法華文句記 5.127

5.127

「觀心釋樹」者，託事見理佛豈不然，何佛不作因緣觀耶？今在小也。若約華嚴為最初者，皆須約於圓別以判。「經行」者，此亦是觀解。若但事解秖是漸初，故且附觀，約法相說，故云「道品」等。事釋經行具如律文、威儀經等，具如《止觀》第二記。「始坐」等者，文具四釋，初云假時等即世界，得道即為人，感恩報德即對治，欲以大擬即第一義。若作約教，應為四佛十二因緣。又以因緣釋樹，如《婆沙》中無明為根等，具如《止觀》第二記。應細釋出以對今文，即無漏與實相俱得為林。「三十七品是行道法」者，道品即定慧均等名行道法，況復七科皆是所行，即是以定慧足履實相地，理攝諸法故云「一切」。初安此地故云「得道」，欲令他行先自表之庶令下效。「樹地」下徵起。「未曾有經」下答。「經云於三七」等者，且以三乘而為三根，以初成道通思根故，具如前云思度二仙文也。小雲疏意，眾生機自未堪，法華不必居後，故引後文彼佛初成即說《法華》。以今例之謂為有據，亦如〈方便品〉中，若但讚佛乘而眾生不堪，方始允同諸佛而施權化，故云後於王城。「若推」下章安通釋，二處不殊不可全非，故但云「若推」。今須辯別。何者？若以佛慧為法華，則始終俱有；若以會歸為法華，則終有始無。故知彼佛在菩提樹，初說佛慧為法華耳。而小雲未曉斯旨，便以初成顯說會歸者不然，故準今意文理俱通，若密說者非所辯也。「惡生王」者，哥利王也。「佛誓」者，害佛之時佛發大願，我若得道應先度之。「甘露」者真諦也。

Regarding “interpreting the tree through contemplation of mind”: relying on phenomena to see principle, how could the Buddha not be so? What Buddha does not practice the contemplation of causes and conditions? Here it concerns the Small. If based on the Avataṃsaka as the earliest, all must be judged according to the perfect and distinct [teachings]. Regarding “walking meditation” (caṅkramaṇa): this is also an interpretation through contemplation. If it were merely phenomenal interpretation, it would only be the beginning of the gradual; therefore, it is provisionally aligned with contemplation and explained according to dharmalakṣaṇa, hence it says “the factors of the path” and so forth. Phenomenal explanations of walking meditation are fully found in the Vinaya texts, the sūtras on deportment, and so forth, fully as in the second fascicle of the Notes on Cessation and Contemplation. Regarding “first sitting” and so forth: the text contains four interpretations. The initial mention of conventional time and so forth is the mundane; attaining the path is for the sake of persons; feeling gratitude and repaying virtue is diagnosis; desiring to emulate with the great is the supreme truth. If done according to teaching, it should be the four buddhas and the twelve causes and conditions. Furthermore, interpreting the tree through causes and conditions, as in the Vibhāṣā where ignorance is the root and so forth, is fully as in the second fascicle of the Notes on Cessation and Contemplation. It should be explained in detail to match the present text, so that both the undefiled and the true character can serve as the grove. Regarding “the thirty-seven factors are the dharmas for practicing the path”: the factors of the path are the equal balance of concentration and wisdom, called the dharmas for practicing the path; moreover, all seven categories are what is practiced. That is, using the feet of concentration and wisdom to tread upon the ground of true character; since principle encompasses all dharmas, it says “all.” First settling upon this ground is called “attaining the path”; wishing to cause others to practice, he first demonstrates it himself, hoping that those below will emulate it. Below “tree ground,” a question is raised. Below “Adbhutadharma-sūtra,” an answer is given. Regarding “the sūtra says in the three seventh-days” and so forth: provisionally taking the three vehicles as the three capacities, because upon first attaining the path he surveyed the capacities in general, fully as the earlier passage on considering the deliverance of the two hermits states. In the commentary of Master Xiaoyun, sentient beings' capacities were not yet adequate, so the Lotus did not necessarily have to come later; hence he cited a later passage where that buddha, upon first attaining awakening, immediately preached the Lotus. Taking this as an analogy, he considered it to have evidence, just as in the “Skillful Means Chapter,” if he merely praised the Buddha-vehicle and sentient beings were inadequate, only then did he accord with all buddhas and apply provisional conversion; hence it says “later in the royal city.” Below “if inferred,” Zhāng’ān gives a comprehensive interpretation: the two places are not different and cannot be entirely rejected, so he merely says “if inferred.” Now we must differentiate. Why? If buddha-wisdom is taken as the Lotus, it is present from beginning to end; if convergence is taken as the Lotus, it is present at the end and absent at the beginning. Thus we know that when that buddha was at the bodhi tree, he first preached buddha-wisdom as the Lotus. But Xiaoyun did not understand this purport, and immediately maintained that he explicitly preached convergence upon first attaining awakening, which is incorrect. Therefore, according to the present meaning, both text and principle are consistent; if it was preached secretly, that is beyond differentiation. Regarding “King E-sheng (Evil-born)”: King Kali. Regarding “the Buddha's vow”: when the Buddha was harmed, he made a great vow: “If I attain the path, I shall deliver him first.” Regarding “amṛta”: it is the true reality.