法華玄義釋籤 15.20

15.20

六三世料簡者，初略立，次問答料簡。初文三：初引經示相，次「若過去」下釋，三「三世」下結。結中二：先法，次譬。次問答中，初如文。第二問者，若言諸佛皆有分身，多寶亦在諸佛之數，應有分身，何故云全身不散？即是重難。若全身者，何故復云處處聽經？答中先引《大論》解八念中初念佛中云「既云化身，即是分身」。「師云」去引南嶽釋，依按經文，文云臨滅度時，告四眾言，欲供養我全身者，應起一大塔，出證經時全身在於塔中，以誓願力，處處聽經。準南嶽釋多寶滅後全身不分，不分者不同碎身舍利耳。未妨諸佛亦有分身。從「如入」去，兼明《法華》是圓是常。「口唱」下明具四德以證常。「真淨大法」者，真是常德，淨是淨德，既有常淨，豈無我樂？故云「二德可知」。多寶全身尚遍十方，故知諸佛亦有分身。「鈍者讀文猶尚不覺」者，不覺此經具足四德，謬判《法華》不明常住，以是而言古今咸鈍。次問答中問諸佛顯本。問如文。答中「最初妙覺指初住為本」者，最初得故，若初住位被加作妙覺佛，亦指初住以為實本，準《淨名疏》應作四句，謂本下迹高，本迹俱下，初住唯得此之兩句。夫論迹者約有本說，本為法身、迹為八相，初住之前無法身本，故不得論本高迹下，仍有過上，又不得論本迹俱高。若本迹俱高及本高迹下，妙覺唯得此之二句，妙覺極位更無過上，故無本下迹高及本迹俱下。二住已上等覺已還皆具四句，二住迹現為初住，初住是迹即本高迹下，二住現為三住，三住是迹即本下迹高，二住現為二住，以望初住即本迹俱高，望於三住即本迹俱下。今文正當本下迹高，若云初住之前竪無所指，以體為本、以用為迹，此本迹俱下句也。若準此意，一切諸佛皆悉顯本。又發願故於初住中說壽長遠，初住實壽亦復無量，故言發願說壽者，但得法身必得長壽，有緣機熟說遂昔願（云云）。從「又解最初之佛」者，即妙覺身中自將體用以為本迹，此是本迹俱高句，唯闕本高迹下一句。問中云「五佛章云何」者，如〈方便品〉廣開顯中約五佛章皆云亦以無量乃至皆為一佛乘故，若爾一切諸佛無不開顯。答意者，佛亦不應一切開權，經言一切約出穢土開顯者說耳。「又問若爾還以妙破妙至例亦應妙」者，前文既以本妙破於迹妙，迹妙成麁。從「亦應」去，並難迹妙被破既其成麁，所破十麁亦應成妙。從「所破」去又以四住重例難云，麁是所破既得成妙，四住煩惱亦是所破亦應成妙。次答文中重引四住之難以況初難，若約頓義，四住即妙，應如所問。「況四住智」去況出初難，四住麁惑尚乃成妙，況復生滅無生滅智而非妙耶？次問意者，本成已後中間垂迹偏圓權實同稱權者，以是迹故，故皆是權。權即是偏亦可悉皆稱為偏耶？次答別義者不例，法既以定在本在迹定偏定圓，教則不爾，在本則權實俱本，本故是實，在迹則權實俱迹，迹故名權，偏圓乃至體用亦爾。法則已定，不可在本體用名體，在迹體用俱用，若教所說在本則體用俱實，在迹則體用俱權，當知體用等亦得是法，事理理教教行，準此可知。故下文云本中事理先得為妙，迹中事理始得為麁，餘教行等例之可見。四句者，別帶地前麁而證道是妙，圓如文。帶妙麁者兼通於中故也。又釋者帶麁妙者從通中來故。亦帶亦不帶者，帶地前而不帶通藏。非帶非不帶者，非帶藏通非不帶別，二教接通亦爾，非帶三藏非不帶通。次五味中第三句者，方等前三帶、後一不帶，般若準知。第四句者，非帶藏通非不帶別。「問二麁既不同」者，問藏通。答中言「事有淺深等」者，通即而藏不即。「問帶方便實」等者，問別圓教也。俱顯中道而別帶圓不帶。次問「帶二一」等者，亦問別圓地前以為帶二。次「通論」下雖不酬問而廣分別者，一一句並是答而略於問耳。「問本地」等者，卷初六重本迹，今十妙屬六中何重也？答中云「乃是」等者，卷初已分，此乃重問。何者？初云本地五重為本，中間今日為迹，既本地五雙屬本，不知五雙如何對本？故更問之。今答文復含，但云「共論十妙」，若爾事理理教教行秖是因，權實體用秖是果家之用，果必有體故也。用即感應神通說法，說法所被即成眷屬利益，壽命涅槃還是果上法耳。故不別敘，但云「共論」。

Sixth, regarding the examination of the three times: first, it is briefly established; next, questions and answers examine it. The initial text has three parts: first, citing the sūtra to indicate the characteristics; next, the explanation beginning with 'If the past...'; and third, the conclusion beginning with 'The three times...'. In the conclusion, there are two parts: first, phenomenal principles; next, a parable. In the questions and answers that follow, the first is as in the text. The second question means: if it is said that all buddhas have emanations (pratibimba-buddhas), Prabhūtaratna is also among the number of all buddhas and should have emanations, so why is it said that his whole body does not disperse? This is a repeated objection. If his body is whole, why is it also said that he listens to the sūtra everywhere? In the answer, it first cites the Da zhidu lun explaining the recollection of the Buddha among the eight recollections, which states: 'Since it speaks of a transformation body, that is an emanation.' From 'The Master said' onward, it cites the explanation of Nanyue [Huisi]: following the sūtra text, the text says that when he was about to enter extinction, he addressed the fourfold assembly, saying: 'If anyone wishes to make offerings to my whole body, they should erect a great stūpa.' When appearing to bear witness to the sūtra, his whole body was inside the stūpa, and by the power of his vows, he listened to the sūtra everywhere. According to Nanyue's explanation, after Prabhūtaratna's extinction, his whole body was not divided; 'not divided' merely means it was not like shattered-body relics. This does not prevent all buddhas from also possessing emanations. From 'Like entering...' onward, it additionally explains that the Lotus Sūtra is perfect and eternal. From 'The mouth proclaims...' downward, it clarifies that it possesses the four virtues to prove eternality. 'The true and pure great Dharma': 'true' is the virtue of permanence, and 'pure' is the virtue of purity. Since permanence and purity are present, how could there not be self and bliss? Thus it says, 'The [other] two virtues can be known.' If even Prabhūtaratna's whole body pervades the ten directions, one should know that all buddhas also have emanations. 