法華文句記 2.126

2.126

「復次」下，以前後二文對破古者，此非正破。於餘文中光宅等師云：法華經不明常住。今因明《無量義》序異，便救《法華經》正常。《無量義經》在《法華》前，《普賢觀經》在《法華》後，序結並常，中何容別？何故乃云神通延壽是無常耶？故引彼經偈云：如來清淨妙法身等，豈非常耶？言「百非」者，彼偈略列三十四非，以之為式，諸非準知。此明法身性離諸非，故總舉百，然絕四離百之語猶通淺深，節節比之。今應從深。「觀經四波羅蜜」者，經云：「釋迦牟尼名毘盧遮那，遍一切處，其佛住處名常寂光，常波羅蜜所攝成處，我波羅蜜所安立處，淨波羅蜜滅有相處，樂波羅蜜不住身心相處。」既以此四成身成土，爾前理合身常土常，故大師追括五時悉皆有結，具如《玄》文。「他難」下他難今家。序中能生已明常住，則序已是正，正何所說？今反質之云，序正俱常，於理何失？「又例」去，他人濫引云，例如《淨名．序》中說常正不明常，即是無常，故將《法華》以例彼經，應當《法華》序常正應無常。他云淨名序常正無常者，彼《淨名經．弟子品》中呵阿難云：「金剛之體當有何疾？乃至佛身無為不墮諸數。」古人判〈弟子品〉、〈菩薩品〉並屬序故。又取通序歎菩薩德，深信堅固猶若金剛。今亦反難意者，若以《法華》例於《淨名》，亦應以《涅槃》例於《淨名》，則《涅槃》序常正無常也。故知秖可以《淨名》例於《涅槃》，序正俱常，汝自不了《淨名》宗體，謂正無常而為例耳。當知《淨名》亦序正並常，故〈問疾品〉中明第一義空，空即常也。〈不二法門〉正明中道常也。〈不思議品〉明常家之用，觀眾生佛道以空假顯中，〈香積佛品〉明香飯體常，菩薩行去復宗明常，故知正宗始末俱常。「今論」下結難。

From "Furthermore" onward, the prior and subsequent texts are juxtaposed to refute the ancients; this is not the principal refutation. In other texts, masters such as Guāngzhái stated that the Lotus Sūtra does not explain eternal abiding. Now, by explaining that the preface in the Innumerable Meanings Sūtra is distinct, [the text] opportunely vindicates the fact that the Lotus Sūtra's main body is eternal. The Innumerable Meanings Sūtra precedes the Lotus Sūtra, and the Sūtra on the Contemplation of Samantabhadra follows the Lotus Sūtra: since both the preface and the concluding text are eternal, how could the middle part admit of difference? Why then do they claim that extending life span through supernatural powers is impermanent? Therefore, [the text] cites that sūtra's verse: "The Tathāgata's pure and wondrous dharmakāya," and so forth—how could it not be eternal? Regarding the "hundred negations": that verse briefly lists thirty-four negations to serve as a pattern, from which all other negations may be inferred accordingly. This explains that the nature of the dharmakāya transcends all negations; hence, a hundred is cited as an aggregate. However, expressions of transcending the four [propositions] and departing from the hundred [negations] still apply across shallow and deep levels; one should compare them level by level. Here one should rely on the deep. As for the "four pāramitās of the Contemplation Sūtra": the sūtra says, "Śākyamuni is named Vairocana, who pervades all places; that Buddha's dwelling place is named Eternally Quiescent Light, the place encompassed and formed by the eternity-pāramitā, the place established by the self-pāramitā, the place where forms of existence are eradicated by the purity-pāramitā, and the place of non-abiding in bodily and mental characteristics by the bliss-pāramitā." Since these four are used to constitute the body and the land, it logically follows that prior to this, the body was eternal and the land was eternal. Hence, the Great Master retraces and encompasses the five periods, finding that all have concluding sections, as fully explained in the Xuanwen. From "Others object" onward, others object against our school: "Since the producer has already been clarified in the preface as eternally abiding, then the preface is already the main body. What remains to be expounded in the main body?" Now, countering them, we ask: "Both the preface and the main body are eternal—what error is there in principle?" As for "drawing an analogy," another arbitrarily cites: for example, in the preface to the Vimalakīrti Sūtra, eternity is explained, but the main body does not clarify eternity, which means it is impermanent; thus, drawing an analogy between the Lotus Sūtra and that sūtra, the Lotus Sūtra's preface should be eternal while its main body should be impermanent. Their claim that the Vimalakīrti's preface is eternal and its main body impermanent stems from the "Disciples" chapter of that Vimalakīrti Sūtra, where Ānanda is rebuked: "What illness could there be in an adamantine body? ... Up to: the Buddha's body is unconditioned and does not fall into numerical categories." This is because the ancients classified both the "Disciples" chapter and the "Bodhisattvas" chapter as belonging to the preface. Furthermore, they take the general preface's praise of the bodhisattvas' virtue: "Deep faith, firm and solid like an adamantine diamond." Now we counter-question their intention: if one draws an analogy between the Lotus Sūtra and the Vimalakīrti Sūtra, one should likewise draw an analogy between the Nirvāṇa Sūtra and the Vimalakīrti Sūtra, which would mean that the Nirvāṇa Sūtra's preface is eternal while its main body is impermanent. Therefore, one should know that one can only draw an analogy between the Vimalakīrti Sūtra and the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, where both preface and main body are eternal. You yourself do not comprehend the principal essence of the Vimalakīrti Sūtra, claiming that its main body is impermanent and making an analogy from it. One should know that in the Vimalakīrti Sūtra as well, preface and main body are both eternal. Therefore, the "Inquiring about Illness" chapter explains ultimate emptiness, and emptiness is precisely eternity. The "Gate of Non-duality" directly clarifies the middle way, which is eternal. The "Inconceivable" chapter clarifies the function of that which is eternal, contemplating the path to buddhahood for sentient beings to reveal the middle through the empty and the provisional. The "Fragrance Accumulation Buddha" chapter clarifies that the essence of the fragrant rice is eternal; and from the bodhisattva practices onward, it again returns to the central theme to clarify eternity. Therefore, we know that the main body from beginning to end is entirely eternal. From "Now regarding" onward, the objection is concluded.