妙法蓮華經文句 9.87

9.87

「如是我成佛甚大久遠」下，明非滅現滅，又二：初、明非滅現滅，二、從「如來以是方便」下，明現滅利益。初又二：先、明本實不滅，次、從「然今」下，明迹中唱滅。「我成佛已來」下，明果位常，常故不滅，寄此四字明未來大勢威猛常住益物也。從「我本行」下，舉因況果以明常住。舊人據此以證無常云，前過恒沙後倍上數，神通延壽猶是無常。僻取文意大有所失，經舉因況果，果非數也。經云久修業所得壽命無數劫，非神通延壽也。何者？佛修圓因登初住時已得常壽，常壽叵壽已倍上數，況復果耶？云何棄所況之果，苟執能況之因？縱令此因已是於常非無常也。譬如太子時，祿已不可盡，況登尊極，祿用寧可盡乎？明文在茲，何須迴捩疑誤後生耶！「然今非實」下，第二，迹中唱滅。三身並有非滅唱滅義，如《淨名》云「法本不生今則無滅」，即是法身非滅；又云「是寂滅義」，即是唱滅也。何者？若已了達不唱寂滅，為未了者唱耳。若言照寂即是唱滅，若言寂照即是唱生。夫法身者，雖非生非滅亦有生滅，若迷心執著，即煩惱生而智慧滅；若解心無染，即智慧生煩惱滅。滅惑生解此是無常滅，若解生惑滅即是寂滅，此之生滅悉約法性而辨。若無迷解二緣，則不唱有此生滅也。報身非滅唱滅者，誰有智慧誰有煩惱，而言智慧能破，此即明闇不相除，即報身不滅義；眾生未了，聞此便謂其即是佛，而生憍恣不復修道，故復唱言道能滅惑，有煩惱時則無智慧，有智慧時則無煩惱，豈非智慧能滅煩惱耶？應身非滅唱滅者，應是法報之用，體既無滅用豈有窮？即應身不滅，但為眾生若常見佛則生憍恣故，唱我於今夜當取滅度。又法身當體明不滅，報身說不滅必約法身，以理而論，智慧能破為到故破，不到故破為共為獨。如此推理無有能破之功，即智慧不滅惑義；就有智慧則無煩惱，即是慧能滅惑。應身說不滅須約法報，法報常然應用不絕，眾生不盡即不滅度。若法身當體論不生滅，報身了達無能生滅，應身相續不生滅（云云）。從「以是方便教化」下，第二，明現滅益物，又為二：先、不滅眾生有損，二、從「以方便說比丘當知」下，若唱滅者於物有益。初又二：初、不滅有損，次、廣釋不滅。有損者，如前樂小法人，見佛常在，不種善根、貧窮下賤，不生二善故無益；見、思不斷，不斷二惡則是有損。貪著五欲入於憶想，憶想即是見惑；五欲即是思惑也。由此眾生垢重故須唱滅，不唱滅則二惡生而不滅，二善損而不生。若依四悉檀現滅，則二惡滅、二善生，為滅二惡故，用對治、第一義，第一義滅未生惡，對治滅已生惡；世界、為人生二善，世界生未生善，為人生已生善。又世界滅已生惡，對治滅未生惡，如禪五陰滅欲界惡，即是世界滅已生惡，為人生已生善，第一義生未生無為之善。「若見」下，第二，廣釋。若見佛常在，便起憍恣心等故有損，不能生恭敬故無益。「憍恣」即增見惑，「厭怠」即生思惑，「不生難遭想」即不能生見諦解，「不恭敬」即不能生思惟道，為是義故宜應現滅。若見聞三佛不滅，悉有憍恣義，便謂眾生如彌勒如，一如無二如，平等即真，由是生於憍心上慢，謂一切煩惱本自不生，今亦無滅何須修道，即便恣情放逸，為是唱言是寂滅義。又聞一切眾生即菩提相，菩提相即煩惱相，明暗不相除，顯出佛菩提，眾生聞此復起慢恣，不復修善懈怠放逸，為是等故，唱言報身智慧能滅煩惱。無明力大，佛菩提智之所能滅。應身非滅現滅易解。若唱言法本不生今亦不滅，要須滅惑方乃寂滅。經云「智慧不滅煩惱」，然明時無暗，汝今具足煩惱，何能有慧？當知智慧能滅障惑，眾生聞是唱滅，便於三佛生難遭想、起恭敬心。「是故如來以方便」下，明唱滅有益：先、歎佛難值，次、釋難值，三、佛並難值。眾生樂著小法見思障重，聞三身不滅則不修道，難得契會也。「所以」下，釋也。諸薄德人過百千劫，或有見佛或不見者。若見三佛，其人多善少惡，不為其人唱滅，是人見佛常在靈山也；或不見佛，其人障重善輕，為說三身難會，眾生聞之便作是念，三佛雖復非生非滅，必須生善滅惑乃得證見，此事不易，故云「難遭」也。「心懷戀慕渴仰」者，此明現滅無損。滅於見思名無損，種善根名有益。

From "Thus it is an extremely long time since I became a buddha" downward clarifies not extinguishing yet manifesting extinction, which again has two parts: first, clarifying not extinguishing yet manifesting extinction; second, from "The Tathāgata through these expedient means" downward, clarifying the benefit of manifesting extinction. The first also has two parts: first, clarifying that the origin is truly unextinguished; next, from "Yet now" downward, clarifying proclaiming extinction in the traces. From "Since I became a buddha" downward clarifies the permanence of the fruit stage; being permanent, it is unextinguished, and these four characters are drawn upon to clarify that in the future, with great power and courage, [the Buddha] is constantly abiding and benefiting beings. From "Formerly I practiced" downward cites the cause to illustrate the fruit, clarifying constant abiding. Earlier commentators relied on this to prove impermanence, saying that [the years of practice] in the past exceeded Ganges sands and subsequently doubled that number, and that using supernatural powers to prolong the lifespan is still impermanence. Their biased understanding of the text's meaning involves a great loss: the sūtra cites the cause to illustrate the fruit, and the fruit is not a matter of numbers. The sūtra says that the lifespan obtained through long-cultivated karma is countless kalpas; it is not prolonging the lifespan through supernatural powers. Why? When a buddha cultivates the perfect cause and ascends to the initial abode, he has already attained a permanent lifespan; this permanent lifespan beyond reckoning has already doubled the previous number, so how much more so the fruit? Why abandon the illustrated fruit and rigidly cling to the illustrating cause? Even if this cause is considered, it is already permanent, not impermanent. For example, when one is crown prince, one's emoluments are already inexhaustible; how much more so when one ascends the supreme throne—how could the use of emoluments ever be exhausted? The clear text is right here; why twist it to doubt and mislead future generations? From "Yet now it is not real" downward is the second, proclaiming extinction in the traces. The three bodies all have the meaning of not extinguishing yet proclaiming extinction. As the Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa says: "Phenomena are fundamentally unarisen, and now they are without extinction"—this is the non-extinction of the dharmakāya; and it also says: "This is the meaning of tranquil extinction"—this is proclaiming extinction. Why? If one has already thoroughly comprehended, one does not proclaim tranquil extinction; it is only proclaimed for those who have not yet comprehended. If one speaks of illumination being tranquil, that is proclaiming extinction; if one speaks of tranquility illuminating, that is proclaiming