法華玄義釋籤 6

English (machine translation) 6

Language: English

6.1

Composed by the Tiantai Śramaṇa Zhanran.

Next is the explanation of conforming to wisdom: setting aside what is seen by the minds of worldly people, it solely clarifies the two truths seen by sages, independently forming one round. Within this there are five parts: first, establishing the marks; second, from "like eyes..." onwards, raising an analogy; third, from "further, like..." onwards, citing facts; fourth, from "Pitan..." onwards, using an analogy again to reveal the profound superiority of the two truths; fifth, from "therefore the sūtra..." onwards, citing the teachings to conclude with the names. The Buddha abides in the ultimate stage; therefore, the ultimate stage is cited to prove the superiority of wisdom and to conclude the attainment of the names. In the first text, "awakening to principle" is seeing the real, and being furthermore able to discern the conventional truth; hence one knows that conforming to wisdom possesses both of the two truths. In the analogy, "form and emptiness" analogizes the two truths. In citing facts, close facts are cited to compare with distant principle: entering phenomenal dhyāna is like "awakening to the real"; the body becoming insubstantial and the mind open and clear is like "discerning the conventional". In the analogical demonstration, delusions of view are like the "small cloud", and delusions of thought are like the "great cloud". "Uncontaminated" refers to seeing the real; "worldly wisdom" refers to discerning the conventional. In concluding with the names, the failings of the ordinary are cited to reveal the attainments of the sage; hence one knows that the two truths of the sage are complete. The fourth concluding text is obvious.

6.3

Next is the proper clarification of the two truths, which contains four parts: first, clarifying the intention of their occurrence; second, clarifying their function; third, from "that which is called..." onwards, extensive explanation; fourth, from "questions and answers..." onwards, analysis through questions and answers. As for the first text, in all explanations of doctrine, one either goes from the extensive to the brief, or begins briefly and then becomes extensive; going toward the brief applies cross-sectional surpassing in advance, while going toward the extensive adheres to the individual limits of the doctrinal teachings. Therefore, to state it briefly, there is only the single dharma-nature paired against fundamental ignorance. Fundamental ignorance is the beginning of delusion regarding the real; the dharma-nature points entirely to fundamental ignorance—from time without beginning, when has it ever not been real? Before generating the mind [for bodhi], there is no real that is not conventional; just pointing to a single dharma, the two truths are distinctly complete. The conventional is the hundred realms and thousand suchnesses; the real is coexisting in a single thought-moment; yet their marks are still shown to be distinct. Although its principle is complete, as it is coarse and shallow, hearing it leads to falling into suffering; therefore, throughout his lifetime, the Buddha accommodationally opened seven tiers and twenty-one tiers to respond to the emotional capacities of beings, so that the Buddha's original intent might be expressed and the past seeds of beings might be fulfilled. Classifying them and opening them according to the following two gates: the intention is as explained before.

6.4

Next, under function, there are two parts: first, setting forth the first round; second, using the subsequent to compare with the first. The first again has two: doctrine and analogy. As for the doctrine in the first, as in the Zhiguan, from Kalodāyin at the beginning to the attachment to the perfect at the end, all are refuted without exception by the initial teaching; how much more so when the subsequent three rounds of each are listed?

6.5

Third, in the proper explanation, there are two parts: first, listing; second, explaining. As for the initial intention: first, Tripiṭaka; second, Shared; third, Separate connecting to Shared; fourth, Perfect connecting to Shared; fifth, Separate; sixth, Perfect connecting to Separate; seventh, Perfect. If in the Zhiguan, in order to accomplish the contemplation of principle, one solely used the principle outside the realms to connect to the principle within the realms; therefore, the two teachings, Tripiṭaka and Shared, clarify the principle within the realms, while the two teachings, Separate and Perfect, clarify the principle outside the realms. Because the two teachings, Shared and Separate, clarify the boundary between the two principles, it solely clarified the Separate connecting to the Shared. Now the preceding six tiers still preserve the doctrinal path, adapting to those provisional capacities prior to the Lotus Sūtra; hence there are the two senses of the Perfect connecting to the Shared and to the Separate. The real path ought only to connect the provisional through the perfect principle; therefore, in explaining the present text, one should conform to the doctrinal path and furthermore connect the exclusive middle with the perfect middle. Furthermore, although these seven names establish two truths, the meaning of the latter five already contains three: illusory existence is the conventional, emptiness is the real, and non-emptiness is the middle; but observe: in the names, where is emptiness combined? If it is combined in the conventional truth, it is like the Separate Teaching named the two truths of containing the real to enter the conventional; if it is combined into the real truth, it is like the Separate and Perfect entering the Shared named the two truths of containing the middle to enter the real. The Tripiṭaka and Shared teachings are named simple conventional and simple real, while the Perfect Teaching is named the inconceivable real and conventional. If one apprehends this intention thoroughly and investigates the names to explain the meaning, not an iota will be lost.

