妙法蓮華經文句 4.73

4.73

四佛章為兩：初、總明諸佛，次、列三世。總章應具六，今但四：一、歎法，二、無虛妄，三、開方便，四、示真實；闕二義者指後文也。歎法中法譬雙歎。「時乃說之」者，諸佛同出五濁，必前開三如今世尊，四十餘年始顯真實，久久稀疎故言時乃說之。久不說者，為人不堪故，時未至故，五千未遣故。今人已堪，時已至，五千已去，決定說大乘，故言「時乃說之」。「優曇花」者，此言靈瑞，三千年一現，現則金輪王出，表三乘調熟已後方說妙法，授法王記。又隔跨酪、生蘇、熟蘇三味已後，乃說醍醐（云云）。觀心，觀心即中，名為瑞，此觀通一切法至實相，名為靈（云云）。「汝等當信」者，勸信無虛妄法也。此理至深，理與昔異；此言至妙，言與昔反；此行至普，行與昔乖；此人至勝，勝於昔劣，還指客作四種之麁而今皆妙，恐物生謗故勸信也。信無虛妄人，說無虛妄法也。從「隨宜所說」下，是開方便也，文為三：謂開、釋、結。初、明佛道隨三種機宜說方便，故言隨宜，而佛意在實，物莫能解，故言「意趣難解」也。「所以者何」釋也，舉今佛之權能，釋諸佛之方便，巧慧同故借此釋彼。如「我以無數方便」者，諸佛開權亦如我也。「是法非思量」者，此有兩義：或作結開權，或正作顯實。結開權者，佛意難知，唯佛與佛能了，稟教者謂三，諸佛知一耳。作顯實者，即屬後文，文為五：一、標勝人法，二、標出世意，三、重示，四、正釋，五、結成。標人法者，舉無分別法唯是佛所知，佛以無分別智，解知無分別法，即是顯實法也。「所以者何」下，二、標出世意者，為兩：初、總，次、分字。總者，諸佛覺如實之相，乘此實道出應於世，秖令眾生得此實相，唯為此事出現於世，曾無他事，除諸法實相，餘皆名魔事。分字釋者，一則一實相也，非五、非三、非七、非九，故言「一」也。其性廣博，博五、三、七、九，故名為「大」。諸佛出世之儀式，故名為「事」。眾生有此機感佛，故名為「因」，佛乘機而應，故名為「緣」。是為出世之本意，而今開三者，為一弄引耳，如人欲取，先當與之，雖說種種道，其實為一乘，即此義也。「舍利弗云何」下，三、重標者，將欲分別，更重提起為解釋之端。又此大事佛所尊重，如《釋論》中明，父王欲多聞太子名，數數說之無有厭足（云云）。「諸佛世尊」下，第四、正釋者，先出諸解，舊云：「四一，謂：果一、人一、教一、因一。果一者，初兩句據說者，後兩句據受者。就說者，一往於前因門，略說果理，先開佛知見，卒終於後果門廣顯果理，示佛知見。約受者，先因門略開，始得悟解，後果門廣得深入理趣。」今不用此解，何者？經明四句，皆云「為令眾生」，語意悉主前機得益，非關化主，應作所化人開悟，那即分兩句，作能化者開示耶？又正是因門說法，開三顯一之時，那得分出兩句為果門中說耶？果門因緣未會，那得預說？若爾六瑞初興，佛未起定，應是略說；五千未去，應是廣說。二處既其不然，果門安得如此？下方未出，分身未集，那得以因門二句為果門耶？次光宅云：「初一句是開除開出，昔方便說三令除五濁，開出大乘覺悟知見道理。先雖為人開說此理，不說所以，更示況此理令生聞慧。雖聞未悟所以，更廣分別開悟思慧。既信悟得意，即令發心學佛知見，令得修慧入佛知見道理。」今亦不用，何者？汝同舊命章云是果一，四句皆應作果義，云何用三慧消文，因果矛盾前後相違？又三慧多種，此經正破二乘，決定不用三藏中三慧，菩薩方便與二乘同者，蓋是通意，又不可用；若作別三慧，是菩薩法都非佛法；若作圓三慧，圓三慧來開佛知見，消經不可；若作餘三慧，去經逾遠；若作圓三慧，果一義不成。都不可用（云云）。次地論師云：「第五恒沙得八分解，即三十心位為開，從初地至六地，見思盡解轉分明如示，七地至八地，空有並觀無礙如悟，十地為入，引經十地名為眼見。」今亦不用，何者？此經明開佛知見，佛以一切種智知，佛以佛眼見，開此智眼乃名佛知見，云何取第五恒沙生八分解，猶未入地稱之為開？如此論開非開佛眼，如此之知非一切種智知，不與經會故不用（云云）。有人解：「初句是理，後三句是略解，謂八苦、五濁障當果是閉，今教除五濁，佛果知見顯故名開，穢累除而理顯名清淨，後三句是聞思修。」難此同前。有人言：「三乘別教為開，三乘通教為示，抑揚為悟，《法華》為入。」又人解：「三乘通為開，抑揚為示，無量義為悟，《法華》為入。」此二解擘三句向他經，裂一句置《法華》，擘裂穿鑿，傷害誣誷其過大矣！有人言：「三十心是開，初地至六地為示，七地至九地為悟，十地為入。」此人傍通挾別，作如此語，未見《法華》奇異，何俟稱歎耶？有人引《華嚴》、《纓珞》、《仁王》、《攝大乘》、《十七地論》五凡夫等皆有五十二位，地前有四十心，何不用之？此人謬引《華嚴》，《華嚴》不明十信，縱使諸部明地前四十心位者，皆非斷道，何因用此解開佛知見，皆漫語耳。有人引《釋論》四智總別一時而得。不應用此解開示悟入，開示悟入似有淺深；又四智位高，開示通淺深，此應非例。此人但見《釋論》四智之一時，不見開示之一時。有人言：「非空非有是開，能空能有是示，空有不二是悟，了空有不二而二是入。」此人約二諦作解，尚不能拔出二乘，寧是《法華》一意？有人言：「達三諦理為開，三諦分明為示，不見三諦一異為悟，任運順流為入也。」此人約邐迤三諦作義，尚不出菩薩法，寧是佛法？有人解：「佛知見者，一切智總相為知，一切種智別相為見。」此亦不然，《釋論》明一切智是聲聞智，道種智是菩薩智，一切種智是佛智。此是歷別一切種智，非三智在一心中，何以二乘之知、別佛之見，釋圓佛知見耶？有人解：「盡智煩惱清淨名知，無生智因果患累畢竟無生名見。」此人取通家佛名教，解究竟佛，都不相應。如上諸師漫取諸經中語，都不見《法華》大意。《法華論》云：「一、無上義，除一切智更無餘事，如經開佛知見，為令眾生得清淨故出現於世；二、同義，聲聞、辟支佛，佛性法身平等故，如經欲示眾生佛知見故出現於世，佛性法身更無差別故；三、不知義，謂二乘人不知究竟唯一佛乘故，如經欲悟佛知見出現於世；四、為令證不退轉地現與無量智業故，如經欲令眾生入佛知見故。」《論》言次第，初、開佛知見為無上；次、示三乘同有佛性法身，雖明佛智無上，但恐佛獨有，故第二明三乘同有；雖三乘同有，而二乘不悟，示其令知；雖知而不得不退，故第四令得不退。又一番約菩薩，開如前；示者諸菩薩有疑者，令知如實修行故；悟者未發菩提心令發心故；入者已發菩提心令入法故。第三番約凡夫，開如前；示者示其有法身佛性故；悟者令外道眾生覺悟故；入者令入大菩提故。

The chapter on the four buddhas has two parts: first, a general explanation of all buddhas; next, an enumeration of [the buddhas of] the three periods of time. The general chapter should possess six [points], but now it has only four: first, praising the Dharma; second, being free from falsehood; third, opening the expedient; and fourth, demonstrating the real. The lack of two meanings points to the subsequent text. In praising the Dharma, both Dharma and metaphor are praised together. Regarding 'speaking it only at certain times': all buddhas alike appear in the five turbidities, and necessarily first open the three, just as the World-Honoured One does now, revealing the real only after more than forty years; because it is rare and sparse over a long time, it says 'speaking it only at certain times.' As for not speaking it for a long time: it is because people could not bear it, because the time had not yet arrived, and because the five thousand had not yet departed. Now people can already bear it, the time has arrived, and the five thousand have departed, so