法華文句記 4.172

4.172

涅槃之名既通所緣，生解亦異，縱非前之兩教，但成別教教道，以此而言教相難辯。況古師對位自消彼經，若見思斷位不成別義，不可通位消圓開等。若同體見思盡非六地，故知現在能信如來甚深智慧甚深境界。理不容易，《華嚴》融通極頓，說者尚失旨歸；《法華》唯顯一乘，不可會之成漸。又有仙慧、開善、治城，各有判釋，皆非今意。章安云：「三十心是初依五恒也。初地已去是第二依，皆師位也。」意以初依具煩惱性為弟子位。章安亦自約彼經判位，若判開等此亦不然。何者？令判四依須約四教，並不可以此判於開等。四依通凡，開等唯聖，聖復約圓，故下結云「不與經會」。「引經」等者，《大經》對地前為聞見，即別教地，安得證通？登地眼見即佛眼也。故六地思盡全在通教，古來但知以地釋地，而全不辯地之所在。注「云云」者，廣立理教以破古師，略如向述。「難此同前」者，難同光宅用三慧也。且破三慧故云同前，亦應更云，五濁先除安指今教？若今教除濁應始成聲聞。若始除濁為是何佛知見顯耶？穢除理顯難亦如之。次「有人」去，兩師皆以《法華》為入，令《法華》成極，却失前三。佛之知見並今經開等豈可分屬餘教，則成餘教有佛知見。乃言別教，三乘別故，即指鹿苑。二師皆以通教三乘而為般若。言「抑揚」者，以《淨名》中抑挫聲聞、褒揚菩薩，此甚不曉彼經亦有抑挫菩薩不獨褒揚，故今家八字判盡經理，謂「折小彈偏歎大褒圓」。「裂」亦擗也，亦分帛也。四句不可分也。「有人云三十」等者，通無地前三十心位，故名「挾別」。但云初地六地乃至十地，名為「旁通」。「未見法華奇異」者，經之難思非凡所測，準聖歎擇師資可知。今依義附文，略有十雙以辯異相，與二乘近記、開如來遠本，隨喜歎第五十人、聞益至一生補處，釋迦指五逆調達為本師、文殊以八歲龍女為所化，凡聞一句咸與授記、守護經名功不可量，聞品受持永辭女質、若聞讀誦不老不死，五種法師現獲相似、四安樂行夢入銅輪，若惱亂者頭破七分、有供養者福過十號，況已今當說一代所絕、歎其教法七喻稱揚，從地湧出阿逸多不識一人、東方蓮華龍尊王未知相本，況迹化舉三千墨點、本成喻五百微塵，本迹事希諸教不說，如斯等文準經仍有，且依向指非奇何謂？「有人引華嚴」等者，他人意者，却責諸師，地前有四十心位，何不用釋開佛知見，而但用地前三十位耶？破有二失：一者謬用《華嚴》十信，二者賢位非佛知見。言「華嚴不明十信」者，古人亦以《華嚴》住前修十梵行空即入初住，將十梵行空對十信位；今文破者，經無信名，故云「無」也。《攝大乘》等位，具如《釋籤》所引，恐是《十地論》剩七字。「有人」去，破用《論》四智者。彼師所引云「總別一時」，欲釋四句令無前後，不意却成高下不當。今為二破：一者但云四智一時，而不分位別；二者四智在果、開等通因，由斯不當故今不用。且準《止觀》引《論》四智，以彼因果各有總別，若唯指果四智位高，今且直以果智責之。四智者，謂道慧、道種慧、一切智、一切種智，此四在果一體具足。若開等四竪中論橫，故須四位別對四智，縱因果相對各有總別，但成因果何名開等？「有人言非空」等者，意以雙非理顯為開，不出空有。分明指理能空能有故名為「示」，見此空有不離於理方乃是「悟」，復了此理不二而二方乃云「入」。「此人」下破意者，空有之言是約二諦，雖作四重秖是空有二理而已，失理淺深迷空有體，但列空有徒分四重，故無中體徒用雙非，不出二乘恐涉通教。「有人云達三諦」等者，雖標三諦不辯融即，任運分張，別人初心何嘗不達三諦之理，名達為開不名開也。至十行位分明見假，至迴向位觀無一異，若入初地方順法流，如此何能免於別義？亦未能辯開等別相。非是初心畢竟不別，故非佛界。次「有人」去，用總別相以釋知見。此人不知《論》云「一切智」是聲聞智，不應以此為知；一切種智居二智後，屬別佛智，不應以此為圓佛見。又古人見一切之言，便以為總，以有種言乃判為別，此亦不見《大論》圓文。《論》云：「為令易解分屬三人」，況彼分三大小因果條然永別，如何將釋圓佛知見？「有人解盡智」等者，盡無生名出自三藏，無生之語稍通於三，約清淨之言並判屬通佛。「如上」等者，都不見於《法華》大意。總如《玄》文，大意方了，略如今疏釋〈方便品〉，至此僅知佛知見義。

Since the name nirvāṇa is common to what is perceived, the understandings generated from it also differ. Even if [what they understood] was not the former two teachings, it merely constituted the teaching path of the separate teaching. Because of this, the characteristics of the teachings are difficult to distinguish. Furthermore, ancient masters matched stages according to their own interpretations of that sūtra: if stages where views and thoughts are severed do not constitute the separate meaning, one cannot interpret the perfect opening and the rest by means of stages of the common [teaching]. If the exhaustion of views and thoughts of identical substance is not [confined to] the sixth ground, one should know that those at present who are capable of believing in the Tathāgata's extremely profound wisdom and extremely profound realm [have achieved something significant]. The principle is not easy: the Huayan is fused and completely sudden, yet commentators still lose its ultimate purport; the Lotus Sūtra only reveals the One Vehicle, and one must not harmonize it so that it becomes gradual. Moreover, Xianhui, Kaishan, and Zhicheng each had their own classifications and explanations, none of which reflect the present view. Zhāng’ān states: 'The thirty minds are the first reliance, the five conditions of ordinary persons. From the first ground onward is the second reliance; all are the stages of masters.' His intent is that the first reliance possesses the nature of afflictions and is the stage of disciples. Zhāng’ān also classified stages by relying on that sūtra itself; if used to classify opening and the rest, this too is not so. Why? When determining the four reliances, one must do so by means of the four teachings, and one cannot use this to classify opening and the rest. The four reliances apply to ordinary persons, whereas opening and the rest belong only to the noble; moreover, the noble are defined in terms of the perfect [teaching]. Therefore, the text concludes below, 'it does not accord with the sūtra.' Regarding 'citing the sūtra' and so forth: the Mahā[parinirvāṇa]-sūtra contrasts hearing-and-seeing with the stages prior to the grounds; this refers to the grounds of the separate teaching, so how could it demonstrate the common [teaching]? Eye-seeing upon ascending the grounds is the buddha-eye. Thus, the exhaustion of thoughts at the sixth ground resides entirely within the common teaching. Those of old merely knew how to explain grounds by grounds, completely failing to distinguish where the grounds belong. As for the note reading 'and so forth,' it broadly establishes principle and teaching to refute the ancient masters, briefly as described above. As for 'challenging this as being the same as the previous,' this challenge is the same as [the challenge to] Guangzhai using the three types of wisdom. For now, because it refutes the three types of wisdom, it says 'the same as the previous.' It should also further say: if the five defilements were previously eliminated, how could that point to the present teaching? If the present teaching