arising. Now, as for the dharmakāya, although it is neither arising nor extinguishing, it also has arising and extinguishing: if the deluded mind clings, then afflictions arise and wisdom is extinguished; if the understanding mind is undefiled, then wisdom arises and afflictions are extinguished. Extinguishing delusion and giving rise to understanding is impermanent extinction; if understanding arises and delusion is extinguished, this is tranquil extinction. These arisings and extinguishings are all distinguished in terms of the Dharma-nature. If there were not the two conditions of delusion and understanding, one would not proclaim the existence of such arising and extinguishing. As for the saṃbhogakāya's not extinguishing yet proclaiming extinction: who possesses wisdom and who possesses afflictions such that one can say wisdom is able to destroy [afflictions]? This means that light and darkness do not dispel one another, which is the meaning of the non-extinction of the saṃbhogakāya. Sentient beings do not comprehend this, and upon hearing it, they immediately assume that they are already buddhas and give rise to arrogance and self-indulgence, no longer cultivating the Way. Therefore it is again proclaimed that the Way can extinguish delusion: when there are afflictions, there is no wisdom; when there is wisdom, there are no afflictions—is it not that wisdom can extinguish afflictions? As for the nirmāṇakāya's not extinguishing yet proclaiming extinction: the nirmāṇakāya is the function of the dharma- and saṃbhogakāyas; since the essence is unextinguished, how could its function ever be exhausted? This means the nirmāṇakāya is unextinguished. But because sentient beings would give rise to arrogance and self-indulgence if they constantly saw the Buddha, he proclaims: "I shall enter extinction tonight." Furthermore, the dharmakāya directly demonstrates non-extinction in its own essence; when non-extinction is spoken of regarding the saṃbhogakāya, it must be in terms of the dharmakāya: reasoning according to principle, does wisdom's capacity to destroy occur because it reaches [affliction] or because it does not reach it, together or alone? Reasoning thus, there is no efficacy of destroying, which is the meaning of wisdom not extinguishing delusion; in terms of the fact that where there is wisdom there is no affliction, it is wisdom being able to extinguish delusion. Speaking of the nirmāṇakāya's non-extinction must be in terms of the dharma- and saṃbhogakāyas: the dharma- and saṃbhogakāyas are eternally so, and the responsive function never ceases; as long as sentient beings are not exhausted, it does not enter extinction. If the dharmakāya is discussed in its own essence, it is unarisen and unextinguished; the saṃbhogakāya thoroughly comprehends that there is nothing that can arise or extinguish; the nirmāṇakāya's continuity is unarisen and unextinguished (and so forth). From "Through these expedient means I teach and convert" downward is the second part, clarifying that manifesting extinction benefits beings, which again has two parts: first, that if he does not enter extinction sentient beings will suffer harm; second, from "Expediently saying: 'Monks, you should know'" downward, that if he proclaims extinction it benefits beings. The first also has two parts: first, that not entering extinction brings harm; next, broadly explaining not entering extinction. As for having harm: as mentioned earlier, people who delight in lesser teachings, seeing the Buddha constantly present, do not plant good roots, become destitute and base, and do not give rise to the two kinds of good, hence having no benefit; their views and cravings are unsevered, and failing to sever the two kinds of evil constitutes harm. Clinging greedily to the five desires they enter into conceptual thought: conceptual thought is the delusion of views; the five desires are the delusion of cravings. Because these sentient beings' defilements are heavy, it is necessary to proclaim extinction. If extinction is not proclaimed, the two kinds of evil will arise without being extinguished, and the two kinds of good will be harmed without arising. If one manifests extinction in accordance with the four siddhāntas, then the two kinds of evil are extinguished and the two kinds of good arise: to extinguish the two kinds of evil, one uses the counteractive and paramārtha-satya [siddhāntas]—paramārtha-satya extinguishes evils not yet arisen, and the counteractive extinguishes evils already arisen; the worldly and individual