妙法蓮華經文句 4

English (machine translation) 4

Language: English

From "At that time the World-Honoured One said to Śāriputra: 'You have already earnestly entreated three times; how could I not speak?'" onward, it broadly explains opening the three and revealing the one across seven and a half chapters, divided into three: first, for people of superior faculties, teaching by Dharma; second, for people of intermediate faculties, teaching by parable; third, for people of lower faculties, teaching by past causal conditions; also called principle, matters, and practice, just as the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra is also for three faculties (and so forth). Now it is distinguished by ten points: 1. general and specific; 2. with śrāvakas and without śrāvakas; 3. thickness and thinness of delusions; 4. faculties transforming or not transforming; 5. faculties awakening or not awakening; 6. expressing understanding and not expressing understanding; 7. receiving prediction and not receiving prediction; 8. shallowness and depth of awakening; 9. provisional and real benefit; 10. awaiting the time and not awaiting the time.

4.3

First, explaining general and specific: the first cycle is specifically called teaching by Dharma, but in general it possesses all three: "Just like an udumbara flower appearing only once in a while" is teaching by parable; "If I encounter sentient beings, I teach them all with the Buddha Path" is teaching by causal conditions. The middle cycle is specifically called teaching by parable, but in general it also possesses all three: "Did I not say before that it was all to convert bodhisattvas?" and matching the parable by differentiating and explaining the three within the One Buddha Vehicle is teaching by Dharma; "At the place of twenty thousand koṭīs of buddhas I constantly taught and transformed you" is teaching by causal conditions. If one says this text belongs to teaching by Dharma, one can take the elder who, having heard, was alarmed and entered the burning house to effect rescue, which is teaching by causal conditions. The lower cycle is specifically called past causal conditions, but in general it also possesses all three: "The time for nirvāṇa has arrived, the assembly is clean and pure, causing them to enter the Buddha's wisdom" is teaching by Dharma; "There is a guide..." is teaching by parable. That three cycles are made is following the predominant and primary, omitting the secondary and incidental, in order to keep the names from being confused, each based on a single sense.

4.4

Question:

4.5

The three cycles are for people of three faculties; if one cycle generally possesses the three teachings, should one teaching accommodate the three faculties?

4.6

Answer:

4.7

Teaching by Dharma does not only suit the superior of the superior; there are also intermediate and lower. Following the primary and omitting the secondary, it is therefore said to suit people of superior faculties; the remaining two cycles are also like this.

