法華文句記 10.199

10.199

別列四句文中二解：正宗，流通。初又二，即迹、本也。迹又二：先約開權顯實，次約開示悟入。初文初句法身，二三般若，第四解脫，二德莊嚴法身，是故後三約於初句。於初句中「遠惡」下八字，即四悉也。次約開等中經典四句迴互者，以從開等次第故也。「唯三唯四」者，四秖是四安樂行，三秖是三德及座衣室三。前文釋衣等三，皆通兩句各有能所；今從一邊則以空座為般若，所覆為法身，能覆為解脫，此中正定合在法身德中，前對開顯中即合正定入般若中，以此一句兩句得名故也。「浪作餘解」者，設若有人不許此解，則為不許自行化他，則為不許開示悟入，則為不許室衣座三，則為不許方軌弘經。若言非是不許但是無文，若謂經無即是不許逐要重說，若不爾者，將何以攬今經正宗至此為重說耶？經初存其開等四句而為四釋，今至此經末又示開等還須四釋，故知始末並是此經體宗用也。是則序、正、流通無非妙法。教內法中云「三番」者，即讀誦思惟三七日也。有人至此亦引文云：行有五法：一、三七見，二、七七見，三、一生見，四、二生見，五、三生見。又云應有六法：一嚴道場，二淨身，三六時，四啟請，五讀誦，六思惟甚深空法。作是觀時能滅百千萬億阿僧祇重罪。若爾，何以解釋一經都無啟心投想之地，至此乃引《普賢觀經》？況今自云「讀誦書寫者，欲修習是《法華經》，於三七日中一心精進，我當乘象至其人前」，故知若修行若解說，請依今師方有所至。所以非《玄》文無以導，非《止觀》無以達，非此疏無以持，非一家無以進。若不爾者，用是教為？用講宣為？故東京安國寺尼慧忍置法華道場，今天下仿效而迷其本，不知此尼依憑有在而親感普賢？然雖有置道場處，多分師心。況今講者而欲輕略斯教，良由不知教旨故也。適與江淮四十餘僧往禮臺山，因見不空三藏門人含光奉勅在山修造，云與不空三藏親遊天竺。彼有僧問曰：「大唐有天台教迹，最堪簡邪正曉偏圓，可能譯之將至此土耶？」豈非中國失法求之四維？而此方少有識者，如魯人耳。故厚德向道者莫不仰之。敬願學者行者隨力稱讚，應知自行兼人並異他典，若說若聽境智存焉，若冥若顯種熟可期，並由弘經者有方故也。若直爾講說是弘經者，何須衣座室三之誡？如來所遣豈可聊爾。

In the text where the four lines are separately listed, there are two explanations: the main body of the sūtra and the transmission. The first also has two, namely traces and origin. Traces also has two: first in terms of opening the provisional and revealing the real, and next in terms of opening, revealing, awakening to, and entering. In the first text, the first line is the dharmakāya, the second and third are prajñā, and the fourth is vimokṣa; the two virtues adorn the dharmakāya, and therefore the latter three are framed in terms of the first line. Within the first line, the eight characters from "keep far from evil" on down are the four siddhāntas. Next, in terms of "opening" and so forth, the reason the four lines of the canonical text alternate is because they follow the sequence of opening and so forth. "Only three and only four" means that four is merely the four peaceful practices, and three is merely the three virtues as well as the three of seat, robe, and room. The earlier text explained the three of the robe and so forth as all extending across both lines, each possessing what can [cover/sit] and what is [covered/sat on]; here, approaching from one side, the empty seat is taken as prajñā, that which is covered as dharmakāya, and that which can cover as vimokṣa. Here, correct concentration ought to belong within the virtue of dharmakāya; earlier, in contrast to opening and revealing, it was combined so that correct concentration entered into prajñā, because this single line and two lines obtain their designations [in this way]. "Recklessly producing other explanations" means that if someone does not accept this explanation, they then do not accept one's own practice and transforming others; they then do not accept opening, revealing, awakening to, and entering; they then do not accept the three of room, robe, and seat; and they then do not accept the proper methods for propagating the sūtra. If they say, "It is not that we do not accept it, but simply that there is no text for it," if they claim that the sūtra lacks it, that is just not accepting the restatement following key points. If it were not so, how could one take the main body of the present sūtra all the way to this point as a restatement? At the beginning of the sūtra, the four lines of opening and so forth were preserved to make four explanations; now arriving at the end of this sūtra, it again shows that opening and so forth still require four explanations. Hence we know that the beginning and end are both this sūtra's essence, central theme, and function. Thus, the preface, the main body, and the transmission are all nothing other than the wondrous dharma. What is called "three times" in the Dharma within the teaching refers to reading, reciting, and contemplating for three seven-day periods (twenty-one days). Arriving here, some people also cite a text saying: "Practice has five dharmas: first, seeing in three seven-day periods; second, seeing in seven seven-day periods; third, seeing in one lifetime; fourth, seeing in two lifetimes; fifth, seeing in three lifetimes." It also says there should be six dharmas: "First, adorning the place of the Way; second, purifying the body; third, the six periods [of the day]; fourth, entreating [the buddhas]; fifth, reading and reciting; sixth, contemplating the profoundly deep empty dharma. When one performs this contemplation, one can extinguish a hundred thousand myriads of koṭis of asaṃkhyeyas of grave transgressions." If that is so, why throughout their explanation of the whole sūtra was there no place at all to open the mind and direct the thoughts, only arriving here to cite the Sūtra on the Contemplation of Samantabhadra? Furthermore, it itself says here: "Those who read, recite, and copy [this sūtra], wishing to cultivate and practice this Lotus Sūtra, if they are single-minded and vigorous for three seven-day periods, I shall ride an elephant and come before that person." Hence we know that whether in cultivation and practice or in exposition, please rely on our master, and only then will there be something reached. For this reason, without the text of the Profound Meaning (Xuán) there is no way to guide; without the Calming and Contemplation (Zhǐguān) there is no way to arrive; without this commentary there is no way to uphold; without our single school there is no way to advance. If it were not so, what would be the use of this teaching? What would be the use of lecturing and proclaiming it? Thus the nun Huìrěn of the Ānguó Monastery in the Eastern Capital established a Lotus place of the Way; today people under heaven imitate it while being confused about its origin, not knowing that this nun had a basis to rely on and personally resonated with Samantabhadra. However, although there are places where places of the Way are established, most rely on their own minds. How much more so the lecturers of today who wish to slight and neglect this teaching, precisely because they do not understand the purport of the teaching! I once went with more than forty monks from the Jiang-Huai region to pay homage at Mount Tiantai. There we met Hánguāng, a disciple of the Tripiṭaka Master Amoghavajra, who was carrying out construction on the mountain by imperial decree. He said that he had personally traveled to India with the Tripiṭaka Master Amoghavajra. A monk there asked him: "In the Great Tang there are the traces of the Tiantai teachings, which are best able to distinguish the heterodox from the orthodox and illuminate the one-sided and the perfect. Could you translate them and bring them to this land?" Is this not a case of the central land losing the Dharma and seeking it in the four quarters? Yet in this region few recognize it, just like the men of Lu. Therefore, those of profound virtue directed toward the Way all look up to it. I respectfully pray that learners and practitioners praise it according to their capacity. One should know that one's own practice along with helping others are both distinct from other scriptures. Whether expounding or listening, the object and wisdom are present therein; whether unseen or manifest, planting and ripening can be expected. All this is because the propagator of the sūtra possesses the proper methods. If simply lecturing like that counted as propagating the sūtra, why would the admonition of the three—the robe, seat, and room—be needed? How could that which the Tathāgata dispatched be treated lightly?