6.6

Next, within the explanation, the text itself has seven. If one wishes to rely on the teachings, these seven texts are scattered throughout various sūtras and nowhere appear completely together; only in chapter twelve of the Great Sūtra, after the text on the four truths, are eight pairs of two truths listed, which Zhang'an explained as seven pairs of two truths: the first is general, and the remaining seven are particular. The first says: "As seen by the minds of transworldly people, it is named the ultimate truth; as seen by the minds of worldly people, it is named the conventional truth." The Commentary says that it generally crowns the various truths; the multiple kinds of worldly sentiment are bound together as the conventional truth, and the multiple knowledges of sagely wisdom are bound together as the ultimate truth—that is, conforming to emotional capacities and to wisdom across the various teachings. The sūtra says: "The combination of the five aggregates called by the name 'so-and-so' is named the conventional truth; understanding that the aggregates are devoid of aggregates and also devoid of names, and that apart from the aggregates there is also nothing, is named the ultimate truth." The aggregates are real dharmas, and "so-and-so" is a nominal designation; this is the conventional truth of real existence. Being devoid of aggregates and names is the emptiness of both nominal and real; if apart from the aggregates, it is called empty space; therefore, apart from the aggregates there is neither "so-and-so" nor the names of the two truths. The Commentary calls this the two truths of name and namenessless. The conventional truth has names, while the real truth is nameless; this is the two truths of arising and ceasing. The sūtra says: "Some dharmas have names and have reality: this is named the ultimate truth; some dharmas have names but no reality: this is named the conventional truth." Illusory transformations and nominal designations are empty, hence reality is the real truth. Pointing solely to illusory transformations, there are only nominal designations, hence it is named the conventional truth; therefore, the Commentary calls this the two truths of real and non-real. The true reality is real, while illusory transformation is non-real; this is the two truths of non-arising. The sūtra says: "Such as self, person, sentient being, life span, knower, and seer, down to tortoise hair, rabbit horns, and so forth, the aggregates, realms, and entrances are named the conventional truth; suffering, accumulation, cessation, and path are named the real truth." The conventionality of rabbit horns is not different from the preceding, thus forming a simple conventional; the meanings of the four truths contain and together constitute the real truth, which is the real truth that contains the middle. Therefore, the Commentary calls this the two truths of definite and indefinite. This is simple conventional and compound real: the conventional is indefinite, while the middle way is named definite. The sūtra says: "Worldly dharmas are of five kinds: the nominal world, the phrase world, the bondage world, the dharma world, and the clinging world; these are named the conventional truth. The sūtra text explains extensively: not being inverted in mind regarding these five dharmas is named the ultimate truth." The names of the five kinds of worldly dharmas differ from before, but the broad meaning is not different; it is also a simple conventional. Being non-inverted regarding the world means seeing the true mark; although the exclusive middle of the doctrinal path is not yet ultimate, this middle is ultimate and, looking back to what preceded, is therefore real. Hence the Commentary calls this the two truths of dharma and non-dharma. Dharma refers to the true mark, and non-dharma refers to the conventional; this is also the two truths containing the middle. The sūtra says: "Burning, cutting, dying, and breaking are named the conventional truth; the absence of burning, cutting, dying, and so forth is named the ultimate truth." Expedients prior to the bhūmis all belong to impermanence, hence are said to be burnable; ascending the bhūmis and seeing the eternal, there is no burning and so forth; therefore the Commentary calls this the two truths of burnable and unburnable. The impermanent is burnable, while the eternal is unburnable; this is the two truths of compound conventional and simple middle. The sūtra says: "There being eight kinds of suffering is named the conventional truth; because of the absence of the eight kinds of suffering, it is the ultimate truth." The impermanence of the eight sufferings is identical to the meaning of burning above; the real that is devoid of the eight sufferings is the true mark; therefore the Commentary calls this the two truths of suffering and non-suffering, which is also compound conventional and simple middle. The doctrinal path has suffering; the perfect middle is devoid of suffering. The sūtra says: "For example, one person has multiple names; being born depending on parents is named the conventional truth; being born through the combination of the twelve causal conditions is named the ultimate truth." Being born depending on parents is itself the twelve causal conditions; but the reason they are divided into two is that in the Great Sūtra, it is clarified that the twelve causal conditions are Buddha-nature itself; relying for now on the explicit exposition, it takes Buddha-nature as the real truth, while being born depending on parents is fundamental ignorance and is named the conventional truth. Therefore the Commentary calls this the two truths of harmony: the real and conventional being non-dual is named harmony; this is the two truths of compound conventional and compound middle. At the end, it concludes by saying: now applying the seven pairs of two truths to explain this text, since the Buddha's intent is difficult to know, we merely adopt one master's view.

