms of the Separate Teaching, one simply need not speak of abiding in the fruit or secret awakening, while the rest are identical. Why? The first proposition should be said to abolish the teaching of the doctrinal path. If practice and stage reach the first bhūmi or above, they constitute the dharmadhātu; why should they be abolished? If practice and stage are abolished, they are brought into the subsequent teaching, and the teaching accommodates subsequent persons. When both are abolished, their initial aspiration is immediately converted. When both are not abolished, it likewise accommodates subsequent persons. In the next four propositions, the mention of "sharp faculties" refers entirely to bodhisattvas whose initial aspiration is immediately converted, whereas dull-facultied beings of the two vehicles dwell long in expedient means. "Combined" means shared. Next, in the four propositions on hearing the teaching, where it says "as in abolishing," it merely takes the bodhisattva of the Tripiṭaka Teaching as a starting point; it should apply generally across the three teachings. The second proposition must be lacked by bodhisattvas of all four teachings, or it may refer to those who regress from their initial aspiration. The third proposition must also apply across the teachings. The fourth proposition also applies generally to the various bodhisattvas, not necessarily only in secret. Next, among the four propositions on abolishing wisdom, the first proposition also applies generally to the three bodhisattvas. Next, under not abolishing wisdom and further cultivating wisdom, where it says "moreover, those who practice sequentially are an example": whenever one speaks of abolishing, prior to the Lotus Sūtra it means either abolishing provisional stages to enter the provisional or enter the real, abolishing the provisional to enter the real, or abolishing the high to return to the low. If one cultivates sequentially, from the initial resolve of mind one originally intended sequence, proceeding from the shallow to step into the profound; why wait to abolish the shallow to enter the profound? The third proposition is lacked by bodhisattvas of the three teachings, also based on what occurred prior to the Lotus Sūtra, hence citing the sense of the Vaipulya texts as proof. Regarding "accommodating those who come after": although that person does not cultivate it, it must still accommodate those who come after. The fourth proposition: beginners of the four teachings all have this meaning; it is merely framed in terms of the Tripiṭaka Teaching because its phenomenal aspects are convenient. From "The Shared Teaching..." down to "like this": the Shared Teaching contains the three vehicles, so its analysis is entirely the same as the Tripiṭaka Teaching; the Separate Teaching is exclusively for bodhisattvas, so in the earlier explanation of abolishing the teaching and not hearing the teaching again, this proposition is entirely lacking. Now, the proposition of not abolishing the stage and further entering stages lacks the aspect of the two vehicles; thus, the meaning of sequentially entering stages in the Separate Teaching can be so.