he definitely speaks the Mahāyāna; therefore it says 'speaking it only at certain times.' Regarding the 'udumbara flower': here it is called an auspicious omen, appearing once in three thousand years; when it appears, a gold-wheel-turning king comes forth. This represents that only after the three vehicles are seasoned and matured does he speak the subtle Dharma and bestow the prophecy of the Dharma King. Furthermore, it is only after crossing over the three flavours of curd, raw butter, and clarified butter that he speaks of ghee (and so on). Regarding the contemplation of mind: contemplation of the mind as precisely the middle is called the 'omen'; this contemplation penetrates all dharmas to reach the real mark, which is called 'auspicious' (and so on). Regarding 'You all should have faith': this encourages faith in the Dharma that is free from falsehood. This principle is extremely profound, differing from that of the past; these words are extremely subtle, contrary to those of the past; this practice is extremely universal, distinct from that of the past; these persons are extremely superior, surpassing the inferiority of the past. It refers back to the coarseness of the four kinds of hired labourers which are now all subtle; fearing that beings might give rise to slander, he encourages faith. One has faith in a person free from falsehood, who speaks a Dharma free from falsehood. From 'Spoken according to what is appropriate' onwards is opening the expedient, and the text has three parts: opening, explaining, and concluding. First, it clarifies that the Buddha's Path speaks expedients according to the suitability of the three capacities, hence it says 'according to what is appropriate'; yet the Buddha's intent lies in the real, which beings cannot comprehend, hence it says 'the intention is difficult to understand.' 'Why is this?' is the explanation: it adduces the expedient abilities of the present Buddha to explain the expedient means of all buddhas; because their skilful wisdom is identical, this is borrowed to explain that. As for 'I, through countless expedient means': the opening of the expedient by all buddhas is also like mine. 'This Dharma cannot be grasped by deliberation': this has two meanings. It either serves as concluding the opening of the expedient, or directly serves as revealing the real. Concluding the opening of the expedient: the Buddha's intent is difficult to know, and only a buddha together with a buddha can comprehend it; those receiving the teaching think it is three, but all buddhas know it is just one. Serving as revealing the real: this belongs to the subsequent text, which has five parts: first, indicating the superior person and Dharma; second, indicating the intention for appearing in the world; third, demonstrating again; fourth, directly explaining; and fifth, concluding. Indicating the person and Dharma: adducing the non-discriminative Dharma as known only by the Buddha; the Buddha, through non-discriminative wisdom, understands and knows the non-discriminative Dharma, which is precisely the Dharma of revealing the real. From 'Why is this?' onwards, the second part, indicating the intention for appearing in the world, has two aspects: first, the general; next, dividing the words. The general: all buddhas awaken to the mark of reality, and mounted on this path of reality they appear in response to the world, solely to cause sentient beings to attain this real mark; only for this matter do they appear in the world, and there has never been any other matter; except for the real mark of all dharmas, all else is called Māra's work. Explaining by dividing the words: 'One' means the one real mark; it is not