4.8

Second, concerning the clarification of whether there are or are not śrāvakas: [Master] Guangzhai held that there are definitely śrāvakas of real practice; for if one says there are no real ones, to what would the expedient correspond? [Master] Kaishan understood that there are no śrāvakas of real practice, citing the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra: 'Those at the initial stage of practice in the three vehicles are not deluded about phenomena'—if ordinary people outside [the path] already know the One Vehicle, how could those of the two vehicles still cling to the lesser fruit? Where the sūtra speaks of their existence, it is an expedient. Both of these masters held one-sided views, conflicting with the sūtra and losing its meaning. If they definitely exist, why does the sūtra say that there are no śrāvaka disciples and that [the Buddha] teaches only bodhisattvas? If they definitely do not exist, who entered the transformed citadel? Nor would there be three to unite, so what would the expedient be guiding? If one says that real ones exist and are guided by the expedient, then there should also be a real Buddha of the Tripiṭaka who is guided by an expedient Buddha of the Tripiṭaka. If there is no such real Buddha, but only an expedient Buddha, why not accept that there are only expedient śrāvakas and no real śrāvakas? This reasoning does not form a parallel: there are real beings who have severed defilements within the triple world; we call these 'real', and the expedient ones respond to them. Where is there a Buddha who severs defilements within the triple world to whom an expedient Buddha would respond? Now, we clarify that one must not hold a one-sided view on existence and non-existence: if viewed from the Elder's real wisdom, there is no hired laborer; yet looking at the impoverished son's own disposition, he regards himself as a hired laborer. The Upadeśa on the Lotus Sūtra identifies four kinds of śrāvakas: first, the determined; second, the arrogant; third, those who have regressed from the Mahāyāna; fourth, the transformed manifestations. The first two have not matured and are not given prophecies, while the latter two are given prophecies. If based on the present sūtra, there should be five: first, those who practiced the lesser [vehicle] long ago, whose path has matured in this life so that hearing the lesser teaching they realize the fruit—these, as in the Upadeśa, are the determined śrāvakas; second, those who were originally bodhisattvas cultivating the path for accumulated kalpas, but grew weary of birth-and-death along the way, regressing from the Mahāyāna to take the lesser [vehicle]—the Pañcaviṃśati calls these 'distinct wholesome roots'; the Buddha provisionally completed their lesser path by preaching the lesser teaching for them, severing bonds and attaining the fruit according to that teaching; having regressed from the Mahāyāna, they have not practiced the lesser for long, so in principle they should be easy to awaken, and as in the Upadeśa, these are the śrāvakas who regressed from bodhi; third, on account of these two [types], Buddhas and bodhisattvas who conceal [greatness] within and manifest [the lesser] outwardly, perfecting and guiding them into the Great Path—these, as in the Upadeśa, are the transformed śrāvakas; fourth, those who, seeing that both the expedient and the real can transcend birth-and-death, delight in nirvāṇa and cultivate morality, concentration, and wisdom; having a slight contemplation of wisdom but having not yet entered the stage of resemblance, they make a slight attainment and claim it is the realization of the fruit—this is called claiming to have attained what one has not attained and claiming to have realized what one has not realized, and as in the Upadeśa, these are the overweeningly arrogant śrāvakas; fifth, the Mahāyāna śrāvakas, who cause all to hear by means of the voice of the Buddha path. If viewed from the two types—the determined and those who regressed from bodhi—then śrāvakas exist. If viewed from the Mahāyāna, in principle there is no reducing the body to ashes and extinguishing consciousness to dwell forever in the transformed citadel; they ultimately return to the place of jewels. Since the real is thus, there is no expedient, and hence no śrāvakas. As for the overweeningly arrogant, since they have not entered the stages, they are not real; nor are they transformed manifestations, so they are not expedient. If one grasps this meaning, existence and non-existence become crystal clear—why strive in bitter dispute? Furthermore, taking solely the Mahāyāna śrāvakas, we may again discuss existence and non-existence: if viewed as expediently making transformed manifestations, outwardly displaying the lesser traces while inwardly concealing great virtues, then one says there are no Mahāyāna śrāvakas; if viewed from their own practice, revealing the origin from the traces, then one says there are Mahāyāna śrāvakas. Now, the primary intent of opening the three and revealing the one is to enable the determined śrāvakas and those who regressed from the Mahāyāna to become Mahāyāna śrāvakas; once their own practice is established, they can expediently transform as śrāvakas. If one grasps this meaning, one comprehends existence and non-existence.

4.9

Third, concerning the heaviness or lightness of delusion: Master Yao said, 'After attaining the fruit, the three capacities travel and contemplate non-arising. The principle of non-arising is one, but when they emerge from contemplation and encounter the three teachings, these are different. Applying the inevitably different three teachings, they are deluded about the single principle of non-arising, thinking: since the teachings are three, how could the principle be one? Again, applying the single principle, they are deluded about the three teachings, thinking: since the principle is one, how could the teachings be three? Hesitating between principle and teaching, wavering between gain and loss: being deluded about teaching through principle has the sense of gain; being deluded about principle through teaching has the sense of loss. Those of superior capacity are mostly disposed to being deluded about teaching through principle; upon first hearing the preaching by Dharma, it accords with their disposition and they immediately awaken. Those of inferior capacity are mostly disposed to being deluded about principle through teaching; hearing the preaching by Dharma state that there are not three, it runs counter to their assumptions, so they understand only after hearing it three times. Those of middling capacity stand between the two extremes: not awakening through the preaching by Dharma, they are enlightened through the preaching by parables.' We now say that this explanation of the three capacities is not necessarily correct. Between what principle and teaching do the three types of people hesitate? If they waver between the principle and teaching of the Hīnayāna, their doubts have not been exhausted, and they would not even be persons who have severed the bonds at the first fruit. If they waver between the principle and teaching of the Mahāyāna, the Mahāyāna is distinctly and eternally different; how could it ever be confused with the Hīnayāna so that they hesitate? If they are deluded about the Mahāyāna through the lesser, or deluded about the lesser through the Mahāyāna: prior to this, the expedient had not yet been reproved; how could they have preexisting hesitation while entering and emerging from contemplation? Since they would already have hesitated, doubts would have arisen and attachments would have been unsettled—it would not just begin today. If attachments had been shaken and doubts had arisen beforehand, upon hearing the opening of the three and revealing of the one they should have immediately grasped and understood; why then would there still be astonishment and doubt? Wavering without foundation, this explanation is therefore not accepted. Now, in clarifying that capacities are sharp or dull, this is discussed entirely with respect to Mahāyāna dispositions; and heaviness or lightness of delusion is spoken of in terms of distinctive delusion. Thus there are four propositions: first, light delusion and sharp capacity; second, heavy delusion and sharp capacity; third, light delusion and dull capacity; fourth, heavy delusion and dull capacity. If distinctive delusion is light and the great capacity is sharp, one awakens immediately upon the first hearing. If delusion is heavy and capacity is sharp, one understands upon the second hearing. If delusion is light and capacity is dull, one is resolved upon the third hearing. As for the fourth proposition, though they hear it three times, they cannot attain awakening; they merely serve as the assembly establishing an affinity. Or, the first two propositions of sharp capacity may both be considered superior capacities, and the middle two propositions may be considered middling and inferior capacities, and so forth.

