法華文句記 10.29

10.29

釋增道損生，光宅意以從初至中千明行進為功德門，八生至一生約損生為智慧門，八界為外凡未有進損。「夫授記」下光宅釋出向來三意，於中先總以通別判之，通在因果總名授記，故通取三文，發心因也，剋終果也。故發心等通皆剋果。次「下八界」下釋出三意次第，所以迴經文者，從淺至深故爾。即外凡入內凡為發心門，次從內凡入初地以至六地為增道門，從小千去為損生門，損生門中乃以七地已上至第十地，位位各斷上下二品，等覺一品合為九品，即以八生對前八品。次「法華論」者，《論》云：「彌勒品中四種門：一證，二信，三供養，並在今品，四聞法指〈隨喜品〉。」初文具如今文。次信者八世界等，「今謂論前深後淺」等者，今家評之。《論》以無生忍為初地，八生至一生為地前，故云「前深後淺」。光宅亦以初地為無生忍，但以八生乃至一生為金剛心，為異故成前淺後深，二家相違自古不判。「夫無生」下今師欲釋，先歷四教定其位次，方知二釋並不稱經，故結云「皆聖教明文不可參濫」。光宅未當信不在疑，《論》主天親豈應徒爾？但恐譯者曲會私情，如《攝論》識分八九，及《婆沙》一十六字，並進退在人何關聖旨？況光宅釋直爾云地不判教相，雖分惑品義無所歸。「又淨名」下至「通途之意不可定用」者，須廢通從別，不可以無等等有無生之義，釋今無生，以今無生定在初住；不可見金剛頂有伏忍之名，判為八界，以伏位定在住前故也。故通途之名不可別對。今於無生已去，明增損門，不可分隔，應知增道非無損生，損生定有增道，安可分於六地前後二文定耶？復不可以無生在初地去，況將八生去却向地前？故知二家並失經之大旨。從「即光宅」去，將今家所用而判光宅以屬三義，地前三初地成別，初地至六地成通，七地已上成別接通，通不斷無明故非通，別教初地即斷無明，故非別，故至七地無明者許屬別接，仍須正云九品別惑，故被接者上根七地，即破一品二品，況復無文品分上下？義涉三文故云「遊瀁」。初云「光宅以發心為內凡三十」者，已如前列。前云住三十心，今云「為」者，「為」秖是「作」，秖是內凡作初地耳。餘二意可見。《論》文既以地前地上相對，則一向專判別義。