6.7

First, in explaining the Tripiṭaka Teaching's two truths of real existence, it only sets forth the general designation to directly analyze and unpack [the text], and does not list separate names again. Therein are two parts: first, directly explaining the two truths; next, showing the three intents. The first text again has four parts: first, explaining the characteristics; next, citing evidence; third, stating the intent; fourth, concluding with the name. In the first text, the statement "in manifold array" must refer to the characteristics of the dependent [environment] and proper [bodies] of the three realms. In the next [part of] citing evidence, the statement "the Large Sūtra says form is empty, emptiness is form," etc., cites the Large Sūtra to prove the Tripiṭaka [Teaching]. Since it does not say "is identical," it tentatively proves the Tripiṭaka: the conventional is merely form; analyzing and annihilating form is called "empty form"; stating that form really exists is called "unannihilated"; although it cannot be annihilated, because it is impermanent, it is called "form-empty." In the third part of stating the intent, because both the antidote and that which is antidoted really exist, they are therefore mutually exclusive. Next, from "In terms of this..." downward, it generally explains the three [intents] of following feelings, etc.; across the six levels below, the intent should be discernible. Therefore, under all the passages, it merely briefly touches on them, hence saying "one can know it by inferring." Although the various teachings differ, merely explaining differently according to the teachings is "following feelings"; explaining in terms of entering the principle is "following wisdom"; the two meanings set in contrast are "following feelings and wisdom." All are determined according to their respective teachings so that there is no confusion; their intent can be made manifest.

6.8

Next, in explaining the two truths of identity-with-emptiness, there are also two parts: first, explaining the two truths; next, clarifying the three intents. The first text has five parts: first, establishing the name; next, reproving the prior [teaching]; third, directly explaining the characteristics; fourth, citing evidence; fifth, concluding with the name; all are discernible. In the next [part on] the three intents, there are two: first, listing; next, distinguishing. The ultimate truth entered by the three vehicles of this teaching does not differ from the Tripiṭaka, yet the conventional illuminated [by them] differs between the two teachings; hence it is necessary to make this further distinction to resolve doubts. Therein are two parts: first, indicating; next, explaining. In the indication, saying "partially corresponds" means that having no leisure to treat it extensively, it tentatively distinguishes the difference in brief; hence it merely says "partially." Next, under "How so?", it explains, with four parts: first, bringing out identity and difference; next, explaining identity and difference; third, under "Like a hundred rivers...", adducing an analogy; fourth, under "Merely in terms of...", citing a precedent. The prior two are discernible. In the analogy, there are two: first, the analogy; next, the application. In the first analogy, the statement "Upon returning to the source, the rivers and streams are different" means: converging into the ocean is like the identity of the ultimate; the rivers and streams are like the difference of the conventional. It is because of contemplating the conventional that one tallies with true thusness; it is because of the manifold waters that the ocean is formed. Although converging into the ocean is identical, when one conversely traces back to the original source, the rivers and streams are different; just as tallying with the ultimate does not differ, but when one conversely traces back to the original conventional, the conventional is not the same. From "The conventional is..." downward, it applies the analogy and resolves doubts. Next, from "Merely in terms of..." downward, it takes the difference between the Tripiṭaka and Shared [Teachings] in emerging into the provisional as a precedent for the two conventionals of the Tripiṭaka and Shared. For the two people emerging into the provisional is one, yet the three faculties are different; what is there to prevent the ultimate of the two teachings from being identical while the conventional contemplated [by each] is distinct?

6.9

Next, explaining the meaning of "connecting" refers to containing the middle and entering the ultimate. Therein are three parts: first, indicating with one dharma; next, under "The conventional is not...", briefly demonstrating with three dharmas; third, under "Its characteristics...", distinguishing the characteristics, broadly resorting to three dharmas to distinguish their characteristics. The tainted and untainted are fundamentally the dharmas of the Shared [Teaching]; to establish the meaning of connecting, it establishes the double negation. Empty and not empty are fundamentally the dharmas of the Separate [Teaching]; all dharmas converging is fundamentally the dharma of the Perfect [Teaching]. With respect to each and every dharma, three kinds of people each grasp understanding differently, truly because the capacities are stimulated, and thus what is heard differs. Furthermore, because of their sharp or dull faculties, bodhisattvas of the Shared Teaching have different activations and habits; hence the dull are the same as the two vehicles, and are only gathered in when they reach the Lotus Sūtra; the sharp are connected and led into the middle path prior to that, so that while equally contemplating the conventional of illusory existence, their tallying with the ultimate differs for each. Therefore, when the Separate and Perfect capacities are stimulated in contrast to the dull who abide in emptiness, this leads to three distinct [types]. For this reason, in explaining the subsequent two connections, one must contrast them with the dull of the Shared [Teaching] to jointly form the three people who hear the same thing but listen differently; hence, it uses the tainted, etc., to show the source of understanding. If one grasps this intent, one will be unobstructed and sovereign with respect to all dharmas. Therein are four parts: first, directly explaining the three characteristics; next, under "Immeasurable...", clarifying the three intents; third, under "Why...", resolving doubts; fourth, under "The Large Sūtra...", citing evidence for the three people. The first text again has two parts: first, directly explaining; next, under "Therefore...", concluding. The first text itself has three divisions. The first text: the three people all employ the designation of double negation, yet their grasped understandings are unequal; therein are three parts: first, establishing according to the teaching; next, under "The first person...", clarifying the behavioral characteristics; third, under "How so?", re-explaining. "'Not untainted' is to dispel attachment": the untainted has no attachment, but because the practitioner's attaching mind takes it as an object, it now breaks that attaching mind; hence it is called "not," thus saying "not untainted." From "Like taking as an object..." downward, it cites a precedent to complete the explanation, returning to the principle of the ultimate truth. To be free from attachment is called "not," returning again to the untainted—this is the first person's intent, namely the dull faculty of the Shared [Teaching]. "The next person and another person" are the two people of sharp faculties. That the person of the Perfect [Teaching] also says "double negation" is because of carrying the Shared [Teaching's] expedient means; it is for this reason alone. Next, citing the Great Sūtra's "empty and not empty" as a precedent for the tainted and untainted can be understood from the meaning. Next, saying "The three people hearing convergence": the first person says "All dharmas do not depart from emptiness," whose meaning corresponds to all dharmas converging into emptiness; hence citing as a precedent, "Like a jar, like...", etc., "like" means empty. Just as the jar is empty, the emptiness of the realms of the ten directions is not different from the emptiness of the jar, so the emptiness of the ten directions all converges into the emptiness of the jar; this is the person of the Shared [Teaching]. The next person, upon hearing of convergence, knows that for this "exclusive middle" one must cultivate all practices prior to the bhūmis to converge toward the subsequent activation of the principle of the middle path of the first bhūmi; this is the person of the Separate [Teaching]. The third person, upon hearing, understands that it immediately possesses all, which is termed "convergence." Next, in the conclusion, the statement "or confronting" means that the three ultimates are that which confronts, and the one conventional is that which is confronted.