five, not three, not seven, and not nine, hence it is called 'one.' Its nature is broad and vast, encompassing five, three, seven, and nine, hence it is called 'great.' It is the paradigm of all buddhas appearing in the world, hence it is called 'matter.' Sentient beings have this capacity to move the Buddha, hence it is called 'cause'; the Buddha mounts their capacity to respond, hence it is called 'condition.' This is the original intention of appearing in the world; and opening the three now is merely a prelude to the one. Just as when someone wishes to take, they must first give, so although he speaks of various paths, in truth it is for the One Vehicle; such is this meaning. From 'Śāriputra, what is meant by...' onwards, the third part, indicating again: when about to differentiate, he raises it again as the beginning of the explanation. Moreover, this great matter is respected by the Buddha; as explained in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, the father king wished to hear the crown prince's name often, speaking it repeatedly without ever growing weary (and so on). From 'The buddhas, the World-Honoured Ones...' onwards, the fourth part, directly explaining: first, adducing various interpretations. An old [commentary] says: 'The four ones refer to: oneness of effect, oneness of person, oneness of teaching, and oneness of cause. Oneness of effect: the first two lines rely on the speaker, and the latter two lines rely on the receiver. Regarding the speaker: looking back from the earlier cause approach, he briefly explains the effect principle, first opening the buddha knowledge and vision; ultimately in the later effect approach, he broadly reveals the effect principle, demonstrating the buddha knowledge and vision. Concerning the receiver: first in the cause approach, it is briefly opened and they first attain awakening and understanding; later in the effect approach, they broadly attain deep entry into the principle and purport.' Now I do not use this interpretation. Why? The sūtra clarifies that all four lines state 'in order to cause sentient beings', and the words and meaning entirely focus on the benefit attained by the previous capacities; it does not concern the transforming master. They should be taken as the opening and awakening of the transformed persons; how could one divide two lines to make them the opening and demonstrating of the transformer? Moreover, this is precisely the time of expounding the Dharma in the cause approach, opening the three and revealing the one; how could one separate out two lines to speak them within the effect approach? The causes and conditions of the effect approach have not yet assembled, so how could it be spoken in advance? If so, when the six omens first arose and the Buddha had not yet arisen from samādhi, that should have been the brief exposition; and before the five thousand had departed, that should have been the broad exposition. Since in both places it was not so, how could the effect approach be like this? The [bodhisattvas from] below the earth have not yet emerged, and the emanations have not yet gathered; how could one take two lines of the cause approach as the effect approach? Next, Guangzhai says: 'The first line means opening away and opening forth. Formerly, he expediently spoke of the three to remove the five turbidities, and now opens forth the principle of the awakening, knowledge, and vision of the Mahāyāna. Although he previously opened and spoke of this principle for people, he did not explain the reason; he further demonstrates and illustrates this principle to give rise to the wisdom of hearing. Although they hear it, they have not yet awakened to the reason, so