法華文句記 10.134

10.134

次涉法師更加二難，總成十難，故云「十不可」。先破總敘，次翻二難。先破敘者，彼先敘云，什公安〈囑累品〉在〈神力品〉後，自是已來皆共信受。並云，移著此中善得經意，若在後者所列諸妨，略如向述。而云以義判文，正應安此；唯我唐代慈恩法師，不許斯義。法師又云：妙音被誡若是穢者，文殊海來何有靈山？秖云唯留此會，不云唯留靈山，當知內外俱淨，但是仍舊而說。又云：分身即是釋迦，若多寶全身亦與一分，釋迦分身唯與一分，若受多分者便是釋迦長受利養，修六和敬詎應然耶？故但與一分。又云：若囑累在此，如來起立不云更坐，分身佛去不應立送，受觀音施不應立受。又云：大眾皆喜唯少奉行，不應安此。又云：神力去穢未必全除，要若全除併之何處？何處淨土容此穢生？救曰：《正本法華》自西晉至唐都不行用，此《妙法經》後秦譯訖，四海盛傳天下仰止，況流行之處必藉冥加，冥加已遂安可議耶？況復受持應驗無量，普賢尚授以句逗而不責移品，況復爾後名僧繼踵碩學如林，共許〈囑累〉安著此中，豈至唐朝所見乖昔？然此經以常住佛性為咽喉，以一乘妙行為眼目，以再生敗種為心腑，以顯本遠壽為其命；而却以唯識滅種死其心，以婆沙菩薩掩其眼，以壽量為釋疑斷其命，以常住不遍割其喉，以三界八獄為大科形斯為小，以一乘四德為小義無可會歸，據斯以論諸例可識。言仍舊說者，妙音未曾於此生慢，若土猶淨滿中諸佛釋迦及塔眾又在空，神力所現十方通達，何須仍舊枉誡妙音？彼佛現見高下不平，而掩佛智能言土猶淨，而言釋迦不長受利順六和敬者，乃是令聖效凡。若言分身即是釋迦，釋迦開塔亦即分身，何須更集？若據應迹各別，為是分身恐釋迦偏多而不受，為是觀音恐諸佛多受而不與，若觀音不與乃表觀音施偏，何關六和少欲？若分身不受，應先施而後讓，何故但分為二分耶？故知令分二分表現表當，其義已圓；分身已去，其理善成，何須此難？若言不應立送分身，及立受施，縱品移在後免斯過者，受觀音施容可尚坐，摩頂之際仍立唱散，經後正當立送之咎，徒設謔並嘲調尊儀，於此《妙經》未成弘讚。若且順凡情，釋迦與分身齊肩，坐送便成疎闕，故立送客正當其儀。況立送立受何教所制？云送受不成，又云：已有眾喜唯少奉行不合安此，秖緣少奉行故不應在後。又云：何處淨土容此穢生者？何不問劫燒擔草不同灰燼，毛孔納海身不隨波，凡此諸釋並任己心，不順經文其例若是。