4.10

Furthermore, in terms of the three layers of the first grade of ignorance that obscure the middle way of the first abode: at the initial preaching by Dharma, for people of superior capacity the three layers of ignorance are extinguished all at once; opening the buddha knowledge and vision, they enter the bodhisattva stages and receive the prophecy of bodhi. Those of middling capacity sever two layers of ignorance; those of inferior capacity sever one layer. Next, at the time of the preaching by parables, those of middling capacity completely sever the third layer, open the buddha knowledge and vision, enter the bodhisattva stages, and receive the prophecy; those of inferior capacity advance to sever two layers. Next, upon hearing the preaching by causal conditions, those of inferior capacity completely sever the three layers, open the buddha knowledge and vision, and enter the bodhisattva stages. This is like Hīnayāna practice: before the sixteen mental states are fulfilled, one cannot be called [an attainer of] the first fruit; when the sixteen mental states are fulfilled, one is called a srotāpanna.

4.11

Fourth, concerning the transformation or non-transformation of capacities: the ancient [masters] said, 'Those of superior capacity awaken upon first hearing the preaching by Dharma, while those of middling capacity are transformed to become equal to the superior capacity, and those of inferior capacity advance to become equal to the middling capacity. At the time of the preaching by parables, the middling capacity having already become superior previously, they are able to attain awakening, and the inferior capacity becomes superior. Next, at the time of the preaching by causal conditions, the inferior capacity has already become equal to the superior, and so they immediately attain awakening.' If so, and the inferior are transformed into the superior, then at the time of the preaching by causal conditions all are superior; since their sharpness would be equal, how could those who await the preaching by causal conditions still be called dull? If they are transformed into the superior, they would awaken just like the superior; if they have not yet awakened and still bear the name of dull, then there is no meaning of transforming capacities. This is like Śāriputra hearing it once and Maudgalyāyana hearing it twice, both attaining the first fruit: if both were equally sharp, there would be no superiority or inferiority; if they are still called sharp and dull, the meaning of transforming capacities is not established. Now, the minds of sentient beings are unfixed: encountering bad conditions, they turn from sharp to dull; encountering good conditions, they turn from dull to sharp. Having met Buddhas and heard the Dharma in past lives, some have already transformed from inferior or middling to superior, and both attain awakening at the preaching by Dharma; some have transformed from inferior to middling, and attain understanding upon hearing the preaching by parables; the inferior do not transform, and become enlightened only after the three cycles. Transforming capacities in this way is unlike the ancient explanations. It is like three knives cutting wood: the sharp takes one stroke, the middling two, and the dull three; the designations of sharp and dull are not lost, yet the severed wood is the same.

4.12

Question:

4.13

When the three capacities enter the stage of the first abode, is there still sharpness and dullness?

4.14

Answer:

4.15

When the essence of true cultivation is revealed, there are no differences in rank.

4.16

Question:

4.17

If so, from the first abode upward, when they further give rise to conditioned cultivation, is there superiority or inferiority?

4.18

Answer:

4.19

For persons of this same stage, there is no longer superiority or inferiority; since the essence of true cultivation is fused, how could there be any difference?

4.20

Fifth, concerning the clarification of having awakening or not having awakening: the sūtras mostly clarify that bodhisattvas are of superior capacity, pratyekabuddhas of middling capacity, and śrāvakas of inferior capacity. If one says that bodhisattvas are of superior capacity, should they all together attain awakening in the preaching by Dharma, pratyekabuddhas all together attain understanding in the preaching by parables, and śrāvakas all together attain awakening in [the preaching by] causal conditions? However, although the sūtras provisionally distinguish the three capacities, regarding awakening and understanding the meaning is not necessarily so. In the present sūtra, we see only śrāvakas attaining understanding and do not see pratyekabuddhas; this is because pratyekabuddhas are of middling capacity, and having encountered the Buddha appearing in the world, they are included in the number of śrāvakas and attain awakening according to their capacities; therefore, pratyekabuddhas are not separately designated. Thus Śāriputra's verse of entreaty states: 'Those who seek to be pratyekabuddhas, / monks and nuns.' Relying on this text, one knows that pratyekabuddhas are included within the four assemblies. Furthermore, the 'Dharma Teacher Chapter' states: 'Monks, nuns, upāsakas, upāsikās, those seeking to be śrāvakas, and those seeking to be pratyekabuddhas'—how could there be no pratyekabuddhas attaining understanding? The ancient [masters] said: 'Bodhisattvas are of superior capacity, but not necessarily all are sharp; they are called superior on account of the majority, and their grasping mind is easily turned. Tracing the state of mind with which they seek Buddhahood, they merely grasped at having passed the three hundred [yojanas] and thereupon sought an immediate fruit; this doubt is easily awakened from. Bodhisattvas of the three capacities all together attain understanding in the preaching by Dharma: the superior perhaps during the brief explanation, the middling perhaps at the beginning of the expanded explanation, and the inferior equal to Śāriputra.' We now clarify that the term 'bodhisattva' is broad: as long as one generates the great mind, all are bodhisattvas; why must they all be of sharp capacity? Even Śāriputra was of an earlier stage, so how could they all have attained awakening prior to the first cycle? If that were so, why in the transmission of the 'Life Span' [chapter] are there various bodhisattvas who attain awakening to the endurance of non-arising of phenomena or generate the bodhimind stage by stage? The ancient [masters] said: 'Those who awaken in the "Life Span" are all Dharma-body [bodhisattvas] who increase the path and diminish birth.' We now say this is not so: there are six hundred and eighty myriad koṭis of nayutas of Gaṅgā-sands of people who attain the endurance of the non-arising of phenomena; these people are only just attaining this endurance, so one should know that prior to the 'Life Span' [chapter] they were not yet the Dharma-body. Therefore, one knows that the awakening of bodhisattvas cannot be restricted to the beginning of the first cycle.

4.21

Question:

4.22

If the awakening of bodhisattvas extends from the beginning to the end, the awakening of the two vehicles should also reach to the end.

4.23

Answer:

4.24

Once the three cycles have determined the natural relation of father and son, they are all called bodhisattvas; even if they awaken later, it is equally called the awakening of bodhisattvas.

4.25

Sixth, clarifying those who show an understanding and those who do not: If all three vehicles awaken alike, why is it that only the śrāvakas show an understanding, while the other two do not? Now it is explained that one who appears when no buddha is present in the world is called a 'solitary realizer' (pratyekabuddha), while one who hears a buddha preach the dharma of the twelve links of dependent origination is called a 'conditioned realizer' (pratyekabuddha). Since they are included within the ranks of the śrāvakas, their awakening and expressing of understanding are not treated separately; the general intention can be seen from this. Śāriputra, Kāśyapa, and others all have the disposition of the middle vehicle; therefore, the śrāvakas' expression of understanding encompasses the conditioned realizers, and there is no need for them to appear separately. Furthermore, among the four assemblies, there are those who have generated the mind of a conditioned realizer, and their attainments of awakening are not uniform; the chapter 'Faith and Understanding' says, '[The father] secretly dispatched two men to pursue and bring him back,' which precisely conveys this meaning. As for bodhisattvas not expressing an understanding: the teaching for the śrāvakas did not make clear that they would achieve buddhahood, but this present sūtra opens their path to return to the Great [Vehicle]; fearing that their own understanding might be mistaken, they state their understanding before the Buddha, whereas bodhisattvas are not like this and therefore do not express an understanding. Moreover, there are three reasons for this: First, a bodhisattva's original intention is to seek buddhahood; even if they have diverging attachments, those attachments are light and they will ultimately achieve buddhahood, without any fear of failing to attain it. Now, hearing the preaching through the three cycles simply rectifies their contemplative wisdom; therefore, there is no need to express an understanding. Second, that bodhisattvas awaken to the Great [Vehicle] has scriptural passages everywhere, whereas the two vehicles attaining buddhahood begins only with this present teaching. Because the transmission follows what is essential, the bodhisattvas' expression of understanding was omitted; it may have existed in the Indic text, but the Chinese translation simply did not record it. Third, the stage and practice of bodhisattvas are profound and peerless; the newly aspiring lesser bodhisattvas dared not express an understanding. After the 'Lifespan' chapter was preached, Maitreya comprehensively expressed understanding for all of them; beginning from the patience of the non-arising of dharmas and culminating in having only one lifetime remaining—this was a fully complete expression of understanding. What else would one seek? (and so on).