6.10

Next, clarifying the three intents, in which are two parts: first, establishing; next, explaining. In the first text, saying "immeasurable," etc., means that the reciprocal connection has already formed the conditions for adapting to capacities, within which each responds to conditions according to feelings, etc., and taking up and discarding rests with the ground; hence it says "appearing and disappearing to benefit beings." In the next [part of] explaining, there are two: first, explaining entering the ultimate; next, explaining illuminating the conventional. In the first part on entering the ultimate, saying "If in following wisdom one realizes, the conventional transforms in accordance with wisdom," etc., means that if in following wisdom one realizes, the one conventional transforms in accordance with the three ultimates. Because by using this [view of] following wisdom one contemplates the conventional of illusory existence, it transforms in accordance with wisdom, and the realization of the ultimate differs; thus it forms the difference of the three kinds of two truths. All use the words "realized through wisdom" as the opening of the phrase, and the words "two truths" as the end of the phrase. From "The three people entering wisdom..." downward, it conversely explains that after realizing the ultimate in following wisdom, one again illuminates the previous conventional with the realizing wisdom; hence it causes the three conventionals to be mutually limited and different. If one accomplishes the biased ultimate, it is limited to illuminating the illusory conventional; if one accomplishes the not-empty ultimate, it is limited to illuminating the conventional of the Buddha-dharmas numerous as the sands of the Ganges; if one accomplishes the ultimate of the true mark, it is limited to illuminating the inconceivable conventional beyond the realms.

6.11

Third, in resolving doubts, there are two parts: first, establishing the doubt; next, explaining. In the explanation, the statement "this is the uncommon Prajñā expounded in common with the two vehicles" means that the various divisions of Prajñā expound the uncommon dharma of the two kinds of middle path—exclusive and non-exclusive—in common with the two vehicles, as in saying "because the four truths are pure, true thusness is pure," etc. By analogy, the Vaipulya division is not without this meaning, but because the Vaipulya sūtras mostly follow reproof and scolding, the meaning of "common" is somewhat distant; therefore it is classified under Prajñā. In Prajñā, for bodhisattvas it constitutes common exposition; therefore, when reaching the lower text's classification of coarse and subtle, it says that Vaipulya has expositions of the Shared, the Separate entering the Shared, and the Perfect entering the Shared.

6.12

Fourth, from "The Large Sūtra says..." onward, it cites evidence for what is seen differently by the three people. The first person is originally in the Shared Teaching, and even at [the stage of] dry wisdom can also figuratively be said to correspond with sarvajña (all-knowledge); if one accomplishes the Separate or the Perfect, even if entering the first bhūmi or first abidance, it can also broadly be considered the initial aspiration. Because looking from the person oneself, it is an initial attainment, how much more would it not be initial if one has not yet entered the ranks? That the Separate Teaching in the present text is "roaming playfully in spiritual penetrations" is because it preserves the path of teaching and yields realization to the domain of the Perfect. If one enters the Perfect Teaching, even before the abidances it can also broadly be named "sitting at the site of awakening," which is the contemplative practice of resemblance acting as if one were a Buddha. To differentiate it from the Separate Teaching, it is therefore placed at the first abidance. The identity and difference of the cited texts are detailed as in the seventh record of the Zhiguan.