Next, Dharma Master She added two more objections, making ten objections in all, hence called 'the ten impossibilities'. First I refute the general account, and next I overturn the two objections. First, refuting the account: he first recounts that Master Shí [Kumārajīva] placed the 'Entrustment' chapter after the 'Divine Powers' chapter, and from then on everyone has believed and accepted this together. They all say that moving it to this place captures the sūtra's meaning well, and that if it were placed later, the various obstacles listed would be roughly as described earlier. And he says that if one determines the text by doctrinal principle, it should precisely be placed here; only Dharma Master Cí'ēn of our Tang dynasty did not accept this meaning. That Dharma Master also says: 'If [the land where] Gadgadasvara was admonished was defiled, why was there Vulture Peak when Mañjuśrī came from the sea? It merely says "keeping only this assembly", not "keeping only Vulture Peak"; one should know that both inside and outside were pure, but it was simply spoken in conformity with the old.' He also says: 'The emanations are Śākyamuni himself; if Prabhūtaratna's entire body was also given one share, and Śākyamuni's emanations were only given one share, then if he had received many shares, it would mean Śākyamuni excessively received offerings—in practicing the six points of harmony and respect, how could this be so? Hence he was only given one share.' He also says: 'If entrustment is here, the Tathāgata rose to his feet and it is not said that he sat down again; when the emanation buddhas departed, he should not have sent them off standing, nor should he have stood to receive Avalokiteśvara's offering.' He also says: 'The great assembly all rejoiced, yet it only lacks "practicing according [to the teachings]"; it should not be placed here.' He also says: 'Removing defilement by divine power does not necessarily eliminate it completely; if it had to be completely eliminated, where was it combined to? What pure land would tolerate the emergence of this defilement?' Refutation: The *Correct Base Lotus Sūtra* [Dharmarakṣa's translation] was not used at all from the Western Jin through the Tang. Once this *Wondrous Dharma Sūtra* [Kumārajīva's translation] was translated in the Later Qin, it spread vastly throughout the four seas and the whole realm looked up to it; how much more so, as a place of propagation, it must rely on unseen assistance! Once unseen assistance has been fulfilled, how can it be contested? Furthermore, the responses and verifications of upholding it are immeasurable. Even Samantabhadra bestowed punctuation upon it without censuring the relocation of chapters. Furthermore, thereafter famous monks followed in succession and eminent scholars were as numerous as a forest, all agreeing that 'Entrustment' should be placed here—how could what was seen in the Tang dynasty contradict the past? Now, this sūtra takes the permanently abiding buddha-nature as its throat, the wondrous practice of the One Vehicle as its eyes, the regeneration of ruined seeds as its vital organs, and the revelation of the original distant life span as its life. Yet he instead kills its heart with the destruction of seeds in Vijñānavāda, covers its eyes with the bodhisattvas of the Vibhāṣā, cuts off its life by treating the 'Life Span' as merely resolving doubts, cuts its throat by claiming the permanently abiding is not omnipresent, treats the three realms and eight hells as major rubrics while depicting this as minor, and regards the One Vehicle and the four virtues as minor meanings with nothing to return to. Judging from this, the various other parallels can be recognized. As for saying 'it was spoken in conformity with the old': Gadgadasvara had never produced arrogance here; if the land was still pure, filled with buddhas, with Śākyamuni and the stupa assembly still in the air, and through the display of divine power the ten directions were unobstructed, why would one need to conform to the old and falsely admonish Gadgadasvara? That buddha [Sujatā] visibly saw high and low irregularities, yet [this opponent] conceals the buddha-wisdom and says the land was still pure. And saying that Śākyamuni does not excessively receive gain in accordance with the six harmonies is to make sages imitate ordinary beings. If one says the emanations are Śākyamuni himself, then Śākyamuni opening the stupa was also the emanations themselves; why would they need to assemble further? If we go by their distinct trace-manifestations: did the emanations fear that Śākyamuni would receive too much and therefore not accept it, or did Avalokiteśvara fear that the buddhas would receive too much and therefore not give it to them? If Avalokiteśvara did not give it to them, that would indicate Avalokiteśvara's giving was partial—what does that have to do with the six harmonies and having few desires? If the emanations would not accept it, they should have first offered it and then yielded; why were only two shares divided? Therefore we know that causing it to be divided into two shares signifies the manifest and signifies the future; its meaning is already complete. The emanations having already departed, that principle is successfully established; why this objection? If you say he should not have stood to send off the emanations and stood to receive the offering: even if moving the chapter later avoids this fault, while receiving Avalokiteśvara's offering could perhaps still be done seated, at the moment of patting their heads he still stood up and proclaimed the dismissal, so at the end of the sūtra he would still incur the fault of standing to send them off; vainly concocting jests and ridiculing the venerable decorum does nothing to propagate and praise this *Wondrous Sūtra*. If we temporarily follow ordinary sentiment, Śākyamuni and his emanations stand shoulder to shoulder; sending them off seated would become a breach of courtesy, so standing to send off guests precisely conforms to decorum. Furthermore, what teaching stipulates that standing to send off and standing to receive are invalid? Also, saying that 'there is already the joy of the assembly, yet it only lacks "practicing according [to the teachings]", so it is inappropriate to place it here'—it is precisely because it lacks 'practicing according [to the teachings]' that it should not be at the end. Again, as for saying 'what pure land would tolerate the emergence of this defilement?': why do you not ask why carrying straw during the kalpa-fire does not reduce one to ashes, or how a pore contains an ocean while the body does not drift with the waves? All such interpretations are simply arbitrary products of one's own mind, failing to follow the scriptural text; their parallels are like this.