法華玄義釋籤 3.62

3.62

次果體廣狹四難者，亦標、釋、結。釋中二：先昔、次今。初又二：初難、次結。初難中全具四一，文且引《般若》、《淨名》，但是理一教一，餘二比於上下諸文，類之可知，故略不說。次從「若謂今果」去難今經果上四一不成。初不滿不了教一不成，光宅疏中云「明一乘故滿了，不明佛性故不滿不了」。從「何故復言」去行一不成。從「若體廣」去人一不成。此等並是光宅疏意。言「七百阿僧祇」者，《首楞嚴》下卷「堅首菩薩白佛言：世尊！佛壽幾何？何時入滅？佛告堅首：東方去此三萬二千佛土國名莊嚴，佛號照明莊嚴自在王，十號具足，今現說法，如彼佛所有壽量，我壽亦爾。又問：彼佛壽命幾何？佛言：汝自往問，彼自當答。堅首承佛神力，於一念頃即往彼國，頂禮遶佛白佛言：世尊！壽命幾何？幾時入滅？彼佛答言：如釋迦壽，我亦如是。汝欲知者，我壽七百阿僧祇劫，釋迦亦爾。堅首還白佛竟。阿難言：如我解佛所說，彼佛是釋迦異名。佛告阿難：汝承佛力，乃知是事。乃至上方有土名一燈明等，並釋迦分身。」從「若言」去理一不成。言應備五眼見佛性者，據不見佛性則無佛眼。「當知」下結。次果位中亦三：標、釋、結。釋中亦應先舉昔有，次斥今無，文中從略直舉今無，準前諸釋，驗知昔破。次果用中亦三：標、釋、結。釋中亦不出昔直舉今文，準前可知。於中二：先正破無四一，次廣破神通。初文二：先破、次結，可知。

Next, regarding the four objections to the broadness and narrowness of the fruition substance, there are also: the heading, the explanation, and the conclusion. In the explanation there are two [parts]: first the past, and next the present. The first also has two: first the objection, and next the conclusion. In the first objection, the four unities are fully present; the text temporarily cites the Large Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra and the Vimalakīrti, but these are only the unity of principle and unity of teaching. The remaining two, compared with the passages above and below, can be understood by analogy; hence they are omitted and not stated. Next, from 'if one claims that the present fruition' onward, he objects that the four unities in the fruition of the present sūtra are not established. First, that it is incomplete and non-definitive renders the unity of teaching unestablished. In Guangzhai's commentary, it says: 'Because it clarifies the one vehicle, it is complete and definitive; because it does not clarify the Buddha-nature, it is incomplete and non-definitive.' From 'Why then is it also said' onward, the unity of practice is unestablished. From 'If the substance is broad' onward, the unity of persons is unestablished. These are all the notions of Guangzhai's commentary. Regarding the words 'seven hundred asaṃkhyeya': in the lower fascicle of the Śūraṅgama [Samādhi] Sūtra, 'Bodhisattva Dṛḍhamati addressed the Buddha: "World-Honoured One! How long is the Buddha's life span? When will you enter extinction?" The Buddha told Dṛḍhamati: "To the east, thirty-two thousand Buddha-lands from here, there is a country named Alaṅkāra. The Buddha's name is Prabhāsamalaṅkārasaṃsthitarāja, complete with the ten epithets, and presently expounding the Dharma. As is the measure of that Buddha's life span, so is my life span." He asked again: "How long is that Buddha's life span?" The Buddha said: "Go and ask him yourself; he will answer on his own." Dṛḍhamati, relying on the Buddha's spiritual power, arrived at that country in a single thought-moment. He bowed with his head at the Buddha's feet, circumambulated him, and addressed the Buddha: "World-Honoured One! How long is your life span? When will you enter extinction?" That Buddha answered: "Just as Śākyamuni's life span is, so is mine. If you wish to know: my life span is seven hundred asaṃkhyeya kalpas; Śākyamuni's is likewise." Dṛḍhamati returned and finished reporting this to the Buddha. Ānanda said: "As I understand what the Buddha has spoken, that Buddha is another name for Śākyamuni." The Buddha told Ānanda: "You have understood this matter because you relied on the Buddha's power."... Up to: above there is a land called Ekadīpa, etc.; all are emanations of Śākyamuni.' From 'if it is said' onward, the unity of principle is unestablished. The statement that one should be equipped with the five eyes to see the Buddha-nature is based on the fact that without seeing the Buddha-nature, there is no Buddha-eye. From 'one should know' onward is the conclusion. Next, in the fruition position there are also three: the heading, the explanation, and the conclusion. In the explanation, one should also first cite its presence in the past, and next reprove its absence in the present; the text follows brevity by directly citing its absence in the present. According to the preceding explanations, it is verified that the past was refuted. Next, in the fruition function there are also three: the heading, the explanation, and the conclusion. The explanation also does not bring forth the past, but directly cites the present text; this can be known by analogy with the preceding. Within this there are two: first, directly refuting the absence of the four unities; next, broadly refuting supernormal powers. The first text has two: first the refutation, and next the conclusion, which can be understood.