6.13

Next, clarifying the two truths of the Separate [Teaching], in which are two parts: first, directly explaining; next, clarifying the three intents. The first text again has two: first, directly explaining the characteristics; next, from "The two vehicles..." downward, reproving the Hinayāna. Again there are two: first, reproving; next, citing evidence. In the first text: the two vehicles in that Sudden Teaching, upon hearing the Separate, are already like the deaf and mute, etc.; therefore, in now reproving the Hinayāna, it can cite that text. In the next [part of] citing evidence, the statement "The five hundred voice-hearers thought it was an exposition of the ultimate truth": the Great Sūtra, fascicle thirty-three, says: "Although I have expounded that all sentient beings possess the Buddha-nature, sentient beings do not understand the Buddha's own intentional words. Good son! With respect to words such as these, even a bodhisattva in his final body cannot understand them, how much less the two vehicles and the remaining bodhisattvas? Once, on Mount Gṛdhrakūṭa, I discussed the conventional truth with Maitreya; among Śāriputra and the other five hundred voice-hearers, there was not a single one who recognized anything in this matter, how much less the supramundane ultimate truth?" The commentary says: "Question: Where was it expounded for the five hundred? Answer: One says it was like being deaf and mute in the Avataṃsaka; another says how can one measure the western scriptures; another says Master Tiantai says it pertains to many matters." Furthermore, the Great Sūtra, fascicle fifteen, says: "Furthermore, when the Tathāgata expounds on the conventional truth, sentient beings take it to be the ultimate truth; sometimes when he expounds the ultimate truth, sentient beings take it to be the conventional truth." Thus, the realm of the Buddhas is not something known by the two vehicles. Since the two vehicles take the bodhisattva's conventional as the ultimate, one should know that both the ultimate and conventional of the bodhisattva are not something fathomed by the two vehicles.

6.14

Next, the Perfect connecting the Separate also has two parts: first, directly explaining; next, clarifying the three intents. The first text again has two: first, briefly establishing; next, under "The person of the Separate...", reproving the Separate and explaining the characteristics.

6.15

As for the two truths of the Perfect [Teaching], there are also two parts: first, explaining the two truths; next, clarifying the three intents. The first text again has four: first, establishing; second, explaining the characteristics; third, analogy; fourth, clarifying the intent of the truths. The first text merely differentiates by means of both truths being inconceivable. In the previous listing of names, their characteristics were briefly present, as in the statement of the three truths, each speaking of "convergence." Next, in explaining the characteristics, merely stating "mutual identity" leaves the expression ambiguous with the Shared [Teaching]; one should explain according to the intent: the intent takes all converging into the middle as the ultimate, which is mutually identical with the conventional of the hundred realms, thousand thusnesses, and the thousand thusnesses fundamentally empty; hence one knows that the present identity is an identity with those sequential three truths of the Separate Teaching—only when the sequence has been made identical is the present identity completed. How so? If that [teaching] has not yet attained identity, it is still like the small emptiness and the provisional following phenomena, which are discussed as identical in contrast to the middle. Now, if they are already identical, all three are perfectly ultimate; they are not identical yet identical, identical yet not identical; therefore, there is identity in principle up to the ultimate—this is truly because of this. Hence, one knows that from the two truths of the Separate down to the Shared and Tripiṭaka, they are fundamentally subtle and fundamentally identical; feelings and notions differ of themselves, and therefore one can attain "your practice is the bodhisattva path." Next, in the analogy, there are first the analogy and next the application. In the analogy, "like a wish-fulfilling jewel" is as in the fifth record of the Zhiguan. That text fully uses three analogies to make it manifest; this analogy illustrates both the initial establishment and the second explanation of characteristics. Fourth, clarifying the intent of the truths is discernible; using the initial intent to explain it, the general drift is naturally manifest. In the next [part of] clarifying the three intents, there are also two: first, explaining; next, citing evidence. "Manifold conditions" refers to following feelings, namely pointing to prior to the Lotus Sūtra; the mind being at peace and doubts severed is the intent within the Lotus Sūtra, namely following wisdom; if feelings and wisdom are set in contrast, that is the third intent.

6.16

In the fourth [section], the analysis, first regarding the question, "Should ultimate and conventional correspond to each other?": it should be as in the Tripiṭaka [Teaching], where conventional is existence and ultimate is nonexistence, or as in the Shared Teaching, where conventional is illusory existence and ultimate is illusory emptiness; how is it that from the [Separate Teaching that] receives [the Shared Teaching] onward, ultimate and conventional are not the same? In the answer, the four propositions are first listed, and next the four propositions are explained. The first two propositions can be understood. In "in the Separate [Teaching], ultimate and conventional are different," conventionally existence and nonexistence are different, while ultimately there is only the single middle way. In the Perfect Teaching's two truths, ultimate and conventional are already merged, so the names of the two truths are the same; since identity and difference correspond to each other, they form four propositions. From "the seven kinds" onward, relying on this analysis, the previous seven kinds are briefly summarized so that the text is readily inspectable. Next, regarding the question, "Why not receive the Tripiṭaka?": this asks about the two vehicles of the Tripiṭaka Teaching who enter extinction forever. In the answer, it says that those of the small vehicle within the realms, having damaged their capacities, realize verification, so these are the people of the two vehicles of the former teaching. In "the remaining six are Mahāyāna" and so forth: setting aside the two vehicles, referring to the bodhisattvas of the Shared [Teaching] and so forth who can have the meaning of being received prior to the Lotus Sūtra, it therefore says "the remaining six." For the bodhisattvas of the Tripiṭaka Teaching, not only is their teaching crude, but because they have not yet severed afflictions, the meaning of receiving them does not apply, and therefore that whole teaching is discarded. What is meant by being discarded is: the people of the two vehicles form the thought of extinction prior to the Lotus Sūtra, whereas the bodhisattvas transform to become people in the Mahāyāna. Furthermore, the two vehicles of the Shared Teaching attain the benefit of the two flavors prior to the Lotus Sūtra, which is also called advancing forward. As for the two vehicles of the Tripiṭaka Teaching, based on their forming the thought of extinction, even if they have not yet entered extinction, because their faculties are ruined, their bodhicitta has died. These are all based on being rebuked as having ruined faculties prior to the Lotus assembly; when it comes to the Lotus, their ruined faculties are revived, which is why it says that if there are those who are not in this assembly, you should preach it for them; even if they have already entered extinction, they will also hear it there, which is why it says that although they form the thought of extinction, they will hear this sūtra in that land. The school of no-nature does not see this meaning.

