法華文句記 10.141

10.141

「問為三」者，初一利他，次一自行，遊化亦苦行，苦行亦利他，已下去文如妙音等皆不出自他，自行皆不出智斷福慧，利他皆不出三昧神通。「通問遊」者，遊必具足十法界身，並如妙音、觀音，但別舉苦行以逗所宜，故請答之言意在苦行。「有佛聲聞」者文略，具如經列，有菩薩及菩薩壽等。《經》「即時入是三昧」者，普現三昧理無出入，表用三昧之力故云「入」耳。《經》「以神通力願」者，明不以世火還依所得三昧起利他願，以智觀火焚難思境，故使光明起斯照彼，佛亦以逗物故讚。「真法供養」等者，先總舉能觀所觀，次及觀相。「當是」之言正顯真法，所以燒身名真法者，由內觀故。所觀者何？即此生身由惑因故惑斯惑果。「皆用」之言顯因果俱蕩。「又觀若身若火」等者，於中先明法空，次「誰燒」下辯生空。初法空者，既即實相實相無燒，身火能所安得有燒有能所耶？次生空者，非但身等皆是實相，身等宰主一切皆無，故名為「誰」。「燒」者，能燒火也。「然」者，所然身也。身火並是能供事也，佛法即是所供田也。宰主即是能觀觀者，身火能所觀境也。境智不二能所斯亡，以不二觀觀不二境，成不二行會不二空，作是觀時苦為法界，見聞者益故曰「乘乘」。若不爾者，成無益苦行，佛有誠誡實可先思。所以投巖無招外行之論，赴火不為內眾之譏，良由內有理觀、外曉期心，故勝熱息善財之疑，尼乾生嚴熾之解，篤論其道行方有剋。心正行正、智邪事邪，行不可廢、智不可亡，後學之徒無失法利。有人問云：律制燒身得蘭，燒指得吉，此中讚燒其事如何？今為答之，大小開制教法不同，小制結過、大制令燒，故《梵網》中若不燒者非出家菩薩，豈獨令俗而不制道？故知順小行易不燒何難？從大誠難燒乃不易。世以不持為大，則大小俱傾，信此土機緣咸迷大小，不知先小後大，依何夏次？先大後小，何心而受？先小後大，開小乘遮不？先大後小，遮菩薩開不？一界之內兩眾如何？一身之中二體同異，大乘於小取益從何？小誦於大招損誰測？勤勤甄別用為來種，所乘之乘皆妙法故，以依一實立因果故，乘其所乘以利物故，但自揣己德歷境觀心，與心相應當順開制。今藥王久證並出開制之方，重法亡懷起神通之願，為軌凡下思之可知。《經》「以旃檀為𧂐」者，他人疑云：何得旃檀而為𧂐耶？答：此土大愛道入涅槃後，猶用旃檀闍維，況彼淨土何足為難？然淨穢並陳非世有也，皆聖力故。《經》云「七萬二千歲」等者，