In explaining 'increasing in the Path and decreasing rebirths', Master Guāngzhái's view is that from the first up to the middling thousand [worlds] elucidates progress in practice as the 'gateway of merit', from eight rebirths to one rebirth treats the diminution of rebirths as the 'gateway of wisdom', and the eight world-realms represents the outer ordinary [stages] where there is not yet progress or diminution. Below, at 'Now, regarding conferral of prophecy...', Guāngzhái explains the three intended meanings as given above. Therein, he first generally classifies them by the general and the distinct: in general, both cause and fruition are collectively named 'conferral of prophecy'; hence, he takes all three passages together, [regarding] the initial resolve as the cause and the final consummation as the fruit. Therefore, the initial resolve and so forth all generally consummate the fruit. Next, below 'Below, the eight world-realms...', he explains the sequence of the three meanings. The reason the sūtra text is rearranged is because of progressing from the shallow to the deep. That is, from the outer ordinary entering the inner ordinary is the gateway of initial resolve; next, from the inner ordinary entering the first bhūmi up to the sixth bhūmi is the gateway of increasing in the Path; from the small thousand onwards is the gateway of decreasing rebirths. Within the gateway of decreasing rebirths, he takes from the seventh bhūmi on up to the tenth bhūmi, each stage severing two grades—upper and lower—and the single grade of equal enlightenment, combined together into nine grades, thereby correlating the eight rebirths with the former eight grades. Next, regarding 'the Lotus Sūtra Commentary (Fāhuá lùn)': the Treatise says, 'In the Maitreya chapter there are four kinds of gateways: first, realization; second, faith; third, offering—all of which are in the present chapter; fourth, hearing the Dharma, which refers to the "Chapter on Joyful Praise".' The first passage is fully like the present text. Next, faith is the eight world-realms and so forth. Regarding 'We now evaluate the Treatise as deep in the former and shallow in the latter...', our school assesses it: the Treatise takes the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas to be the first bhūmi, and from eight rebirths down to one rebirth to be before the bhūmis; hence it says 'deep in the former and shallow in the latter.' Guāngzhái also takes the first bhūmi as the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas, but takes eight rebirths down to one rebirth to be the diamond-like mind; being different [from the Treatise], it becomes 'shallow in the former and deep in the latter.' These two masters contradict each other, and since antiquity this has not been resolved. Below, at 'Now, regarding the non-arising...', our master, wishing to explain it, first traverses the four teachings to establish the hierarchy of stages, and only then is it understood that neither interpretation accords with the sūtra; thus he concludes: 'All are clear passages of sacred teachings and must not be conflated.' That Guāngzhái did not hit the mark is beyond doubt; but how could the Treatise Master Vasubandhu have been so haphazard? It is only to be feared that the translator twisted [the meaning] to fit personal sentiment—just like the division of consciousness into eight and nine in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, or the sixteen characters in the Vibhāṣā; these shifts reside with people, so what do they have to do with the sage's intent? Furthermore, Guāngzhái's explanation simply speaks of bhūmis without distinguishing the doctrinal characteristics; though he divides the grades of delusion, the meaning has no proper place to settle. Next, from 'Moreover, in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa...' down to 'the general meaning cannot be applied determinatively': one must discard the general and follow the distinct; one cannot use the meaning of non-arising in 'unequalled' to interpret the non-arising here, because the non-arising here is definitively at the first dwelling; nor can one see the name of 'subduing acceptance' at the summit of the diamond and judge it to be the eight realms, because the subduing stage is definitively before the dwellings. Therefore, general terms cannot be correlated to distinct [stages]. Now, from non-arising onwards, in elucidating the gateways of increase and decrease, they must not be severed and separated. One should know that increasing in the Path is not without decreasing rebirths, and decreasing rebirths definitely possesses increasing in the Path; how could one determinatively divide the two passages before and after the sixth bhūmi? Nor can one, taking non-arising to be at the first bhūmi, turn around and project the eight rebirths back to before the bhūmis! Thus we know that both masters miss the great purport of the sūtra. From 'That is, Guāngzhái...' onwards, applying what our school uses, he critiques Guāngzhái as belonging to three meanings: before the bhūmis and the first bhūmi become the distinct [teaching]; from the first bhūmi to the sixth bhūmi becomes the common [teaching]; from the seventh bhūmi onwards becomes the distinct connecting the common. The common teaching does not sever fundamental ignorance, so it is not the common; the first bhūmi of the distinct teaching immediately severs fundamental ignorance, so it is not the distinct; hence, that fundamental ignorance reaches the seventh bhūmi is allowed to belong to the distinct connecting the common. Still, one must properly call them the nine grades of distinct delusion; therefore, those who are connected of superior faculty at the seventh bhūmi immediately shatter one or two grades, not to mention that there is no text dividing the grades into upper and lower! Since the meaning spans three passages, it is called 'undecided and floating.' At first, when it says 'Guāngzhái takes the initial resolve as the thirty [minds] of the inner ordinary', this is already as listed before. Previously it said 'dwelling in the thirty minds', and now it says 'as (wèi)'; 'wèi' is just 'to make', simply meaning that the inner ordinary makes the first bhūmi. The other two points are clear. Since the text of the Treatise contrasts before the bhūmis with on the bhūmis, it exclusively judges by the meaning of the distinct teaching.