法華文句記 6.133

6.133

「蜈蚣」下明空中事者，前云藏穴以譬色界，今乃出穴故譬無色。言「空中」者非謂虛空，既以舍內譬欲入、穴譬色，今以穴外空地為空，以譬無色，色界如穴，厭下如燒、欣上如出穴。「若爾瞋通三界」者，前欲界中以蜈蚣譬嗔，此中例之不別分出，既云蜈蚣復是無色，故譬彼嗔，色界之中雖無蜈蚣而云毒蟲，即兼蜈蚣，如色界利云毘舍闍，即兼諸鬼，故知嗔通三界。小乘中云上界無恚，非盡理也。然諸煩惱輕重雖殊，尚至等覺，豈隔無色？但名同體異理須分別，今所燒類略無鬼神。「若得」等者，若無色定起尋即生著，故名為「隨」。「既離」下緣定計非想，故云又諸餓鬼頭上火然。「非想亦有八苦」者，文已列七闕愛別離，應云失定時苦名愛別離。但文中七苦初之四苦，約彼定體生彼細想，剎那不住名為念念，病死可知。次有二苦以對修說，修上失下通得名離。次五盛陰復約定果，前四第八在果故也。若因若果皆約彼定，故得言之。

The passage below "centipedes" clarifying matters in the open space: earlier it spoke of hiding in holes as a metaphor for the form realm; now they come out of the holes, hence it serves as a metaphor for the formless realm. The phrase "in the open space" does not mean empty space; since inside the dwelling was used as a metaphor for entering desire and the holes as a metaphor for form, now the open ground outside the holes is taken as the open space to serve as a metaphor for the formless realm; the form realm is like a hole, revulsion toward what is below is like burning, and delight in what is above is like coming out of the hole. Regarding "if so, hatred pervades the three realms": earlier, in the desire realm, centipedes were used as a metaphor for hatred; here, by analogy, it is not separately distinguished; since it says centipedes and yet is the formless realm, it therefore serves as a metaphor for their hatred; although within the form realm there are no centipedes, it says "venomous insects," which includes centipedes, just as for the sharp afflictions of the form realm it says piśācas, which includes the various ghosts; hence we know that hatred pervades the three realms. The statement in the Hīnayāna that the upper realms have no ill will does not exhaust the principle. Although the various afflictions differ in being light or heavy, they still reach up to equal enlightenment; how could they be barred from the formless realm? It is only that their names are the same while their substances differ, which must be distinguished in principle; here, among the classes burned, ghosts and spirits are briefly omitted. Regarding "if one attains," and so forth: if the formless concentration arises, one immediately gives rise to attachment to it, hence it is called "following." The passage below "having separated from" means that conditioned by concentration, one conceptualizes neither-perception[-nor-non-perception], hence it says: furthermore, on the heads of the hungry ghosts, fire blazes. Regarding "neither-perception also has the eight sufferings": the text has already listed seven and lacks the suffering of separation from the loved; one should say that the suffering at the time of losing concentration is called the suffering of separation from the loved. However, among the seven sufferings in the text, the first four sufferings are in terms of that concentration-substance giving rise to those subtle conceptualizations, not abiding for a single kṣaṇa, which is called thought-to-thought; sickness and death can be understood. Next, there are two sufferings explained in contrast to cultivation; cultivating what is above and losing what is below can both generally be called separation. Next, the five grasping aggregates are further in terms of the effect of concentration, because the previous four and the eighth reside in the effect. Whether cause or effect, all are in terms of that concentration, and hence one can state it in this way.