6.17

Question:

6.18

In "If not receiving...", since the two vehicles are not received, why are they all converged?

6.19

The meaning of the answer is that the two senses are not the same: for the people of the two vehicles, prior to the Lotus Sūtra there is no talk of being received, and being converged in the Lotus is again not being received, fully as in the notes to the third fascicle of the Zhiguan.

6.20

Question:

6.21

It merely says that the remaining six can go; why does it exclude the two vehicles of the Shared Teaching?

6.22

Answer:

6.23

The Shared [Teaching] is the initial gate of the Mahāyāna teachings; its contemplation and objects are both skillful and capable of entering the non-empty, so it is said that they can go. The lesser people are merely lodged here, which is why they are not discussed. The rest is as explained previously.

6.24

Question:

6.25

This is a passage on the cessation of transformation in the Lotus; the lesser people are precisely those who should be able to go.

6.26

Answer:

6.27

The meaning of receiving is originally prior to the Lotus Sūtra, and within that it still refers to bodhisattvas; now the phrase "able to go" is borrowed to verify that bodhisattvas resolve their minds; discussed according to the teachings, they do not necessarily all go.

6.28

In the third [section], the classification, there are two: first in terms of the seven tiers, which is in terms of teachings; next in terms of the five flavors. The former text also has two: first solely in terms of the seven tiers, next in terms of the three meanings. As for the first text: there are naturally seven tiers, and the seven tiers evolve progressively from coarse to subtle; not yet having exhausted the perfect culmination, though subtle, they are still coarse. In the first, the Tripiṭaka, there are two: first establishing, next from "two truths" onward rebuking. But in the prior establishing, one still uses the subsequent teachings to establish it, so that one can say "leading the dull with the half-word, and purging," and so forth. "Discourse" refers to the discourse of craving and discourse of views within the realms; to engage in these two is to waste one's efforts in vain, its meaning like child's play. It further rebukes, saying "the two truths are not established," the meaning of which is as previously explained. Next, in the Shared Teaching, "the full word" means: if contrasted with the four teachings, the latter three are full; here contrasted with the seven tiers, the latter six are full. The Separate Teaching discusses principle without merging, as explained in the classification of the four truths. Next, in terms of the three meanings, the text has two: first separate classification, and next from "further binding" onward, bound classification. In the first, it first indicates, and next classifies. Within the classification, within each teaching, it first classifies coarse and subtle in terms of the three meanings such as conforming to sentiments; next it enters the subsequent teachings with progressively increasing benefit, so it borrows the meaning of the five flavors to reveal the characteristics of benefit, thus gradually discarding the former shallow [teachings] to raise the subsequent deep ones. The first, the Tripiṭaka, also has three: first establishing, next classifying, and third an analogy. In the first, establishing, there are four: first establishing conforming to sentiments, next from "grasping the real" onward rebuking sentiments and establishing wisdom. The words of the teaching are originally real, but mundane sentiments do not awaken and, grasping them, form views; views are afflictions, and serving as causes, their results are vast and ceaseless. From "if capable" onward, it directly clarifies sentiments and wisdom: the two truths of the stages of the worthy are combined as conventional, and the two truths of the stages of the noble are combined as ultimate. Next, from "from the four fruits" onward, it directly clarifies conforming to wisdom. Next, from "conforming to sentiments" onward, it classifies: that is, within this teaching, wisdom is subtle and sentiments are coarse; if so, sentiments and wisdom are both subtle and coarse, because ultimate is subtle and conventional is coarse. Third, from "for instance" onward, this is the meaning of the period of the Deer Park. Next, from "already accomplished" onward, it clarifies the lower six tiers, within which are two: first explaining, and next concluding. Within the six, each has sentiments and wisdom; that they are not each explained in detail is because, by using sentiments and the like, they are gradually seasoned across the various collections, enabling dull-rooted bodhisattvas and people of the two vehicles to be capable of entering the conforming to wisdom of the Lotus. Therefore, relying on raw and cooked clarified butter, it speaks generally and comprehensively. First, in saying "already accomplished": having already attained the arhat [stage], hearing the Great they do not slander, hence it says "experiencing trust." Entering, they hear the Great; exiting, they still abide in the Small, unlike the time of being terrified of the king and so forth, hence it says "without difficulty." That is, using the three meanings such as sentiments to preach the three such as the Shared: the Deer Park has already accomplished the people of the Tripiṭaka, so for them the Tripiṭaka is no longer needed, and thus it only preaches the Shared; then, in this very assembly, it further uses the Separate and Perfect to receive those of the Shared, preaching them side by side and preaching with rebukes, which corresponds to the meaning of mutual entry. From "causing them" onward directly clarifies the intention of preaching: the intention is to cause them to turn into [the flavor of] raw clarified butter, meaning that receiving rebukes causes them to praise the Great and despise themselves, which is the characteristic of their benefit; the sharp-rooted of the Shared Teaching and the people of the Separate and Perfect themselves attain benefit on the other side without hindrance. From "at this time" onward also raises an analogy. Next, in "the mind gradually..." and so forth: reaching the Prajñā, they are no longer as in the former time of weeping in grief, hence it says "at ease." In "then for the sake of the three meanings preaching the Separate..." and so forth: previously in the Vaipulya, their meaning was already made Shared, so reaching the Prajñā, only these two are needed. In "clarifying the non-common..." and so forth: this is the intention of preaching this section. Though the intention is non-common, there is still the Vaipulya; those newly receiving the Small, upon arriving here, need the Shared, and there are also those in the Mahāyāna gates who incidentally attain the Small, which is why both are used together. Blessed by superior wisdom, it therefore says "commanded to manage." The elder's residence is the Mahāyāna household; the various precious treasures are inconceivable activities, activities being gold and so forth entrusted to the sons. Transforming others is "exiting"; one's own practice is "entering"; also, the merit of transformation is "entering." "Causing them all to know" is the characteristic of the benefit of cooked clarified butter; having attained this benefit, one is conceptually a person of the Separate [Teaching], and then in this very assembly one enters them into the Perfect to make them capable of entering the Lotus. From "already knowing" onward is the analogy, so in the two flavors, there are precisely the characteristics of the five tiers in the Mahāyāna. From "the Buddhas" onward is precisely the intention of the sixth, the Lotus. Although pure ghee, it also employs sentiments and the like; as in the three cycles each having different designations, this is precisely that matter. From "this then..." onward, it summarizes the six tiers.