adaptation [siddhāntas] give rise to the two kinds of good—the worldly gives rise to good not yet arisen, and individual adaptation gives rise to good already arisen. Alternatively, the worldly extinguishes evil already arisen, and the counteractive extinguishes evil not yet arisen; just as the five aggregates of dhyāna extinguish the evils of the desire realm, this is the worldly extinguishing evil already arisen, individual adaptation giving rise to good already arisen, and paramārtha-satya giving rise to the unconditioned good not yet arisen. From "If they see" downward is the second, broadly explaining. If they see the Buddha constantly present, they will give rise to an arrogant and indulgent mind and the like, hence there is harm; being unable to produce respect, there is no benefit. "Arrogance and self-indulgence" increases the delusion of views; "weariness and remissness" gives rise to the delusion of cravings; "not giving rise to the thought that it is difficult to encounter" means being unable to give rise to the understanding of seeing the truths; "not being respectful" means being unable to give rise to the contemplation of the Way. For these reasons, it is appropriate to manifest extinction. If they see and hear that the three buddhas do not enter extinction, all will have the meaning of arrogance and self-indulgence, and they will claim that sentient beings' suchness is Maitreya's suchness, that the one suchness has no second suchness, and that equality is the real; because of this they give rise to an arrogant mind and haughtiness, thinking: "All afflictions are fundamentally unarisen and now also unextinguished, so why cultivate the Way?" They will immediately indulge their passions and be dissolute. For this reason it is proclaimed: "This is the meaning of tranquil extinction." Furthermore, they hear that all sentient beings are the characteristic of bodhi, and the characteristic of bodhi is the characteristic of afflictions; light and darkness do not dispel one another, revealing the buddha-bodhi. Sentient beings hear this and again give rise to pride and indulgence, no longer cultivating good, becoming lax and dissolute. For such people as these, it is proclaimed that the saṃbhogakāya's wisdom can extinguish afflictions: the power of ignorance is great, and it can be extinguished by the wisdom of buddha-bodhi. That the nirmāṇakāya is unextinguished yet manifests extinction is easy to understand. If it is proclaimed that phenomena are fundamentally unarisen and now also unextinguished, one must extinguish delusions before attaining tranquil extinction. The sūtra says, "Wisdom does not extinguish afflictions," yet when there is light there is no darkness; now, being fully endowed with afflictions, how could you possess wisdom? You should know that wisdom can extinguish obscuring delusions. When sentient beings hear this proclamation of extinction, they then give rise to the thought of the three buddhas being difficult to encounter, and produce a mind of respect. From "Therefore the Tathāgata through expedient means" downward clarifies that proclaiming extinction is beneficial: first, praising the Buddha as difficult to encounter; next, explaining why he is difficult to encounter; third, that all [three] buddhas are difficult to encounter. Sentient beings delight in and cling to lesser teachings, their obstacles of views and cravings are heavy, and if they hear that the three bodies are unextinguished they will not cultivate the Way, finding it difficult to harmonize and meet [with the Buddha]. From "Why?" downward explains it. Those of scant virtue pass through hundreds of thousands of kalpas, and some see the Buddha while others do not. If they see the three buddhas, these people have much good and little evil; extinction is not proclaimed for them, and they see the Buddha constantly present on Mount Gṛdhrakūṭa. Or if they do not see the Buddha, these people have heavy obstacles and slight goodness, and it is preached for them that the three bodies are difficult to encounter; sentient beings hear this and reflect: "Although the three buddhas are neither arising nor extinguishing, one must produce good and extinguish delusion before one can witness and see them; this matter is not easy," hence it is said to be "difficult to encounter." "Cherishing feelings of longing and thirsting [for him]" clarifies that manifesting extinction causes no harm. Extinguishing views and cravings is called having no harm; planting good roots is called having benefit.