法華文句記 10.99

10.99

此下經文六根六章，準《華嚴經》六根各十十義，亦與此中文同，但真似別耳。是則五十俱通真似。又五與十但離合異。然小乘不以鼻舌為通，於意離三未為了說。諸大乘經亦有六通，不云六根者，秖是旁小而復斥小。今經、《華嚴》方成了義，況復與小修發不同，所依各別，尚不同別況復餘耶？初眼根中未論修發真天眼等，直以肉眼能見大千，故云「父母所生」。若論其用已過天眼。有漏天眼下無見上，梵王所見雖遍大千，至邊乃為風輪所隔；六根淨者則不如是。故今應云相似佛眼，乃至相似五眼，故亦應云見於二乘及佛菩薩等，以準耳鼻必合有故。「見大千內外為天眼」者，且約見於麁細色邊。「見業因緣為法眼」者，以天眼力所不見故。「見業見淨」者，業有差別、淨無差別，雙見二境即表中智。又能圓伏故是佛眼。「大經云」等者，此是別引肉眼能有佛眼之用，以證「父母所生」等也。「佛眼故」下是重牒前破光宅四文，及今所立并略「盈縮」等文，顯成正釋。「眼根清淨」是牒前般若，「具五」是牒前《論》文，「莊嚴」是牒前《正經》等，亦應云互具五根以牒涅槃，文無者略。

From here down, the sūtra text has six sections for the six faculties. Modeled on the *Avataṃsaka-sūtra* where the six faculties each have ten tenfold meanings, it also shares the same text as here, differing only in real versus resemblance. Thus the fifty are all common to both the real and resemblance. Furthermore, five and ten differ only in separation and combination. However, the Hinayana does not regard the nose and tongue as superknowledges, and in separating three from the mind, it is not yet an ultimate explanation. Various Mahāyāna sūtras also have the six superknowledges without speaking of the six faculties, which is merely leaning towards the Hinayana while also reproving the Hinayana. Only the present sūtra and the *Avataṃsaka* constitute the ultimate teaching; how much more so given that their cultivation and manifestation differ from the Hinayana, and their bases are distinct; they are not even the same as the separate teaching, let alone the rest. First, in the eye faculty, it does not yet discuss the cultivation and manifestation of the true divine eye and so on, but directly states that with the fleshly eye one can see the great thousand worlds, hence saying “born of father and mother.” If discussing its function, it already surpasses the divine eye. With the defiled divine eye, the lower cannot see the upper; although what the Brahmā King sees encompasses the great thousand worlds, when it reaches the edge, it is obstructed by the wind wheel. One with purified six faculties is not like this. Therefore, one should now speak of the resemblance buddha-eye, and even the resemblance five eyes; thus one should also speak of seeing the two vehicles, buddhas, bodhisattvas, and so forth, as by analogy with the ear and nose they must certainly be present. “Seeing the inside and outside of the great thousand worlds is the divine eye” is stated for the time being in terms of seeing coarse and fine forms. “Seeing the causes and conditions of karma is the Dharma-eye” because it is not seen by the power of the divine eye. “Seeing karma and seeing purity”: karma has distinctions, purity has no distinctions; seeing both realms simultaneously represents the wisdom of the middle. Moreover, being able to perfectly subdue [defilements], it is the buddha-eye. “The *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra* says” and so on is a separate citation showing that the fleshly eye can have the function of the buddha-eye, to verify “born of father and mother” and so forth. From “Because of the buddha-eye” onward, it repeats the four texts previously used to refute Guāngzhái, as well as what is presently established and the brief text on “expansion and contraction,” bringing forth the proper explanation. “The eye faculty is pure” repeats the previous prajñā; “possessing the five” repeats the previous treatise passage; “adornment” repeats the previous authentic sūtra and so forth; it should also speak of mutually possessing the five faculties to repeat the *Nirvāṇa*, but this is omitted in the text for brevity.