eliminates defilements, they would only now become voice-hearers. If they only now eliminate defilements, what buddha's knowledge and vision would be revealed? The challenge regarding the principle being revealed upon the removal of impurities is also like this. Next, from 'some say' onward, both masters take the Lotus Sūtra as 'entering,' causing the Lotus Sūtra to be ultimate while thereby losing the former three. How could the buddha's knowledge and vision, together with the opening and the rest in the present sūtra, be divided among other teachings? That would mean other teachings possess the buddha's knowledge and vision. To then call it the separate teaching because the three vehicles are separate points directly to the Deer Park. Both masters take the three vehicles of the common teaching to be prajñā. As for the words 'deprecating and extolling': because in the Vimalakīrti the voice-hearers are deprecated and the bodhisattvas extolled, this shows a great failure to understand that that sūtra also deprecates bodhisattvas and does not extol them alone. Thus, our school's eight words completely judge the sūtra's principle: 'chastising the small and reprimanding the one-sided, praising the great and extolling the perfect.' 'Learing' also means tearing apart, and also splitting silk; the four phrases cannot be divided. As for 'some say thirty' and so forth: the common [teaching] lacks the stages of the thirty minds prior to the grounds, so this is called 'enfolding the separate.' Merely speaking of the first ground, the sixth ground, and up to the tenth ground is called 'lateral common.' As for 'not yet having seen the wonders of the Lotus': the incomprehensibility of the sūtra is beyond what ordinary people can fathom; it can be known by considering the noble one's praise and selection of teachers and disciples. Now, relying on the meaning and according with the text, there are briefly ten pairs to distinguish its wondrous characteristics: conferring predictions in the near future on the two vehicles; opening the Tathāgata's distant origin; praising the fiftieth person who rejoices in accord; benefits of hearing extending to those in the stage of succeeding to buddhahood in one lifetime; Śākyamuni pointing to Devadatta of the five heinous deeds as his original teacher; Mañjuśrī taking the eight-year-old dragon girl as the one he transformed; conferring predictions on everyone who hears merely a single verse; the unfathomable merit of guarding the name of the sūtra; permanently parting from female embodiment upon hearing the chapter and upholding it; neither aging nor dying if one hears, reads, and recites it; the five kinds of dharma teachers directly obtaining semblance [realization]; the four peaceful practices dreaming of entering the bronze wheel; the heads of those who harass them splitting into seven pieces; the blessings of those who make offerings surpassing [offerings to] the Ten Titles; let alone [the teaching] spoken in the past, present, and future surpassing an entire lifetime; praising its teachings through the acclaim of the seven parables; from the earth welling forth [bodhisattvas] such that Ajita does not recognize a single person; the Dragon-Honored King of the Eastern Lotus not knowing the origin of the traces; let alone the trace transformation citing the three thousand ink-dots, and the original attainment using the parable of five hundred dust particles. Such rare matters of origin and traces are not spoken of in other teachings. Passages such as these are still present in accordance with the sūtra; merely relying on what was indicated above, if these are not wonders, what could be? Regarding 'someone cites the Huayan' and so forth: that person's intention was to criticize the various masters, asking why, when there are forty mental stages prior to the grounds, they did not use them to explain opening the buddha's knowledge and vision, but merely used the thirty stages prior to the grounds? This refutation identifies two faults: first, erroneously using the ten faiths of the Huayan; second, the stages of the worthy not being the buddha's knowledge and vision. Regarding 'the Huayan does not explain the ten faiths': ancient authors also held that, before the abodes in the Huayan, one cultivates the emptiness of the ten brahma practices and immediately enters the first abode, matching the emptiness of the ten brahma practices to the stages of the ten faiths. The present text refutes this because the sūtra lacks the name 'faith'; hence it says 'lacks.' The stages in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha and so forth are fully cited in the Shiqian; it is feared that these are seven redundant characters from the Daśabhūmika-śāstra. From 'someone' onward, it refutes the use of the four types of wisdom from