he further differentiates it broadly to open their awakening into the wisdom of reflection. Once having attained faith, awakening, and the meaning, he immediately causes them to arouse the mind to learn the buddha knowledge and vision, causing them to attain the wisdom of cultivation and enter the principle of the buddha knowledge and vision.' Now I also do not use this. Why? You agree with the old title that this is the oneness of effect; all four lines should be interpreted according to the meaning of the effect, so why do you use the three wisdoms to explain the text? Cause and effect contradict each other, conflicting from beginning to end! Moreover, there are many kinds of three wisdoms; this sūtra directly refutes the two vehicles, and definitely does not use the three wisdoms of the Tripiṭaka. A bodhisattva's expedients being shared with the two vehicles is merely the purport of the shared [teaching], which also cannot be used. If they are taken as the distinctive three wisdoms, that is the bodhisattva Dharma and not the Buddha Dharma at all. If they are taken as the perfect three wisdoms, using the perfect three wisdoms to come and open the buddha knowledge and vision does not work for explaining the sūtra. If taken as other three wisdoms, they are even further from the sūtra. If taken as the perfect three wisdoms, the meaning of the oneness of effect is not established. None of these can be used (and so on). Next, the masters of the Dilun say: 'At the fifth Gaṅgā sands, one attains the eight-part understanding, which is the stage of the thirty minds, being opening; from the first bhūmi to the sixth bhūmi, views and thoughts are exhausted and understanding becomes increasingly clear, which is like demonstrating; from the seventh bhūmi to the eighth bhūmi, observing emptiness and existence simultaneously without obstruction is like awakening; the tenth bhūmi is entering, citing the sūtra where the tenth bhūmi is called seeing with the eye.' Now I also do not use this. Why? This sūtra clarifies opening the buddha knowledge and vision: the Buddha knows with the knowledge of all aspects and sees with the buddha eye; opening this wisdom eye is alone called the buddha knowledge and vision. Why take the arising of the eight-part understanding at the fifth Gaṅgā sands before even entering the bhūmis and call it opening? Discussing opening like this is not opening the buddha eye; knowing like this is not knowing with the knowledge of all aspects. Because it does not accord with the sūtra, I do not use it (and so on). Someone interprets: 'The first line is principle, and the latter three lines are a brief explanation, meaning that the eight sufferings and five turbidities obstruct the future effect, which is closing; now the teaching removes the five turbidities, and the knowledge and vision of the buddha effect is revealed, hence it is called opening; when defilements and entanglements are removed and the principle is revealed, it is called pure; the latter three lines are hearing, reflection, and cultivation.' The refutation of this is the same as before. Someone says: 'The distinctive teaching of the three vehicles is opening, the shared teaching of the three vehicles is demonstrating, praise and blame are awakening, and the Lotus Sūtra is entering.' Another person interprets: 'The shared [teaching] of the three vehicles is opening, praise and blame are demonstrating, the Innumerable Meanings Sūtra is awakening, and the Lotus Sūtra is entering.' These two interpretations tear three lines away toward other sūtras and split one line to place it in the Lotus Sūtra; tearing, splitting, forcing, and distorting, the fault of their injury and misrepresentation is exceedingly great! Someone says: 'The thirty minds are opening, the first bhūmi to the sixth bhūmi are demonstrating, the seventh bhūmi to the ninth bhūmi are awakening, and the tenth bhūmi is entering.' This person, flanking the shared and clutching the distinctive, speaks like this without seeing the uniqueness of the Lotus Sūtra; why wait to praise it? Someone cites the Huayan, Yingluo, Renwang, Mahāyānasaṃgraha, and the Five Commoners of the Shi qidi lun as all having fifty-two stages, with forty minds before the bhūmis: why not use them? This person erroneously cites the Huayan, for the Huayan does not explain the ten faiths; even if the various works explain the forty mental stages before the bhūmis, they are not the path of abandonment, so for what reason would one use this to explain opening the buddha knowledge and vision? These are all careless words. Someone cites the four wisdoms in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, which are attained simultaneously in general and specific aspects. One should not use this to explain opening, demonstrating, awakening to, and entering: opening, demonstrating, awakening to, and entering seem to have shallowness and depth; moreover, the stage of the four wisdoms is high, whereas opening and demonstrating penetrate both shallowness and depth, so this should not be an analogy. This person only sees the simultaneity of the four wisdoms in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, but does not see the simultaneity of opening and demonstrating. Someone says: 'Neither empty nor existent is opening; capable of being empty and capable of being existent is demonstrating; the non-duality of emptiness and existence is awakening; comprehending that the non-duality of emptiness and existence is yet dual is entering.' This person forms an interpretation based on the two truths, but cannot even pull out the two vehicles; how could it be the single intent of the Lotus Sūtra? Someone says: 'Penetrating the principle of the three truths is opening; the three truths being clear is demonstrating; not seeing the oneness or difference of the three truths is awakening; effortlessly according with the flow is entering.' This person constructs a meaning based on the graduated three truths, which still does not go beyond the bodhisattva Dharma; how could it be the Buddha Dharma? Someone interprets: 'As for buddha knowledge and vision, the general mark of the knowledge of all phenomena is knowledge, and the specific mark of the knowledge of all aspects is vision.' This is also not so: the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa clarifies that the knowledge of all phenomena is the wisdom of the śrāvaka, the knowledge of the paths is the wisdom of the bodhisattva, and the knowledge of all aspects is the wisdom of the Buddha. This is the successive knowledge of all aspects, not the three wisdoms in a single mind; why use the knowledge of the two vehicles and the vision of the distinctive buddha to explain the knowledge and vision of the perfect buddha? Someone interprets: 'Purity from afflictions through the knowledge of exhaustion is called knowledge, and the ultimate non-arising of faults and defilements of cause and effect through the knowledge of non-arising is called vision.' This person takes the names and teachings of the buddha of the shared school to interpret the ultimate Buddha; it does not correspond at all. The masters above have carelessly taken words from various sūtras, not seeing the great meaning of the Lotus Sūtra at all. The Fahua lun says: 'First, the meaning of supreme: apart from the knowledge of all aspects there is no other matter, as the sūtra says: