法華文句記 3.3

3.3

釋入定者，先舉所入之定，次明能入身心。初文中三：先結入意，次「非禪」下釋結意，三「疑者」下釋疑。初結意者，且約彼經彼定而相成者理則可見。次釋結意者又二：初明定慧之用，互有相資各有力用；次明相即，即定慧體。初相成者，先說後定且從序說，先定後說如下釋疑，佛居果位必無先後，為順化儀現有先後，究而論之其體相即。次立疑者，且依序問，凡諸化儀，皆先定後說，此中何以先說後定？答中先順問答佛之常儀，次申定意，欲明一定義分兩途，次「說此」下述為序意。今時何故先說後定？常儀說已即應眾散，更入此定肅其現眾，眾既不散得為今序。次「何者」下述為正意，以一定中義兼二意，意雖復二，時眾但見無量義後即便入定，不知所入為是何定？不知定後為說何法？故結集者復符佛旨，述所說經但云無量，述所入定即加其處。若從義處以出無量，顯成序意；若收無量以入義處，密成正宗。雖加義處眾亦莫知。言「若作次第」等者，亦順化儀辨定先後，即以不次第而論次第，於佛內照豈可分張。「若明文」等者，謂如來當時不先示定體，故使彌勒勤勤置問，乃是經家於別序中且覆別以從通。

Explaining the entry into samādhi: first, the concentration entered is presented; next, the body and mind that are able to enter are clarified. In the first passage there are three parts: first, concluding the intention of entering; next, from "not dhyāna" onward, explaining the intended conclusion; third, from "doubters" onward, resolving doubts. First, regarding concluding the intention: considering how that sūtra and that concentration mutually accomplish one another, the principle is discernible. Next, regarding explaining the intended conclusion, there are also two parts: first, clarifying the functions of concentration and wisdom, which mutually support each other and each have power and function; next, clarifying their mutual identity, which is the essence of concentration and wisdom. First, regarding mutual accomplishment: preaching first and entering concentration later is stated according to the preface; entering concentration first and preaching later resolves doubts, as explained below. For a buddha abiding in the fruit stage, there is certainly no before and after; yet to accord with the teaching etiquette, there is the appearance of before and after; examining it thoroughly, their essence is mutually identical. Next, regarding raising the doubt: asking on the basis of the preface, in all teaching etiquette, one always enters concentration first and preaches afterward; why here does he preach first and enter concentration afterward? In the response: first, answering in accordance with the question regarding the Buddha's constant custom; next, presenting the meaning of the concentration, wishing to show that the one concentration divides into two paths; next, from "preaching this" onward, setting forth the intent as a preface. Why in the present case does he preach first and enter concentration afterward? Under the constant custom, once the preaching is concluded, the assembly should disperse; entering this concentration anew solemnizes the present assembly, and since the assembly does not disperse, it can serve as the present preface. Next, from "Why is that" onward, setting forth the intent as the main body: because within the one concentration both intentions are embraced. Although there are two intentions, the assembly at that time only saw that after [the preaching of] the Innumerable Meanings, he immediately entered concentration, not knowing what concentration it was that he entered, nor what dharma he would preach after the concentration. Hence the compilers of the canon, again according with the Buddha's intention, only stated "innumerable" in describing the sūtra preached, but added "abode" (locus) in describing the concentration entered. If emerging from the locus of meaning to produce the innumerable, it manifestly forms the intent of the preface; if integrating the innumerable into the locus of meaning, it secretly forms the main body. Even though "abode" was added, the assembly did not know it. Regarding "If treated as a sequence," etc.: this also accords with the teaching etiquette to discern the sequence of concentration; that is, discussing sequence in terms of non-sequence—how could it be divided in the Buddha's inner illumination? Regarding "If explicit text," etc.: this means that the Tathāgata at that time did not first reveal the essence of the concentration, thereby causing Maitreya to pose his question persistently; it was the sūtra-master who, in the specific preface, temporarily concealed the specific to follow the general.