法華文句記 10.103

10.103

今文品初具足四一，以解貫四，於中先列、次釋。釋中云「法華論」等者，《論》許此菩薩知一切眾生悉有佛性，故凡見者皆往禮之，此四眾中豈無滅種而妄說之？若其有者，《論》文不說則過在天親，若《唯識》說正乃過在不輕及在於佛。而不先責不輕之過，猶却以為弘經之人，豈有誤宣誤記之失，令現生後淨六根耶？「正因通亘」等者，性德通於迷悟因果，故緣了云種子本有，還約性德以明二因，以對新熏成修得故，此三為因轉因成果。果中菩提及以涅槃，名為果性，果果性也。若對性辯修，秖是修得緣了，至果名為菩提涅槃，了秖是智，智名菩提，緣秖是斷，斷名涅槃。亦可以性三因至果之時，了名三種菩提，緣名三種涅槃。若云眾生具有因果性者，則五佛性皆在眾生遍一切處，但住因之日果性名因，在果之時攬因名果，名雖互得其法恒如。「初是因緣」等者，初內懷不輕之解等五文是也。「後是圓教」者，約教也。從「見實三昧」去是也。對偏成四、對味則五，以餘教中必無眾生即佛之言。前既因緣應具四悉，於五文中初二世界，後三餘三，具如序中亦以四一而對四悉。「云云」者，三教對辯今唯在圓。「我昔隨喜獲現生後」者，重明來意，故後文云「臨欲終時具聞威音王佛說法華經，得六根淨更增壽命」，即現報也。「命終之後復值二千億佛，同號日月燈明」，即生報也。「以是因緣復值二千億佛，同號雲自在燈王，復值千萬億佛」，即後報也。於現報中獲六根淨，是故弘經其功不淺。說此三益意在流通，昔時不輕三報宛爾，今日豈得不流通耶？有人云：欲顯安樂行威勢無比，我為不輕行安樂行。今謂安樂行者始行弘經，故與不輕其儀十別。何者？彼則安處法座隨問為說，此乃遠見四眾故往禮拜。彼則有所難問方乃為答，此乃瓦行打擲猶彊宣之。彼則常好坐禪在空閑處，此乃不專讀誦入眾申通。彼則深愛法者不為多說，此乃被虛妄謗仍彊稱揚。彼則初問云何讀說此經，此乃但云流通作佛一句。彼則初修理觀觀十八空，此乃但懷一句作佛之解。彼則化佛親說詮虛空身，此乃虛空身說詮於化事。彼則夢中遠表當獲大果，此乃口宣當得佛因之教。彼則約解髻喻開二乘權，此乃約結緣表一乘之實。彼則以順化故存於軌儀，此乃以逆化故亡於恒迹。彼則列勝行法以取於人，此乃偏引往人以通勝法。

