妙法蓮華經文句 4.73

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: