法華文句記 10.95

10.95

「六根功德」下正釋六根功德增減，先略出二家，次總結斥。先光宅中文無別破，所立未當。何者？五種法師各得六根，如何五師共為六千，故一師四百。若有三品，雖成一千二百，那成一師六千功德？況三品人耶？故下結破「根不依文」，況但言十善是散善耳。此土三根彊弱，引《大論》文全不應此。此文眼鼻身八百，耳舌意一千二百，《論》中眼耳意三用彊，故不相當。又有師以光宅數為三品者，今經但有八百千二，如何更立一千？若分六根為三，則二二分對全無此理。「諸師」下總斥，未會今經六根增減及功德等。「不合諸教」者，《法華》之外如下所列三經一論。何者？六根所對對三千塵，此塵之外見聞四聖，故知經力助內觀解、發相似分真，普熏諸根，故有如是見聞等用。又有人引《俱舍》等所辯界內六塵，用釋此中六塵，但得片義非文正意，故不用也。且六根中根耳鼻三不假至者，還依不至可見對眼、可聞對耳、有氣對鼻，舌身二根須到了者，依至變現故舌則以變說為功，身則以現像為用，而皆以十界為量，不關小乘根塵對境，故不須云色二十二、聲八種等。若不爾者，三千本非凡夫肉眼肉耳之所見聞，何故而言見聞三千？若復更釋天人等因所惑六塵，彌非今意。「大品」去，正引三經一論破前兩師。

From “the merits of the six sense faculties” onward, the text properly explains the increase and decrease in the merits of the six faculties. First, it briefly presents [the interpretations of] two masters, and next, concludes with a general critique. First, regarding Guāngzhái, though there is no separate refutation in the text, what he posits is improper. Why is this? The five kinds of Dharma masters each attain the six faculties; how could the five masters together constitute six thousand, so that one master has four hundred [per faculty]? If there were three grades, even though they would make one thousand two hundred, how could they make six thousand merits for a single master, let alone for people of the three grades? Therefore, the concluding refutation below says: “The faculties do not accord with the text,” not to mention that he merely speaks of the ten wholesome actions as dispersed wholesomeness. As for the strength and weakness of the three faculties in this land, citing the passage from the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra* does not correspond to this at all. In this text, the eye, nose, and body have eight hundred, while the ear, tongue, and mind have one thousand two hundred; in the *Śāstra*, the three functions of the eye, ear, and mind are strong, and thus they do not match. Furthermore, there is a master who takes Guāngzhái’s numbers as the three grades; however, the present sūtra only has eight hundred and one thousand two hundred—how could one additionally posit one thousand? If one divides the six faculties into three [pairs], dividing them into pairs [of faculties to match the three grades] is completely unreasonable. From “The various masters” onward, it generally critiques that they have not understood the increase and decrease of the six faculties and their merits in the present sūtra. Regarding “not according with the various teachings,” outside the *Lotus Sūtra*, these are the three sūtras and one treatise listed below. Why is this? What the six faculties encounter are the three thousand sense objects; beyond these sense objects, they see and hear the four sages. Thus we know that the power of the sūtra assists the internal contemplative understanding, generating the stages of resemblance and partial realization of the real, pervasively perfuming all faculties, so that there are functions such as seeing and hearing like this. Moreover, some cite the six sense objects within the realm discussed in the *Kośa* and so forth to explain the six sense objects here; this captures only a partial meaning and is not the proper intention of the text, hence it is not used. Furthermore, among the six faculties, the three faculties of the [eye], ear, and nose do not rely on contact [with the object]; still, according to non-contact, what can be seen is an object for the eye, what can be heard is an object for the ear, and what has scent is an object for the nose. The two faculties of tongue and body must reach [their objects]; relying on contact to transform and manifest, the tongue takes transformative preaching as its function, and the body takes manifesting forms as its function. Yet all take the ten realms as their measure, having nothing to do with the Hinayana pairing of faculties and sense objects; hence there is no need to speak of twenty-two kinds of form, eight kinds of sound, and so on. Were it not so, the three thousand [worlds] would not originally be what the fleshly eyes and fleshly ears of ordinary beings see and hear; why then speak of seeing and hearing the three thousand? If one were to further explain the six sense objects deluded by the causes of devas, humans, and so on, it would be even further from the present intention. From “The *Large Prajñāpāramitā*” onward, it properly cites the three sūtras and one treatise to refute the previous two masters.