the treatise. That master's citation stated, 'the general and specific are simultaneous,' wishing to explain the four phrases as having no temporal sequence; unexpectedly, it resulted in an inappropriate hierarchy. We now provide two refutations: first, he merely says the four types of wisdom are simultaneous without distinguishing the difference of stages; second, the four types of wisdom are in the fruit, while opening and the rest apply to the cause. Because of these improprieties, they are not used now. Furthermore, according to the Great Calming and Contemplation citing the four types of wisdom from the treatise, cause and fruit each have general and specific aspects. If one exclusively points to the fruit, the stages of the four types of wisdom are high; for now, we criticize him directly in terms of the fruit wisdom. The four types of wisdom are wisdom of the path, wisdom of the species of the path, all-knowledge, and all-species knowledge; in the fruit, these four are completely endowed in one substance. If opening and the rest discuss the horizontal within the vertical, one must use four stages separately to correspond to the four types of wisdom. Even if cause and fruit correspond to each other as general and specific, they merely constitute cause and fruit; how could they be called opening and the rest? Regarding 'someone says non-emptiness' and so forth: his intent is that the revelation of the principle of negating both is 'opening,' not going beyond emptiness and existence. Clearly pointing out that the principle can be empty and can be existent is called 'revealing.' Seeing that this emptiness and existence are not separate from the principle is only then 'awakening.' Further comprehending that this principle is not two yet two is only then called 'entering.' Below 'this person,' the intent of the refutation is: the words 'emptiness' and 'existence' refer to the two truths; although made into four tiers, they are merely the two principles of emptiness and existence. Losing the depth and shallowness of the principle, he is confused about the substance of emptiness and existence, merely listing emptiness and existence and dividing them into four tiers in vain. Thus, lacking the substance of the middle, he applies the negation of both in vain; not going beyond the two vehicles, it is feared to drift into the common teaching. Regarding 'someone says penetrating the three truths' and so forth: although he states the three truths, he does not distinguish their fusion and identity, and they become spontaneously divided. When does the initial mind of a person of the separate teaching ever fail to penetrate the principle of the three truths? Calling penetration 'opening' is not opening. When reaching the stage of the ten practices, one clearly sees the provisional; when reaching the stage of dedication, one contemplates non-oneness and non-difference; if entering the first ground, one only then accords with the dharma flow. How could this avoid the separate meaning? Nor is it able to distinguish the distinct characteristics of opening and the rest. It is not that the initial mind is entirely un-separate; therefore, it is not the realm of the buddha. Next, from 'someone' onward, he uses general and specific characteristics to explain knowledge and vision. This person does not know that the treatise says 'all-knowledge' is the wisdom of the voice-hearers, so one should not take this to be knowledge; 'all-species knowledge' ranks behind the two types of wisdom and belongs to the separate buddha-wisdom, so one should not take this to be the perfect buddha-vision. Moreover, when ancient people saw the word 'all,' they immediately took it as general, and because it had the word 'species,' they determined it to be specific. This also fails to see the perfect text of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa. The treatise says, 'To make it easy to understand, they are distributed among three persons'; furthermore, its division into three completely separates large and small, cause and fruit forever, so how could one use it to explain the perfect buddha's knowledge and vision? Regarding 'someone explains the knowledge of exhaustion' and so forth: the names 'knowledge of exhaustion' and 'unborn' originate from the Tripiṭaka [teaching]. The phrase 'unborn' slightly extends to the three [teachings]; in terms of the word 'purity,' both are determined to belong to the buddha of the common [teaching]. Regarding 'as above' and so forth: none of them grasp the Lotus Sūtra's great meaning. Only when seen generally as in the Profound Meaning text is the great meaning understood; briefly, as in the present commentary explaining the 'Skillful Means Chapter,' up to this point one barely knows the meaning of the buddha's knowledge and vision.