Now, the opening of this chapter fully possesses the four unities, permeating all four through understanding; therein, they are first listed and then explained. In the explanation, where it mentions "the *Lotus Sūtra Commentary*," etc.: the *Commentary* affirms that this bodhisattva knew that all sentient beings possess the buddha-nature, and therefore whenever he saw someone, he went to bow to them. Could there be none among these four assemblies whose seeds were annihilated, such that he spoke falsely? If there were such people, and the text of the *Commentary* did not state it, then the fault lies with Vasubandhu; if the *Vijñaptimātratā* teaching is correct, then the fault lies with Never Disparaging and with the Buddha. Yet instead of first rebuking Never Disparaging's fault, he is still taken to be a propagator of the sūtra—how could an error of false proclamation and mistaken prophecy cause him to purify the six sense faculties in the present, next, and subsequent lives? Regarding "the direct cause universally pervades," etc.: the virtue of the nature pervades delusion, awakening, cause, and fruit; hence, conditioned and revealing [causes] are called seeds originally present, and the two causes are still clarified in terms of the virtue of the nature, which in contrast to new perfuming constitutes what is attained through cultivation. These three serve as causes, transforming causes to achieve the fruit. Within the fruit, bodhi and nirvāṇa are called the fruit nature and the fruit-of-the-fruit nature. If one clarifies cultivation against nature, it is merely that conditioned and revealing [causes] attained through cultivation, upon reaching the fruit, are called bodhi and nirvāṇa: revealing is merely wisdom, and wisdom is called bodhi; conditioned is merely severance, and severance is called nirvāṇa. One can also take the three causal factors of nature as, upon reaching the fruit, revealing being called the three kinds of bodhi and conditioned being called the three kinds of nirvāṇa. If one says sentient beings fully possess both causal and fruitional natures, then the five buddha-natures are all present in sentient beings, pervading all places; it is only that during the days of abiding in the cause, the fruitional nature is called cause, and at the time of the fruit, it encompasses the cause to be called fruit. Though the names interchange, their dharmas are ever constant. Regarding "the first is causes and conditions," etc.: this refers to the five passages beginning with "internally cherishing the understanding of never disparaging." Regarding "the latter is the perfect teaching": this is from the perspective of the teachings, starting from "the samādhi of seeing the real" onward. Contrasted with the one-sided it forms four, and contrasted with the flavors it forms five, because in other teachings there is certainly no statement that sentient beings are identical to buddha. Since the former is causes and conditions, it should possess the four siddhāntas; among the five passages, the first two pertain to the mundane world, while the latter three pertain to the remaining three, fully as in the preface where the four unities were also matched to the four siddhāntas. The "etc." indicates contrasting and analyzing the three teachings, whereas here it lies solely in the perfect [teaching]. Regarding "I in the past rejoiced with joy and attained present, next, and subsequent [rewards]": this re-clarifies the purpose of the passage. Thus the text below says: "When his life was about to end, he heard the *Lotus Sūtra* preached by the Buddha King of Awesome Voice in its entirety, attained the purity of the six sense faculties, and his lifespan was further increased"—this is the present retribution. "After his life ended, he again encountered two hundred billion buddhas, all named Lamp of Sun and Moon"—this is the retribution in the next life. "By virtue of these causes and conditions, he again encountered two hundred billion buddhas, all named King of Clouds and Sovereign Lamp, and again encountered thousands of ten thousands of millions of buddhas"—this is retribution in subsequent lives. Attaining the purity of the six sense faculties within the present retribution shows that the merit of propagating the sūtra is by no means shallow. Preaching these three benefits aims at transmission: if in the past Never Disparaging's three retributions were so distinct, how could it not be transmitted today? Someone said: In order to reveal that the majestic power of peaceful practices is peerless, I practice peaceful practices as Never Disparaging. I now say: a practitioner of peaceful practices is a beginner propagating the sūtra, and therefore his conduct differs from Never Disparaging in ten ways. How so? That practitioner peacefully abides on the Dharma seat and expounds according to questions, whereas this one sees the four assemblies from afar and goes purposely to bow to them. That practitioner answers only when there are difficult questions, whereas this one is pelted with tiles and stones yet still forcefully proclaims it. That practitioner always delights in sitting in meditation in tranquil places, whereas this one does not concentrate on reading and reciting but enters the multitudes to articulate and communicate it. That practitioner does not preach extensively to those who deeply love the Dharma, whereas this one, though falsely slandered, still forcefully praises it. That practitioner first asks how to read and preach this sūtra, whereas this one merely speaks a single phrase of transmission on becoming a buddha. That practitioner first cultivates contemplation of principle, observing the eighteen emptinesses, whereas this one merely cherishes the understanding of a single phrase on becoming a buddha. For that practitioner, an emanation buddha personally preaches to explain the space-body, whereas for this one, the space-body preaches to explain emanation events. For that practitioner, it distantly signifies in dreams that he will attain a great fruit, whereas for this one, he orally proclaims the teaching of attaining the cause of buddhahood. That practitioner uses the parable of untying the topknot to open the provisional of the two vehicles, whereas this one uses forming connections to express the reality of the One Vehicle. That practitioner preserves rules and deportment through compliant conversion, whereas this one abandons conventional traces through resistant conversion. That practitioner lists superior practices to attract people, whereas this one exclusively cites past people to communicate the superior Dharma.