'Dull-witted people reading the text still do not realize it' means they do not realize this sūtra is fully endowed with the four virtues, erroneously judging that the Lotus Sūtra does not clarify eternal abiding; judging by this, both ancient and modern [scholars] have been dull-witted. Next, in the questions and answers, the question concerns all buddhas revealing the origin. The question is as in the text. In the answer, 'the initial wondrous awakening designates the first abodeth as the origin' because it was first attained; if one in the position of the first abode is empowered to act as a buddha of wondrous awakening, they likewise designate the first abode as their true origin. Following the commentary on the Vimalakīrti, one should construct a fourfold schema, namely: the origin is low and the trace is high; both origin and trace are low. The first abode attains only these two propositions. When discussing traces, one speaks in relation to having an origin: the origin is the dharma body, and the trace comprises the eight aspects [of the Buddha's life]. Before the first abode, there is no origin of the dharma body, so one cannot speak of the origin being high and the trace being low; yet there are superior stages above it, so one also cannot speak of both origin and trace being high. As for both origin and trace being high, and the origin being high and the trace being low, wondrous awakening attains only these two propositions; since the ultimate stage of wondrous awakening has nothing superior to it, it lacks 'origin is low and trace is high' and 'both origin and trace are low'. From the second abode upward to equal awakening, all four propositions are possessed: when the second abode traces manifest as the first abode, the first abode is the trace, which is 'origin high and trace low'; when the second abode manifests as the third abode, the third abode is the trace, which is 'origin low and trace high'; when the second abode manifests as the second abode, looking toward the first abode both origin and trace are high, and looking toward the third abode both origin and trace are low. The present text properly corresponds to 'origin low and trace high'. If one says that prior to the first abode there is vertically nothing to point to, taking essence as origin and function as trace, this is the proposition 'both origin and trace are low'. Following this intention, all buddhas without exception reveal the origin. Furthermore, due to making vows, in the first abode one speaks of a long life-span, and the actual life-span of the first abode is also immeasurable; thus, speaking of life-span due to vows means that as long as one attains the dharma body, one will surely attain a long life-span, and when the capacities of those with affinities ripen, one speaks to fulfill one's past vows (and so forth). From 'Another explanation: the initial buddha...', it means that within the person of wondrous awakening, one takes essence and function as origin and trace; this is the proposition 'both origin and trace are high', lacking only the single proposition 'origin high and trace low'. In the question, 'What about the section on the five buddhas?' refers to the broad revelation in the 'Expedient Means' chapter where, regarding the sections on the five buddhas, all state: 'also by means of immeasurable... down to: all for the sake of the one Buddha vehicle'; if so, all buddhas without exception would open and reveal. The intention of the answer is that the Buddha would not open the provisional for all; when the sūtra says 'all', it merely speaks in reference to those who appear in impure lands to open and reveal. Regarding 'It is also asked: If so, using the wondrous to break the wondrous... by analogy it should also be wondrous': since the previous text used the origin's wondrous to refute the trace's wondrous, the trace's wondrous becomes coarse. From 'should also' onward, it raises the parallel objection that since the trace's wondrous becomes coarse upon being refuted, the ten coarsenesses that were refuted should also become wondrous. From 'what was refuted' onward, it again uses the four abodes [of affliction] to draw a parallel objection, saying: since coarseness is what was refuted and can become wondrous, the afflictions of the four abodes are also what are refuted and should likewise become wondrous. In the next answer, the text reiterates the objection of the four abodes to contextualize the initial objection: if according to the sudden meaning, the four abodes are identical to the wondrous, as was asked. From 'how much more so the wisdom of the four abodes' onward, it draws an inference to resolve the initial objection: if even the coarse delusions of the four abodes are wondrous, how much more so could the wisdom of production-and-extinction and non-production-and-extinction fail to be wondrous? Next, the meaning of the question is: after the origin was accomplished, in the intermediate traces cast down, whether biased or perfect, provisional