"Asking into three": the first is benefiting others; the next is one's own practice. Wandering about converting [beings] is also an ascetic practice, and ascetic practice is also benefiting others. In the text below, [the accounts of bodhisattvas] such as Gadgadasvara do not go beyond self and other: one's own practice does not go beyond wisdom, eradication, merit, and prajñā; benefiting others does not go beyond samādhi and spiritual powers. "A general inquiry into wandering": wandering must be equipped with bodies in the ten dharma-realms, just as in the cases of Gadgadasvara and Avalokiteśvara; it is merely that ascetic practice is specifically raised in order to suit what is fitting. Thus, the meaning of the words requesting an answer resides in ascetic practice. "There are buddhas and śrāvakas": this is an abbreviated text; in full, as listed in the sūtra, there are bodhisattvas, the lifespan of bodhisattvas, and so forth. As for the sūtra's "immediately entered this samādhi": in the principle of the samādhi of universal manifestation there is no entering or emerging; it merely says "entered" to express the application of the power of the samādhi. As for the sūtra's "by the power of spiritual penetrations and vows": this explains that he does not rely on worldly fire, but rather gives rise to vows to benefit others based upon the samādhi he attained; using the fire of wise contemplation to incinerate the inconceivable object, he thereby causes light to arise and illuminate yonder realms; the Buddha also praises him because it accords with the capacities of beings. As for "offering of the true dharma" and so forth: first it broadly raises the contemplating and the contemplated, and next treats the characteristics of contemplation. The words "ought to be" precisely reveal the true dharma; the reason burning the body is called "true dharma" is due to inner contemplation. What is contemplated? This very physical body, arising from the cause of delusion, is thus the delusion of this deluded effect. The words "all use" reveal that cause and effect are both swept away. As for "further contemplates whether body or fire" and so forth: within this, it first explains the emptiness of phenomena (dharmas), and next, below "who burns", distinguishes the emptiness of sentient beings. First, regarding the emptiness of phenomena: since it is identical with the true character, and the true character is without burning, how could the subject and object of body and fire have burning, or have subject and object? Next, regarding the emptiness of sentient beings: not only are the body and so forth all the true character, but any governing master of the body and so forth is completely non-existent, hence the word "who". "Burns" is the fire that can burn; "kindles" is the body that is kindled. Body and fire are both the actual things of the offering subject; the Buddha and Dharma are the field of what is offered to. The governing master is the contemplative subject that contemplates; body and fire, subject and object, are the contemplated objective realm. Objective realm and wisdom being non-dual, subject and object are thereby obliterated; contemplating the non-dual objective realm with non-dual contemplation accomplishes non-dual practice and merges with non-dual emptiness. When making such a contemplation, suffering constitutes the dharma-realm, and those who see and hear it derive benefit; hence it is called "riding upon the vehicle". If it were not so, it would become a useless ascetic practice, regarding which the Buddha gave earnest warnings, which should indeed be considered beforehand. Therefore, hurling oneself from a cliff incurs no criticism of following non-Buddhist practices, and leaping into fire does not draw the mockery of the internal assembly, precisely because inwardly there is contemplation of principle, and outwardly there is clarity about one's determined intention. Thus, Jīva put to rest Sudhana's doubts, and the Nirgrantha produced the understanding of solemn brilliance. When one earnestly assesses the Path, practice then meets with success. If the mind is upright, practice is upright; if wisdom is perverse, the activity is perverse. Practice must not be abandoned, and wisdom must not be lost; thus later students will not lose the benefit of the Dharma. Someone asked: "The Vinaya decrees that burning the body incurs a thullaccaya (grave offence), and burning a finger incurs a dukkaṭa (light offence). How is it that burning is praised here?" Now I answer: The permissions and prohibitions of the Great and Small Vehicles differ in their teachings: the Small Vehicle prohibits it and establishes an offence, while the Great Vehicle commands one to burn it. Therefore, in the Brahma's Net [Sūtra], one who does not burn [a finger or arm] is not a renunciant bodhisattva; how could it command only the laity and not prohibit the monastic path? Thus we know that according with the Small Vehicle is easy to practice—what is difficult about not burning? Following the Great Vehicle is truly difficult; burning is indeed not easy. The world considers non-observance to be the Great Vehicle, whereby both Great and Small are brought to ruin; truly, the capacities and conditions of this land are all confused about the Great and Small. They do not know: if one takes the Small first and then the Great, on which summer-retreat seniority does one rely? If one takes the Great first and then the Small, with what mind does one receive it? If one takes the Small first and then the Great, does the Small Vehicle permit what it prohibited? If one takes the Great first and then the Small, does it prohibit what the Bodhisattva permitted? Within a single boundary, how can there be two assemblies? Within a single body, are the two entities identical or different? Where does the Great Vehicle derive benefit from the Small? Who can fathom the loss incurred by chanting the Small to the Great? Distinguish them diligently to serve as seeds for the future! Because the vehicle ridden is entirely the wondrous dharma, because cause and effect are established based upon the One Reality, and because one rides upon what is ridden in order to benefit beings, it is called riding upon the vehicle. One should simply examine one's own virtue and contemplate the mind through each objective realm; when it accords with one's mind, one should follow what is permitted and prohibited. Now, the Medicine King had long since attained realization and had transcended the realm of permissions and prohibitions; cherishing the Dharma, he forgot all personal concerns and gave rise to vows of spiritual penetrations, providing a model for ordinary beings below—reflecting on this, one may know it. As for the sūtra's "using sandalwood as firewood": another person doubted, saying, "How could sandalwood be obtained to make firewood?" I reply: In this land, when Mahāprajāpatī entered nirvāṇa, sandalwood was still used for the cremation; how much less should it present any difficulty in that pure land? However, presenting both the pure and the defiled is not something belonging to the worldly realm; it is entirely due to the power of the sage. As for the sūtra's saying "seventy-two thousand years" and so forth: