法華文句記 3.59

3.59

《經》云「被法服」者，如《瓔珞經》云：「若天龍八部鬪爭，念此袈裟生慈悲心」，意令比丘安可不忍，亦令俗眾生慕樂故，龍得一縷牛角一觸等（云云）。彼王所慕與此大同，此中祇合明所見意以序表正，諸度行相功德及袈裟等，但是寄此汎明之耳。然必須辨行體顯教以分味殊。「生忍」等者，文中兩解，初通以三句用釋三忍，次一一句別對三忍，應須附文釋出所以。若分三忍對四教者，生忍、苦忍別在初教，通為四境，何人不須具此二耶？別在地前求佛道者，此中雖無但準例說。次文即以誦經為第一義者，若不求佛忍不關誦，故以誦經同求佛道。第一義忍通亦在三，別唯圓別，故令三句諸教不同。如《別譯阿含》佛在舍衛有一梵志來至佛所，種種罵佛種種惱佛。佛告梵志：如汝以種種飲食上王，及遺親族；彼不受者為復屬誰？梵志曰：此屬於我。佛言：此亦如是。我既不受還屬於汝。故此不受亦是生忍，故此生忍別屬三藏，在《阿含》故；通於通教，理不受故，況復通用諸教共之？其名既通須釋相狀。次進中實相亦可通四別二。「窳」者，如瓜在穴，病也。禪中云通途皆有根本修者，諸教皆修故也。若達根本，即成出世及出世上上，具如《止觀》禪境中明，今文語略，但云「出世上上」及以「根本」，根本即三藏，出世即通教，上上即別圓。又四教皆以根本為境，故釋前行通涉諸教，於前行中云「離欲」者，通教也。又「根本」下，藏通兩教也，此兩皆修根本背捨等故。然應須知觀行猶別以辨兩教，別離二乘且從難說，中道離欲中義通圓別，從圓受名。重釋「深修」者，由深修故離欲不同，則根本中亦應傳傳為深故也。此中根本乃至二乘具六已來，亦具藏通二教意也。別教五通如文，亦可讓於初地已上。「圓教初後皆六通」者，但約理圓無漏失故義立六通，若從實說，初地初住分得無漏通耳。「安禪」等者，前通釋中通深淺故，今上上禪別在別圓。釋般若化他中云「定慧具足」者，別人利物橫具諸教乃至圓教，今從極說故展轉比，乃至地住方乃具足，是故文中初從色定亦名為等，等故具足，有漏尚等況復餘耶？背捨等名等不等者，約無漏事禪以判，既云厭背故多屬慧，九定名定從名判耳，無間入故。十一切處，前八屬慧、後二屬定，又前八在色色界之中。亦自得等已如前說，前是因緣。「又二乘」下約教判，二乘即前兩教也。菩薩及佛即四教義足。「空觀」去約觀判也。「破魔」等者，四佛各有四降魔相，具如《止觀》第八及記。若對教者，亦空二假別中圓則具教觀二義故也。乃至地住各有破於八魔十魔，八魔十魔具如《止觀》第八及記。究竟破盡故名「一切」。「擊梵」等者，即真妙梵音之所轉也。既降魔已應轉法輪，文從實說但云初住，通論四佛各各能轉，乃至真妙亦通四佛。次約不次第，云「隨見而問」者，問：向明所見可非隨見。答：並是隨見但二途不同，從不次邊最為隨見，尚許一見具經五時，何妨覩行次與不次。

Regarding the Sūtra stating "putting on the robes of the Dharma," as the Sūtra of the Diadem states: "If the gods, dragons, and the eight classes of beings engage in strife, by recollecting this kāṣāya compassion arises within them." The intention is: how could a bhikṣu fail to exercise forbearance? It is also to cause the mundane assembly to give rise to admiration and joy; [hence instances of] a dragon obtaining a single strand, or a single touch of a bull's horn, and so forth. That king's admiration was largely the same as this. Here it is fitting only to clarify the intent of what was seen, using the preface to indicate the main body: the practical characteristics and virtues of the various perfections, as well as the kāṣāya, are merely explained broadly by relying on this. However, one must distinguish the substance of the practices to make the teachings clear, so as to differentiate the flavors. Regarding "forbearance toward sentient beings" and so forth, there are two explanations in the text. First, the three phrases are taken generally to explain the three forbearances; next, each phrase is correlated individually with the three forbearances. One should rely on the text to explain the reason. If one divides the three forbearances to correlate them with the four teachings: forbearance toward sentient beings and forbearance toward suffering pertain specifically to the initial teaching, yet are common as the four spheres of practice—who does not need to be equipped with these two? As for those specifically below the stages seeking the buddha-way, although they are not present here, they are spoken of by analogy. In the following passage, reciting the sūtra is taken as the supreme truth; if one does not seek the buddha, forbearance has nothing to do with reciting, and thus reciting the sūtra is equated with seeking the buddha-way. The forbearance of the supreme truth is generally present in the three teachings, but specifically only in the distinct and perfect [teachings]; hence the three phrases differ across the teachings. As in the alternative translation of the Saṃyuktāgama, when the Buddha was at Śrāvastī, a brahmacārin came to the Buddha's abode and reviled the Buddha in diverse ways and troubled the Buddha in diverse ways. The Buddha said to the brahmacārin, "If you offer diverse kinds of food and drink to a king, or bestow them upon relatives, and they do not accept them, to whom do they belong?" The brahmacārin said, "These belong to me." The Buddha said, "It is just so with this: since I do not accept it, it returns to you." Thus, this non-acceptance is also forbearance toward sentient beings. Therefore, this forbearance toward sentient beings specifically belongs to the Tripiṭaka [teaching], because it is found in the Āgamas; it is common to the shared teaching, because in principle it is non-acceptance; and all the more so is it commonly applied as shared by the various teachings. Since its name is common, its characteristics must be explained. Next, regarding vigor, the true character can also be common to four and specific to two. "Decline" (yu 窳) means like a melon rotting in a hollow—it is a defect. In the discussion of dhyāna, it is said that in the general course all possess the cultivation of the fundamental [dhyānas], because all teachings cultivate them. If one penetrates the fundamental, they become the supramundane and the supramundane supreme, fully clarified as in the sphere of dhyāna in the Cessation and Contemplation. The present text is abbreviated, merely stating "supramundane supreme" and "fundamental." The fundamental is the Tripiṭaka [teaching]; the supramundane is the shared teaching; and the supreme is the distinct and perfect [teachings]. Furthermore, all four teachings take the fundamental as their object; hence the previous practices were explained as broadly spanning the various teachings. In the previous practice, "freedom from desire" refers to the shared teaching. Moreover, from "fundamental" downward refers to both the Tripiṭaka and shared teachings, because both cultivate the fundamental [dhyānas], the renunciations (aṣṭa-vimokṣa), and so on. However, one must know that the contemplative practices still differ, in order to distinguish the two teachings. Specifically transcending the two vehicles is spoken of here from the more difficult perspective. The middle way of freedom from desire, in its middle meaning, is common to the distinct and perfect, taking its name from the perfect. In re-explaining "deeply cultivating": because of deep cultivation, freedom from desire differs; hence, even within the fundamental, it must progressively become deeper. Here, from the fundamental up to the two vehicles being endowed with the six [superknowledges], it also contains the purport of both the Tripiṭaka and shared teachings. The five superknowledges of the distinct teaching are as in the text, and can also be deferred to the first stage (bhūmi) and above. As for "both the beginning and end of the perfect teaching possess six superknowledges," this is merely conceptually established as six superknowledges in terms of the perfect principle without outflow or loss; if speaking in terms of reality, it is only at the first stage and the first abode that one partially obtains the superknowledges free from outflows. Regarding "settled in dhyāna" and so forth, in the earlier general explanation, depth and shallowness were common to all; now, the supreme dhyāna specifically belongs to the distinct and perfect [teachings]. In explaining prajñā transforming others, where it says "fully endowed with concentration and wisdom": the person of the distinct teaching benefits beings by encompassing the various teachings horizontally, up to the perfect teaching; now, speaking from the ultimate, they are progressively compared, and it is only at the stages and abodes that they are fully endowed. Therefore, in the text, starting from the material concentrations, it is also termed equal; because of equality, it is fully endowed. If the defiled [concentrations] are still equal, how much more so the rest? As for the renunciations and so on being termed equal or not equal: they are classified in terms of the phenomenal dhyāna free from outflows; since it says "turning away with disgust," they mostly belong to wisdom; the nine concentrations are termed concentrations merely following their name, because of uninterrupted entry. Among the ten totalities, the first eight belong to wisdom and the last two belong to concentration; moreover, the first eight reside within the realm of form. Also, "spontaneously attaining equality" has already been explained above; the former was by cause and condition. Below "furthermore, the two vehicles," it is classified in terms of teaching: the two vehicles are the previous two teachings; bodhisattvas and buddhas are the complete four teachings. From "contemplation of emptiness" onward, it is classified in terms of contemplation. Regarding "subduing māras" and so forth: the four buddhas each have four aspects of subduing māras, fully as in the eighth fascicle of the Cessation and Contemplation and its Notes. If correlated with the teachings: also, emptiness corresponds to the two [teachings], provisional to the distinct, and middle to the perfect; thus they possess both the meaning of teaching and contemplation. Up to the stages and abodes, each has the breaking of the eight māras and the ten māras; the eight māras and the ten māras are fully as in the eighth fascicle of the Cessation and Contemplation and its Notes. Because they are completely and utterly destroyed, it is termed "all." Regarding "striking the pure [drum of the Dharma]" and so forth: this is what is turned by the true and wondrous Brahma-voice. Having already subdued the māras, one ought to turn the wheel of the Dharma. The text speaks in terms of reality and only mentions the first abode; but speaking generally, each of the four buddhas can turn it, and even the true and wondrous [drum] is common to the four buddhas. Next, regarding non-gradual sequence, where it says "asking according to what is seen": Query: Was what was just explained as seen not according to what was seen? Answer: Both are according to what was seen, but the two approaches differ. In terms of non-gradual sequence, it is most truly "according to what was seen"; since one allows that a single viewing encompasses the five periods, what is there to prevent viewing practices as both sequential and non-sequential?