6.29

Next, in the bound classification: "separate" means separately referring to the differences among sentiments and the various flavors; "bound" means comprehensively binding an entire lifetime into the three such as conforming to sentiments; as the former two teachings, although having the three meanings of sentiments and so forth, are now bound into a single "conforming to sentiments," it therefore says "exclusively." In "the Separate entering the Shared onward": because there is the middle way, it is wisdom; because it carries expedients, it is sentiments. Although the Perfect has three meanings in contrast to the former flavors, here it solely constitutes wisdom; when spoken it becomes verbal expression, which can be known by analogy with wisdom.

6.30

Next, in the analysis, regarding "Question: Are the former two [teachings'] two truths exclusively conforming to sentiments?" and so forth: it asks about the text of the question here, which classifies the former two teachings as both belonging to conforming to sentiments; how does this compare in identity and difference with the text classifying the three provisional designations in the Zhiguan, and earlier in the second fascicle of this text where only the Tripiṭaka is regarded as conforming to sentiments and the rest are all conforming to principle? Answer: There are three distinctions here. First, that text contrasts the Hinayāna and Mahāyāna, and therefore the Tripiṭaka solely belongs to conforming to sentiments; this text contrasts the two principles of provisional and real, and therefore the former two both belong to conforming to sentiments. Second, that text broadly expounds the gates of contemplation, temporarily rebuking the Tripiṭaka as conforming to phenomena; this text expounds the intention of the Lotus Sūtra, requiring the middle way to be conforming to principle. Third, that text clarifies the three provisional designations, which are conventional; the conventional truths of the Tripiṭaka and Shared teachings differ in whether they are identical or not identical [with ultimate], and therefore that text classifies phenomena and principle differently. This text classifies the two truths; both truths are provisional and do not converge with the principle of the middle, and therefore this classification regards them both as belonging to conforming to sentiments. In the answer, matching the supreme truth with the three siddhāntas is because the former two lack the middle. Next, in terms of the five flavors, it is as in the text.