4.26

Seventh, on receiving predictions and not receiving predictions: If they all equally expressed understanding, why did the śrāvakas receive predictions, while the conditioned realizers and bodhisattvas are not seen to receive predictions? Here too there are three meanings: First, in the past it was explained that once the two vehicles entered the stage of definite correctness they could not generate the mind [for bodhi], so how could they receive predictions? Now that they have awakened to the Great [Vehicle], they rejoice in this special determination; therefore, [the Buddha] confers predictions upon them with kalpas and lands. Bodhisattvas, having resolved to seek buddhahood, have their practices fulfilled naturally; thus they do not urgently seek it, nor does the Buddha press them with a bestowal. Furthermore, the previous teachings conferred predictions upon bodhisattvas everywhere; this was a regular exposition, and the translation follows what is essential, as explained before (and so on). Second, bodhisattvas also have specific predictions: are not Devadatta and the dragon girl [receiving] predictions? In addition, the 'Dharma Teacher' chapter says: 'Those who seek the śrāvaka [vehicle], those who seek the pratyekabuddha [vehicle], and those who seek the buddha path—all such persons who hear this Lotus Sūtra before the Buddha, to every one of them I grant a prediction that they will attain supreme bodhi.' How could this not be a prediction for all? Third, the two vehicles had never previously received a prediction of the eight phases [of a buddha's life], and thus their kalpas and lands are predicted; bodhisattvas had already received predictions previously, so it is not stated again. A shallow, proximate prediction is attained already at the first abidance, and is not what bodhisattvas rejoice in; what bodhisattvas rejoice in is rather the distant prediction of the consummate and ultimate wondrous awakening. Therefore, in the 'Lifespan' chapter, beginning from initial aspiration and culminating in attainment in a single lifetime, the wondrous cause is thereby fulfilled and the ultimate fruit is suddenly perfected; this is conferring a prediction of the dharma body—how can it be said that there is no prediction?

4.27

Question:

4.28

If the lesser [vehicle] awakens to the Great, they should equally receive the prediction of the dharma body; how is it that they receive the prediction of the eight phases?

4.29

Answer:

4.30

The eight phases are a prediction of the response body. Having attained the prediction of the response body, one knows there must be the origin. In order to let beings know and hear this so as to forge future karmic bonds together, [the Buddha] confers the prediction of the response body. Furthermore, if these [practitioners of] the two vehicles hear the 'Lifespan' [chapter], they will likewise diminish their births and attain the prediction of the dharma body.

4.31

Eighth, clarifying that awakening has degrees of shallowness and depth: In a general sense, they all equally break through ignorance and enter realization of the first abidance, but upon close examination there must be distinctions of brightness and dimness. If merely hearing the initial preaching of the dharma still enables entry into the buddha wisdom, how could hearing the preaching through parables not bring further clarity? Furthermore, when they hear the past affinities, their comprehension naturally increases and advances; and when they subsequently hear the 'Lifespan' [chapter], it becomes even more profound and excellent. Just as one who listens to the dharma finds that hearing it again surpasses the former occasion, comparing the single with the repeated and the thin with the thick makes this clear.

4.32

Ninth, clarifying that the benefits gained by the expedient and the real are different: One view says that those of real practice gain benefit, while those of expedient practice act strictly as guides and influencing forces, so their benefit is not discussed. Now it is explained that this is not so: when it comes to the 'Lifespan' chapter, both the expedient and the real gain benefit. The increase in their path becomes ever higher, and the diminishment of their births becomes ever more complete; bordering on perfection and approaching the ultimate, with only one life remaining—how could this not be a benefit for those of the expedient? For this reason, initially they acted as an influencing force to jointly mature those of real practice, and later, when the ultimate fruit was preached, their own path became clear. The text says: 'Going out and coming in, the profit from interest extended to other countries'—the profit from interest being in another is precisely one's own benefit. That those of real practice gain benefit is due to the guidance of the expedient; the merit of transformation returns to oneself, so the expedient also gains benefit. Therefore, 'with a single voice he expounds the dharma, and sentient beings understand it according to their kind'—why must one wait only for the 'Lifespan' chapter? (and so on). Furthermore, 'I myself wish to attain this truly pure, great dharma' is precisely benefit for oneself. Tenth, clarifying waiting for the time and not waiting for the time: Those who did not awaken prior to this and necessarily had to wait for the Lotus [Sūtra] to awaken are said to 'wait for the time'; those who had already understood through teachings prior to the Lotus [Sūtra] are said to 'not wait for the time.' Why is this? The Buddha has two preachings: the explicit and the esoteric. If we speak in terms of the explicit preaching, prior to the Lotus [Sūtra] the two vehicles had not awakened to the Great Path, and it was necessary to season them through the five flavors until they were converged in the Lotus; hence it says: 'Because the time to preach had not yet arrived; now is precisely the time to definitely preach the Great Vehicle.' This is waiting for the time. If we speak in terms of the esoteric teaching, it is not necessarily the case that they fully waited for the five flavors to converge only in the Lotus; those who esoterically entered prior to this are therefore said to 'not wait for the time.' This is the broad distinction between waiting for the time and not waiting for the time. With respect to the three cycles, there is also waiting for the time and not waiting for the time; and with respect to the two gates of origin and traces, there is also waiting for the time and not waiting for the time. That there are earlier and later awakenings and entries is precisely due to this meaning.

