妙法蓮華經文句 2.155

2.155

生師云：「無相空理，大乘之本，封三來久，頓說無三，不能取信，故說無相為《法華》序。」觀師意同。若爾，《般若》、《淨名》皆應是序，何獨《無量義》耶？彼釋云：「如此由五時故後教得起。」更問：「若爾，《無量義》與諸經皆通途相生，非關別序。」基師云：「空理無形故云無量，序意同前，難亦如是。」印師云：「無相善有成佛義，故言無量。」又云：「彼經不說有三、無三有異，《大品》非《法華》所指，指者不來秦地。」今謂此經是宋元嘉三年慧表比丘，於南海郡朝廷寺，遇曇摩耶舍受此本，還武當山，永明三年始傳於世。經既已來，豈可送還天竺？光宅云：「《無量義》以萬善同歸能成佛道，《法華》正明無二、無三，破三與一為異，故即為序。」若言萬善同歸，二三何不同歸？二三若歸，序正不異；若言破二、破三，何不破萬？破二、破三，則無二無三，既其破萬，是則無序。取經互舉意為異者，不成異也，異意不顯，序義亦不成也。劉虬注云：「無相為本，無相一法含義不貲。」若含義不貲，即是有相，何謂無相？尋諸師各偏一種，若言有相之善有成佛義，此三藏意耳；若言無相之善有成佛義，此通教意耳；若言含法不貲，此別教意耳。並他經所明，皆非序《法華》意耳。若《法華論》列十七種，皆《法華》之異名，無量義者，即《法華》之一名也。今申論意，佛直說此名而入此定，故得為序。《大品》、《金光明》、《涅槃》，皆先唱名，於序無妨。今經文殊引古佛，亦名無量義；又云：「當說大乘經名妙法蓮華」，此亦序中唱名，與論意同也。今按彼經釋無量義者從一法生，其一法者所謂無相，無相、不相名為實相，從此實相生無量法，所謂二法、三道、四果。今釋此文，無相者，無生死相也；不相者，不涅槃相也；涅槃亦無，故言不相無相，指中道為實相也。二法即頓、漸，頓謂《華嚴》頓中一切法也，漸謂三藏、方等、般若一切法也。三道即三乘，四果即羅漢、支佛、菩薩、佛，此等諸法名為無量。實相為義處，從一義處出無量法，得為無量法入一義處作序。譬如算師，從一算下諸算，除諸算歸一算，由下故除，下為除序。從一派諸，收諸歸一，開為合序，亦復如是。如此消釋，不違彼經論，亦與此經合（云云）。

Master Sheng said: "The signless, empty principle is the basis of the Mahāyāna. Attached to the three for a long time, if one were suddenly to preach that there are no three, they would not be able to accept it with faith; therefore, the preaching of the signless serves as the preface to the Lotus Sūtra." Master Guan's view was the same. If so, then the Prajñā and the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa should both be prefaces; why solely the Anantanirdeśa? His explanation says: "Thus, because of the five periods, the subsequent teaching could arise." It is further asked: "If so, the Anantanirdeśa and the various sūtra are all mutually produced in a common manner, not concerning a specific preface." Master Ji said: "The empty principle has no form, hence it is called 'immeasurable' (ananta); the intention of the preface is the same as before, and the difficulty is likewise so." Master Yin said: "Signless good has the meaning of attaining Buddhahood, hence it is said to be 'immeasurable.'" He also said: "That sūtra does not speak of whether there being three or not being three is different; the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā is not what the Lotus points to, and what it points to did not arrive in the land of Qin." Now, I say: this sūtra was received by the monk Huibiao in the third year of the Yuanjia era of the Song dynasty at the Chaoting Monastery in Nanhai commandery from Dharmayaśas; he brought this text back to Mount Wudang, and it was only in the third year of the Yongming era that it began to be transmitted to the world. Since the sūtra has already arrived, how could it be sent back to India? Guanzhai said: "The Anantanirdeśa takes the myriad goods returning together as being able to accomplish the Buddha Path; the Lotus precisely clarifies that there are no two and no three, destroying the three to grant the one as different, and thus it serves as the preface." If one says that the myriad goods return together, why would the two and the three not likewise return together? If the two and the three return, the preface and the main text are not different; if one says that it destroys the two and destroys the three, why does it not destroy the myriad? If it destroys the two and destroys the three, then there are no two and no three; since it destroys the myriad, then there is no preface. To take the sūtras as mutually presenting differences in intent fails to establish a difference; since a different intent is not revealed, the meaning of a preface is also not established. Liu Qiu commented: "The signless is the basis; the single dharma of the signless contains meanings without measure." If it contains meanings without measure, then it possesses signs; why call it signless? Examining the various masters, each is biased toward one kind: if one says that good with signs has the meaning of attaining Buddhahood, this is merely the intent of the Tripiṭaka teaching; if one says that signless good has the meaning of attaining Buddhahood, this is merely the intent of the shared teaching; if one says that it contains dharmas without measure, this is merely the intent of the distinctive teaching. All of these are clarified by other sūtras, and none are the intent of serving as a preface to the Lotus. If one considers that the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa lists seventeen kinds that are all different names for the Lotus, "Immeasurable Meanings" (Anantanirdeśa) is indeed one name of the Lotus. Now to expound the intent of the treatise: because the Buddha directly spoke this name and entered this samādhi, it can serve as a preface. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā, the Suvarṇaprabhāsa, and the Mahāparinirvāṇa all proclaim the name first, which poses no hindrance to being a preface. In the present sūtra, Mañjuśrī cites a past buddha, which is also named Anantanirdeśa; furthermore, it says, "He shall preach a Mahāyāna sūtra named Saddharmapuṇḍarīka"—this is also proclaiming the name within the preface, matching the intent of the treatise. Now, relying on that sūtra's explanation, immeasurable meanings arise from a single dharma; that single dharma is the so-called signless. Being signless and non-sign is called the true mark; from this true mark arise immeasurable dharmas, namely, the two dharmas, the three paths, and the four fruits. Now, explaining this text: "signless" means without the mark of saṃsāra; "non-sign" means not the mark of nirvāṇa; nirvāṇa also being absent, it is therefore said to be "non-sign and signless," pointing to the Middle Way as the true mark. The "two dharmas" are sudden and gradual; the sudden refers to all dharmas within the sudden [teaching] of the Avataṃsaka, and the gradual refers to all dharmas of the Tripiṭaka, Vaipulya, and Prajñā. The "three paths" are the three vehicles, and the "four fruits" are arhat, pratyekabuddha, bodhisattva, and buddha; all these various dharmas are called "immeasurable." The true mark is the locus of meaning; from one locus of meaning emerge immeasurable dharmas, which can serve as a preface for immeasurable dharmas entering into one locus of meaning. By analogy, when an arithmetician sets down various counters from one counter, and clears away the various counters to return to the single counter: because of setting them down they are cleared away, so setting them down serves as the preface to clearing them away. Branching the many from the one, and gathering the many back into the one, opening serves as the preface to combining; it is likewise so. Explaining it in this way neither contradicts that sūtra or treatise, nor fails to accord with this sūtra (and so forth).