or real, they are all called 'provisional' because they are traces, and therefore are all provisional. Provisional is biased; can all likewise be called biased? Next, the answer clarifies a distinct meaning that cannot be analogized: phenomena are already fixed as being in the origin or in the trace, fixed as biased or perfect; teachings are not like this. In the origin, both provisional and real belong to the origin, and because they are the origin, they are real. In the trace, both provisional and real belong to the trace, and because they are traces, they are called provisional; biased and perfect, and even essence and function, are likewise so. Phenomena are already fixed: one cannot say that in the origin essence and function are called essence, while in the trace essence and function are both function; if speaking in terms of teaching, in the origin both essence and function are real, and in the trace both essence and function are provisional. One should know that essence, function, and the like can also be phenomena; matter and principle, principle and teaching, teaching and practice should be understood following this. Hence the text below states that in the origin, matter and principle are wondrous because they were attained earlier, while in the trace, matter and principle are coarse because they were only just attained; the remaining teachings, practices, and so forth can be seen by analogy. Regarding the four propositions: the Separate [Teaching] brings along what is coarse prior to the stages and realizes the path, which is wondrous; the Perfect is as in the text. 'Bringing along what is wondrous and coarse' is because it also communicates with the Middle. Another explanation: 'bringing along what is coarse and wondrous' is because it comes from the Common [Teaching]. 'Both bringing along and not bringing along' means bringing along what is prior to the stages while not bringing along the Common and Tripiṭaka. 'Neither bringing along nor not bringing along' means neither bringing along the Tripiṭaka and Common nor not bringing along the Separate; the two teachings receiving the Common are also like this: neither bringing along the Tripiṭaka nor not bringing along the Common. Next, among the five flavors, the third proposition: in the Vaipulya, the former three bring along, while the latter one does not bring along; the Prajñā can be understood by analogy. The fourth proposition: neither bringing along the Tripiṭaka and Common nor not bringing along the Separate. 'Question: Since the two coarsenesses are not the same...': this asks about the Tripiṭaka and Common. In the answer, 'phenomena have shallowness and depth, etc.' means the Common is identical, whereas the Tripiṭaka is not identical. 'Question: Bringing along provisional and real...' asks about the Separate and Perfect teachings. Both reveal the Middle Way, but the Separate brings along while the Perfect does not. Next, the question 'Bringing along two and one...' also asks about the pre-stages of the Separate and Perfect as bringing along two. Next, from 'Generally speaking...' downward, although it does not directly reply to the question, it analyzes broadly: sentence by sentence, all are answers, while merely abbreviating the question. 'Question: The fundamental stage...': regarding the sixfold origin and traces at the beginning of the fascicle, to which of the six do the present ten wonders belong? In the answer, 'It is precisely...' and so forth: this was already distinguished at the beginning of the fascicle, so this is a repeated question. Why? Initially it said that the fivefold origin in the fundamental stage is the origin, and the intermediate and present day are traces; since the five pairs of the fundamental stage belong to the origin, it was not known how the five pairs correspond to the origin. Hence it was asked again. Now the text of the answer is again all-inclusive, merely saying 'jointly discuss the ten wonders'. If so, matter and principle, principle and teaching, teaching and practice are merely causes; provisional and real, essence and function are merely the function of the fruit, for the fruit must possess an essence. Function is sympathetic resonance, supernatural powers, and preaching the Dharma; those who are embraced by preaching the Dharma become the retinue and benefits; life-span and nirvāṇa are still dharmas of the fruit. Hence they are not set forth separately, but it merely says 'jointly discuss'.