4.33

Question:

4.34

If there is a type of disposition that is subsumed neither under the esoteric nor the explicit time, would they have missed the time and never be able to awaken?

4.35

Answer:

4.36

Other sūtras might consider this missing the time, but this sūtra does not. Although such a person does not awaken during the two times of the esoteric and explicit, and although they give rise to the thought of extinction, they will hear this sūtra in that [other] land. Therefore they do not miss the time; rather, they wait for the time of that land.

4.37

Question:

4.38

Did the five thousand who arose and left miss the time?

4.39

Answer:

4.40

These persons will receive the benefit after the Tathāgata's extinction from those who propagate the sūtra.

4.41

Question:

4.42

Śāriputra's request in the first cycle was made on behalf of the four assemblies and the three faculties, and his request in the parable cycle was on behalf of the middle and lower [faculties]; why then is it said that the Buddha preached the dharma in three cycles respectively for people of the three faculties?

4.43

Answer:

4.44

Such words are inappropriate. As for requesting, it was a universal request; as for preaching, it was also a universal preaching. It is merely that those of superior faculties, possessing sharp wisdom, heard the dharma and attained awakening; those of middle faculties, situated in the middle, heard the parables and attained awakening; and those of lower faculties, residing below, heard the three [past affinities] and attained awakening. You should follow the meaning; why do you cling to the literal words? (and so on).

4.45

Question:

4.46

Past lifetimes are matters and teachings of the past; are parables matters of the future and present?

4.47

Answer:

4.48

The sūtra has no explicit text, but deduced by principle it should be so. Bringing the three to converge into the one: viewing the one from the perspective of the three, the one is the future; citing an event as a parable, the parable is the present. Looking from the latter to the former, it should be as you have asked.

4.49

Question:

4.50

Ancient [masters] held that the five turbidities obstruct the Great [Vehicle], with the fourfold analysis as explained earlier. Some held that view delusions and ignorance combine together as the obstruction, pointing to the Treatise on the Lotus Sūtra which says: 'Those without afflictions have tainted arrogance, and do not know the eternal presence of the One Vehicle's dharma body.' If an ordinary person on the common ground does not cling to nirvāṇa and does not hear the dharma, then ignorance alone serves as the obstruction. If so, did they break through ignorance after hearing the dharma in the three cycles, or did they break through ignorance before hearing the dharma? If they broke through it after hearing the dharma, then ignorance was not an obstruction; if they were able to break through ignorance before hearing the dharma, then there was no obstruction at all. What is the meaning of this?

4.51

Answer:

4.52

This was a proposition established by others; now I will resolve it for them. Just as when a lamp arises and darkness ceases, one cannot fix an order of prior and posterior; yet even though there is no prior and posterior, darkness is definitively an obstruction (and so on).

4.53

Question:

4.54

The Śrīmālā[devī-sūtra] says: 'In their initial practice, [followers of] the three vehicles are not deluded about the dharma, and know of themselves that they will awaken.' The Upāsakaśīla-sūtra, fascicle fourteen, says: 'The two vehicles know of themselves that they will attain bodhi, yet temporarily take the fruit of the small vehicle.' Fascicle thirteen also says: 'Knowing it is easy, practicing it is difficult; although knowing the One Vehicle, they take arhatship.' Both of those sūtras say that they know; why does the present sūtra state that even after the three faculties they still did not know of themselves, first doubting and later awakening? What is the meaning of this?