6.31

In the fourth [section], opening the provisional, there are two: first indicating, next explaining. In the explanation there are three: first generally citing the intention of the Buddhas of the three periods appearing in the world, next citing a treatise to verify the Buddha's intention, and third from "initially seeing" onward directly clarifying the characteristics of opening. The meaning of the first text is: not only Śākyamuni, but the transformation of the Buddhas of the three periods is entirely like this; therefore we know that wherever the Tathāgatas of the three periods appear in the world, it is wholly for the sake of opening the Buddha's knowledge and vision. The next text also has two: first citing the treatise, next from "certainly not" onward explaining the meaning of the treatise. Merely through entering the real is it named the "flower dais"; because the inner mind is identical with the Buddha's entering the real, it causes the external vessel to abide together on the dais with the Buddha. In the third, directly opening, there are three: first briefly clarifying entering the real and deploying the provisional at present, next from "some people" onward clarifying deploying the provisional and entering the real in the remote past, and third from "those who have not entered" onward directly clarifying the present sūtra opening the provisional and revealing the real. The first text also has two: first directly clarifying entering the real and opening the provisional, next clarifying the characteristics of capacity and response. The first text also has two: first clarifying entering the real, next from "for the sake of those who have not entered" onward clarifying deploying the provisional. The first refers to the sharp-rooted bodhisattvas of the Avataṃsaka having already entered the real. The Separate bodhisattvas are temporarily set aside without discussion; because these bodhisattvas are still easy to open, for those who are difficult to open, they are further raised through the small, so next the teachings of the Deer Park and so forth are deployed for them; hence they are named the various former ones. Within the five tiers following the single Tripiṭaka, the meaning of the text can also be seen as in the previous seven tiers. Next, capacity and response can be seen. Next, in clarifying the remote past, there are two: first presenting the old [view], next from "now it is said" onward the correct interpretation. The "prelude" is merely an expedient, as in the notes to the Zhiguan. Within this there are also two: first clarifying deploying the provisional in the remote past, next clarifying entering the real. The first also has two: first recounting again the site of tranquility as a comparison, next progressively clarifying the remote. In the first text: excluding those who have already entered and those who entered in the interim, all are expedients of the Lotus. From "therefore the light illuminated other lands" to "for the sake of the sudden opening the gradual": first, "other lands" refers to the four verses from "further behold the Buddhas" onward preaching the sudden. The three verses from "if a person encounters suffering" onward are the beginning of the gradual, that is, the Deer Park. The thirty-two and a half verses from "Mañjuśrī, I abide here" onward are the Vaipulya and Prajñā; these are the gradual and sudden of other lands. The site of tranquility combined the provisional with the sudden, and subsequently, for the sake of the single, deployed the three graduals; because one gradual combined with the sudden failed to capture capacities, it proceeded to the Deer Park and the other two flavors. Next, from "Mañjuśrī" onward, it directly and progressively clarifies the remote, within which there are also three: first directly clarifying, next from "the text says" onward citing verification, and third from "one should know" onward concluding. This being so, the deployment of transformation in both the origin and traces texts, for those who have not entered the real, are all preludes to today's Lotus; therefore we know that from the bodhisattva's initial arousal of the mind onward, the sentient beings transformed, up to after attaining the path, passing through this many dust-particle realm kalpas, matured everywhere, only now enter the real. One should know that how could the path of the real be easily climbed! How much less for those who in this life still have not entered, and will only attain it far into the future; is it not because their afflictions are thick and heavy, and their capacities and natures are difficult to turn? Without receiving the Tathāgata's power of skillfulness, when could there be an occasion of entry? Therefore, beholding this profound purport, one should diligently contemplate and diligently listen. Value it! Value it! The verification and conclusion can be known.

6.32

Next, from "originally" onward, the entering into the real is clarified, which also has two parts: first, clarifying the entering into the real in the distant past; second, clarifying the entering into the real in the present lifetime. Since the bestowal of transformation at every point in the present and past brought actual benefit, how could it wait only for the present? The present text states, "no different from those who originally entered": phenomena have the origin and traces, but the principle is identical in past and present; therefore, there is no difference in principle between entering now and entering originally.

6.33

Third, the entering in the present sūtra has two parts: first, directly clarifying the opening; second, from "if like..." onward, praising the teaching and reproving the partial. The first text also has five parts: first, vertically treating the opening in terms of the four flavors; second, from "among the various teachings" onward, horizontally opening in terms of the various teachings within the various flavors; third, from "the Tripiṭaka" onward, adducing the difficult to illustrate the easy; fourth, from "the text states" onward, citing proof; fifth, from "this is..." onward, the general conclusion. The first is as in the text. In the second text, where it says "among the various teachings, or five, three, two, or one flavor, as well as the entirely raw," this refers generally to the four flavors, termed "the various teachings." For example, as in the Vaipulya and Prajñā, the two vehicles who initially realize [the fruit] are called "one flavor"; if having already realized [it] in the Deer Park they obtain the benefit of being rebuked and reproved, it is called "two flavors"; if they obtain the benefit of being rinsed and purged, it is called "three flavors." If the various bodhisattvas are able to sever delusions of view and thought in the previous teachings, they are said to dwell in "two flavors"; if able to sever the unreflective ignorance, they are said to dwell in "three flavors"; if able to subdue fundamental ignorance, they are said to dwell in "four flavors." If they dwell in four flavors, they have already perfected wondrous practice, so this is not discussed here. Those who have not subdued pervasive delusions at all are called "entirely raw." For the Avataṃsaka and Deer Park, the explicit and esoteric should be discussed; reflecting on this, it can be understood. This is discussed horizontally, unrelated to vertical entry. If it is vertical entry, dull-rooted bodhisattvas and persons of the two vehicles progressively pass through the teachings regardless of increase or decrease; the three comparisons can be understood: without changing their original positions, the crude is directly identical to the wondrous, hence it is said to be "right at the threshold." In the citation of proof, where it says "the great cart made of the seven jewels," each corresponds to their original habituation in entering the perfect vehicle; original habituations differ, but the perfect vehicle is not multiple. The fifth, the conclusion, is as in the text.

First 33 of 48 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

法華玄義釋籤 — Classical Chinese