法華文句記 1.124

1.124

約教中，先釋，次「故經云」下引證。前明因緣說感應相，今既約教，約四極果初成之相故並云覺。又自覺覺滿則據於初，覺他通於初後。西云佛陀，此云覺者知者，對迷名知、對愚說覺，名同對別並屬自覺；故約四諦，即以自覺而能覺他，故云亦也。「總相別相」者，總謂無非無常，別即觀四念處，謂三界繫及四聖諦，此別莫不皆觀無常。「老比丘」者，從後異故，以通教佛亦可云老，而云帶者辨異前教，如《阿含》云「佛臨涅槃，如老比丘詣純陀舍」。「三十四心」者，八忍、八智斷見，九無礙、九解脫斷思，斷伏不同，具如《止觀》第三、第六記，具在《婆沙》、《俱舍》及諸《阿含》。此教求作餘釋，不得一念相應斷餘殘習，作三十四心釋終無其理，具如《大品》第十地。「別佛」具如《瓔珞》及諸大乘五十二位初地斷無明者是。「圓佛」具如《華嚴》初住斷無明者是。然小乘中立二無知，染污無知無明為體，不染無知劣慧為體，謂味勢熟德數時量耳。然四佛皆云自覺覺他者，秖是當教自行滿位，覺智不同化境寬狹，是則遍搜大小乘教，唯有此四成道之相，具如《玄》文因果兩妙。他釋但有自覺等三，既無四教各具三義，如何分別大小教主？與而言之不出二教。若云坐蓮華藏，或云三世諸佛，皆色究竟成無上道，並別佛相。若隱前三相從勝而說，非謂太虛名為圓佛。別佛既云單論，即是隱前二相，如目連不窮其聲等。若《法華》已前三佛離明，隔偏小故，來至此經從劣辨勝即三而一，他迷一家所明四佛者，以棄舊譯經論故也。如四階成道，三乘共位，瓔珞賢聖，華嚴融門，此四成道不可孱齊。以由設迹不同隱實覆本，故開權顯本方知不殊。又諸教中各有五人說經，如《大論》云：「佛及聲聞天仙化人」，及《華嚴》中加諸菩薩。又有眾生器世，而皆以佛為教主也。然準《大論》下四印定，即名佛說。又《華嚴》中剎說塵說，菩薩被加亦無印述，餘三佛力通得名經，故《大論》中所破并能通具四教。若得實意，方知四佛體同用殊。講《華嚴》者，皆云我佛。讀《唯識》者，不許他經，故至今經乃知指昔，唯佛究盡斯言有在。次引經者，《像法決疑》中通佛云大身小身者，以云帶老比丘故。

Under "according to the teachings," it first explains, and next, beneath "thus the sūtra says," cites proof. Previously, in clarifying the causes and conditions, it explained the characteristics of stimulus and response; now, according to the teachings, it treats the characteristics of the initial attainment of the four ultimate fruits, and therefore all are called "awakened." Furthermore, self-awakening and the perfection of awakening pertain to the beginning, while awakening others extends through both beginning and end. In the West it is called Buddha, translated here as the Awakened One or Knowing One; "knowing" is contrasted with delusion, and "awakened" is spoken in contrast to ignorance. The names are identical but their contrasts differ, yet both belong to self-awakening. Therefore, in terms of the four noble truths, by self-awakening one is able to awaken others, and so it says "also." "General characteristics and particular characteristics": "general" means that none are not impermanent; "particular" means contemplating the four applications of mindfulness—namely the bonds of the three realms and the four noble truths—and these particulars without exception all contemplate impermanence. "An old bhikṣu": this follows the distinction of the latter, because the Buddha of the common teaching can also be called old, but saying "with the demeanor of" distinguishes him from the previous teaching, as the Āgama says: "When the Buddha was near nirvāṇa, he went to Cunda's house like an old bhikṣu." "The thirty-four minds" refers to the eight acceptances and eight wisdoms that sever views, and the nine unhindered paths and nine paths of liberation that sever thoughts; their severance and suppression differ, fully as explained in the notes to fascicles three and six of the Mohe zhiguan, and detailed in the Vibhāṣā, the Kośa, and various Āgamas. In seeking other explanations of this teaching, one cannot take a single thought of conjunction severing residual habit-energy as thirty-four minds; there is never such a principle, fully as in the tenth ground of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā. The "separate Buddha" is fully as in the Yingluo and various Mahāyāna texts: one on the first ground of the fifty-two stages who severs fundamental ignorance. The "perfect Buddha" is fully as in the Avataṃsaka: one at the first abidance who severs fundamental ignorance. However, in the Hīnayāna they establish two kinds of ignorance: defiled ignorance has fundamental ignorance as its substance, while undefiled ignorance has inferior wisdom as its substance—referring only to flavor, strength, maturation, virtue, number, time, and measure. However, that all four Buddhas are said to "self-awaken and awaken others" is simply that each attains the full stage of practice of that teaching; their wisdom of awakening differs and the realms they convert are broad or narrow. Thus, searching through the teachings of the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna, there are only these four aspects of attaining the Way, fully as in the two wonders of cause and fruit in the Xuan[yi]. Other commentators have only the three meanings of self-awakening and so on; without the four teachings each possessing the three meanings, how could one distinguish the leaders of the great and small teachings? Conceding it to them, they do not go beyond two teachings. If one speaks of sitting on the lotus-womb, or says that the Buddhas of the three periods all attain unexcelled awakening in Akaniṣṭha, these are all aspects of the separate Buddha. If one conceals the former three aspects to speak from the superior, it does not mean that empty space is called the perfect Buddha. When the separate Buddha is discussed separately, this conceals the former two aspects, as when Maudgalyāyana could not reach the end of his voice, and so on. Before the Lotus Sūtra, the three Buddhas were explained separately due to the isolation of the one-sided and small; arriving at this sūtra, identifying the superior from the inferior, the three are identical to the one. Others are confused about the four Buddhas clarified by our school because they abandon the old translations of the sūtras and treatises. For example: attaining the Way in four stages, the common stages of the three vehicles, the worthy and noble ones of the Yingluo, and the fusing gate of the Avataṃsaka—these four attainments of the Way cannot be leveled into uniformity. Because the establishment of traces differed, concealing the real and covering the origin, only upon opening the provisional and revealing the origin does one know they are not different. Furthermore, in each of the teachings there are five persons who speak the sūtras, as the Treatise says: "The Buddha, disciples, devas, ṛṣis, and emanated persons," with the Avataṃsaka adding the various bodhisattvas. There are also sentient beings and the receptacle world, yet all take the Buddha as the leader of the teaching. However, according to the Treatise, if sanctioned by the four below, it is called the Buddha's preaching. Furthermore, in the Avataṃsaka there is preaching by lands and preaching by dust particles; when bodhisattvas are empowered, there is also no sanction or recitation, yet by the power of the other three Buddhas these are universally called sūtras. Thus what is refuted in the Treatise can entirely and universally possess the four teachings. If one grasps the real intent, only then does one know that the four Buddhas are identical in substance but distinct in function. Those who lecture on the Avataṃsaka all say, 'our Buddha.' Those who read the Vijñaptimātratā do not accept other sūtras. Therefore, only arriving at the present sūtra does one recognize the pointers to the past; 'only a Buddha and a Buddha can exhaust it'—these words indeed have their ground. Next, regarding the sūtra citation: in the Xiangfa jueyi jing, the Buddha of the common teaching is said to have a great body and a small body, because he is said to bear the demeanor of an old bhikṣu.