4.55

Answer:

4.56

This sūtra also says that they know. The text states: 'If one has truly attained arhatship, it is impossible that he would not believe this dharma, unless it is after the Buddha's extinction when no buddha is present. Although such a person gives rise to the thought of extinction, if he encounters another buddha, he will attain decisive resolution.' There are three meanings in total: first it clarifies that they know; next it clarifies that they do not know; and finally it converges in their knowing—it is not that they never know. Furthermore, Śāriputra said: 'Now before the Buddha, all have fallen into doubt and confusion; I now do not know where the purport of this teaching leads.' Moreover, in the time of the Buddha Mahābhijñājñānābhibhū, many śrāvakas gave rise to doubt and confusion; when seeing the Buddha and hearing the dharma they still doubted and did not know, so how much less could they suddenly know when not seeing or hearing him? If one clings to these two texts as contradicting each other, it only increases contention; what benefit is there to the Path? Commentators should only discuss other matters; whether śrāvakas who achieved sagehood can or cannot know is solely the realm of the Buddha, not something you can fathom. Now I shall attempt to harmonize them: 'Initial practice of the three vehicles'—'initial practice' is twofold. If we take the distant past as the initial practice, having once heard the Great [Vehicle], they are not deluded about the dharma. If we take intermediate forgetting, where today they study the small [vehicle] and first cultivate the stations of mindfulness as the initial practice, then they do not know. The meaning is like this. If one grasps this meaning, then being expediently in initial practice, they are able to know; being genuinely in initial practice, they are unable to know. Some say: 'Those of sharp faculties are able to know, while those of dull faculties are unable to know.' This should be formulated in four propositions: expediently appearing as sharp or dull, manifesting as both unable to know; expediently appearing as sharp or dull, manifesting as both able to know; expediently appearing as sharp or dull, able to know upon hearing and not knowing without hearing; expediently appearing as sharp or dull, both manifesting as neither knowing nor not knowing. Now I do not adopt this distinction, but merely hold that those of expedient manifestation clearly and long knew in their inner minds, while those of real practice had not yet entered the Great and therefore did not know. The meaning is self-evident (and so on).

4.57

Question:

4.58

Conditioned realizers appear in an era without a buddha; how could there be conditioned realizers in the assembly of the three cycles?

4.59

Answer:

4.60

The Commentary [to the Prajñāpāramitā] states: 'Conditioned realizers (pratyekabuddhas) and solitary realizers (khaḍgaviṣāṇas): solitary realizers appear in an era without a buddha, whereas conditioned realizers vow to be born in an era with a buddha.' The Avataṃsaka states: 'When the bodhisattva descends from Tuṣita, he emits light that shines upon them; those who awaken cast off their bodies, while those who do not awaken are moved elsewhere.' The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra speaks of a comet. The Mūlamadhyamakakārikā states: 'When a pratyekabuddha appears in the world, the Buddha's dharma has already been extinguished; these are solitary realizers. Those who vow to be born in an era with a buddha have previously attained the first fruit [of stream-entry]; before their fourteen lifetimes are exhausted, if they meet a buddha they become arhats, and if they do not meet a buddha they become solitary realizers. When they meet a buddha, they neither abandon their lifespan nor are moved away, because they vowed to see a buddha. The second and third fruits are likewise.' Moreover, there are group-dwelling conditioned realizers, who in an era without a buddha instruct and transform teachers and disciples. These should be of two kinds: after the Buddha passes away, there are no written teachings and sentient beings' faculties are dull, so the pratyekabuddha does not preach the dharma—this is not the group-dwelling kind; the group-dwelling kind is able to preach the dharma. Furthermore, there are magically manifested conditioned realizers, who manifest the body of a conditioned realizer for those who ought to see one. That there are conditioned realizers in the assembly of the three cycles can be understood through these meanings.

4.61

The first cycle, the preaching of the dharma, has five textual divisions: First, from 'Earnestly requested three times, how could I not preach?' down to the end of the fascicle is precisely the preaching of the dharma. Second, from the beginning of the second fascicle down to the verses is Śāriputra's expression of understanding. Third, from 'I now among devas and humans' down to 'protected and remembered by the buddhas' is the Buddha's confirmation. Fourth, from 'You in a future age' down to 'You should rejoice' is conferring the prediction. Fifth, from 'the four assemblies' down to 'all dedicated to the buddha path' is the rejoicing of the four assemblies.

4.62

First there are prose and gāthās. The prose has three parts: first, granting permission; second, receiving the instruction; third, the main exposition. The text granting permission has three parts: first, consenting to grant permission; second, admonishing to grant permission; third, screening [the assembly] to grant permission. "You have already asked three times" is consenting to grant permission. "Listen carefully now" is admonishing to grant permission: "listen carefully" is wisdom born of listening; "reflect well" is wisdom born of reflection; "bear it in mind" is wisdom born of cultivation. The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra explains the four wholesome dharmas as the causes of great nirvāṇa: first is the good friend, which is the Tathāgata; the rest can be understood accordingly. "When he spoke these words" is screening the assembly to grant permission. Because the five thousand were seated, the Tathāgata stopped three times; now, about to grant permission to preach, by supernatural power he caused them to depart, hence it is called screening the assembly. Being heavily obstructed by the five turbidities is called "grave offenses"; clinging to the small and eclipsing the great is called "deep roots"; claiming to have attained what one has not attained is called "arrogance"; not having attained the three fruits, they had not realized the stage of no-more-learning. "Having such faults" refers to these three faults of obstruction, clinging, and arrogance. "Did not stop them" means that earlier, when they heard the opening of the three and revealing of the one, because the words were brief and the meaning concealed, they had not yet given rise to slander, which was sufficient to serve as the cause and condition for tying the jewel [in the garment]; their leaving was beneficial. If they had heard the extensive opening of the three and revealing of the one, it would have run counter to their feelings and aroused slander, so their remaining would have been harmful; therefore, he did not stop them. "This assembly has no more branches and leaves": branches and leaves are twigs and refuse, unfit for use as vessels. These people cling to the expedient means of expedient means and are not vessels for the Great [Vehicle]. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā-sūtra says: "Clinging to the branches and leaves while discarding the root, such a person is not wise." This is precisely the meaning. "It is well that they have departed": since they had already eclipsed themselves with the small and moreover obstructed others' great light, now by departing, they incurred no fault of slandering the Dharma, nor the transgression of obstructing others; hence it says "it is well." Earlier, when the branches and leaves had not yet departed, the Tathāgata stopped three times; [Śāriputra], upright and sincere, wished to hear, so Śāriputra asked four times. Master and disciple were discerning the capacities; it was not mere miserly obstinacy.

4.63

Question:

4.64

The Buddha is possessed of great benevolence and compassion; why did he not use supernatural power to make them remain without hearing, like the deaf and mute in the Avataṃsaka-sūtra? Why did he not increase the effect of the poisoned drum, as with Xigen (Pradānaruci) and Shengyi (Caritramati)?

4.65

Answer:

4.66

Each has its reason. In the concluding assembly of the Avataṃsaka-sūtra, the gradual [teaching] was just beginning to unfold, and attachment to the small had not yet been broken; therefore, they remained seated yet were blocked off. Now, in the Dharma of all buddhas, after a long time they must preach the real truth; precisely wishing to destroy transformations and break open the huts, it was appropriate that they be screened and sent away. If departing and remaining would both cause slander, it would be appropriate to preach forcefully as Xigen did. In this case, departing brought benefit, so why should he have made them stay? Remaining would bring harm, so why should he not send them away? Xigen preached forcefully out of benevolence; the Tathāgata sent them away out of compassion.

4.67

Question:

4.68

If the five thousand seated there did not receive benefit, what benefit was there in their leaving?

4.69

Answer:

4.70

They were not those whose capacities were ripe for this occasion; they were merely people forming a karmic affinity, as has already been explained above. Formerly, in the time of the Buddha Mahābhijñājñānābhibhū, immeasurable sentient beings also harbored doubts in their minds, yet were reborn life after life together with their teacher, and have now all attained liberation. These people are also like that. When the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra was preached, one hundred and fifty billion people did not give rise to faith in this sūtra; these people will also attain faith in the future. By this analogy, their benefit will come before long. In the Suvarṇaprabhāsa-sūtra, the two kinds of people in Jambudvīpa at that time also carry this same intended meaning.

4.71

"Listen well now" concludes the permission. Receiving the instruction is as in the text.

4.72

From "Such wonderful Dharma" onward is the main extensive exposition; the text has two parts: first, explaining the section on the four buddhas, expanding on the expedient and real of all buddhas above; second, explaining the section on Śākyamuni, expanding on the expedient and real of Śākyamuni above. Above, the verses were few, which was an abbreviation of the text; speaking generally of "all buddhas" was an abbreviation of the persons; merely opening the three and revealing the one was an abbreviation of the meaning. Here, the sections and phrases are many, which is an expansion of the text; explaining the five buddhas is an expansion of the persons; explaining the six turns is an expansion of the meaning. The six are: first, praising the Dharma as rare; second, preaching that it is not false; third, opening the expedient; fourth, demonstrating the real; fifth, citing the five turbidities to explain the expedient; sixth, screening out the false to urge the real. Praising the Dharma causes them to produce respect; preaching that it is without falsehood halts their slander; opening the expedient causes them not to cling to the small; demonstrating the real causes them to awaken to the great; citing the five turbidities shows the necessity of applying the three; screening out the false requires that it must be the real. In each of the five sections, each should be complete with the six meanings; that they appear alternately before and after without being fully present is because the Tathāgata preached skillfully, making it concise without omission, penetrating without redundant text. Furthermore, the order of the six meanings is of no fixed consequence (and so forth).

4.73

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:

First 73 of 139 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

妙法蓮華經文句 — Classical Chinese