法華文句記 7.9

7.9

今未釋品名，便引古人判品意者，釋題失所由失文意。於中初通列三時云一往等者，以此品內具領始末，退大之後更以小起，以為一往，中間為隨逐，最後為畢竟。古人但得三時之名，不了其意。今為五時，加於探領法身之化，尚恐不了四聖之情，但作一往等名焉消此品？故須引破方識正理。總有六師。「僧那」者，此云弘誓。次「私謂」下破。初總斥者，書云：「剉絲盈篋不可織為綺綬，玉屑滿匣不可琢為珪璋，諸解碎亂不堪依準。」「夫一往」下別破，仍先標初、後略出大旨，中間例知。次正別破中，初兩句縱而破之，乃許第二第三一往，故以其一往而破初師及第五師。次「若法華」下復以第五師一往對第二一往而為例並。次「又二乘」下以第三師一往破第一師一往，於中先並破。次「若一破一不破」下立例。次「又父子」下單破初師畢竟，遙見其父即名相見，名畢竟者，華嚴教時已應得記，則法華無用。「若後畢竟」下倒並，若後是者前無復用，若無復用昔日聞大結緣不成。又若第二三四師所立畢竟皆在法華，意則可爾。一往隨逐近遠難依，第五師一往既同前破，隨逐畢竟非釋《法華》，豈有現在一化必令至於金剛？第四師章安無破，但是略耳。其云一往在於轉教，則轉教已前向非一往，為何所名？以得悟為畢竟，五品六根復非一往及以隨逐，為名何等？然諸師畢竟皆不破者，前四及第五多分皆至法華，云至佛果，縱有小失而無大過，但不可定以金剛心為畢竟耳。今師意者，一往等言待至下根論宿世時方可商度，以人天乘及以說大在往昔故，往昔已後皆名隨逐。如何二三四師以今世三味而為隨逐？故不用之。次「私謂」下破本迹者，若指此為迹，應當已是本門動執；若預說後品，乃是此中成顯本竟。後文無用，故不可也。

Now, before explaining the chapter title, the reason I cite the past masters' intent in evaluating the chapter is that failing to understand the title leads to losing the intent of the text. Therein, first generally listing the three periods, calling them "preliminary," etc.: because this chapter fully grasps the beginning and end—after retrogressing from the Mahāyāna, using the Hinayana to arise again is taken as the "preliminary"; the middle is the "pursuit"; and the final is the "ultimate." The ancients only grasped the names of the three periods, not understanding their meaning. Now we take them as five periods, adding the provisional transformation of probing and grasping the dharmakāya; yet we still fear not understanding the sentiments of the four noble ones. Merely making designations such as "preliminary"—how could that resolve this chapter? Therefore one must cite and refute them to recognize the correct principle. In all there are six masters. "Saṃnāha" is translated here as great vow. Next, from "I personally consider..." downward is the refutation. The initial general rebuke states: A text says, "Shredded silk filling a basket cannot be woven into damask ribbons; jade chips filling a box cannot be carved into ritual sceptres. Disparate and fragmented interpretations are unfit to rely upon." From "Now, 'preliminary'..." downward is the specific refutation; it first indicates the beginning and then briefly brings forth the main intent, from which the intermediate may be known by analogy. Next, in the direct specific refutation, the first two lines grant and then refute, conceding the second and third masters' "preliminary"; hence it uses their "preliminary" to refute the first master and the fifth master. Next, from "If the Lotus..." downward, it again contrasts the fifth master's "preliminary" with the second's "preliminary" as a parallel example. Next, from "Furthermore, the two vehicles..." downward, it uses the third master's "preliminary" to refute the first master's "preliminary"; therein it first refutes them in parallel. Next, from "If one is refuted and one is not..." downward, it establishes an analogy. Next, from "Furthermore, father and son..." downward, it singly refutes the first master's "ultimate": seeing his father from afar is called seeing each other, and if that is called "ultimate," then at the time of the Avataṃsaka teaching they should already have received prophecy, and the Lotus Sūtra would be useless. From "If the latter is ultimate..." downward, it draws an inverted parallel: if the latter is right, the former is no longer of use; if it is no longer of use, the hearing of the Mahāyāna to establish affinity in the past would not be accomplished. Moreover, if the "ultimate" established by the second, third, and fourth masters all lies in the Lotus Sūtra, the intent may be acceptable; yet their near and distant assignments of "preliminary" and "pursuit" are hard to rely upon. Since the fifth master's "preliminary" is identical to what was refuted before, his "pursuit" and "ultimate" do not explain the *Lotus Sūtra*. How could a single lifetime of transformation in the present necessarily lead them all the way to the adamantine [stage]? For the fourth master, Zhāng’ān has no refutation, but this is merely an abbreviation. His saying that "preliminary" lies in turning the wheel of teaching means that before turning the wheel of teaching was not "preliminary"—what then would it be called? Taking attaining awakening as "ultimate," the five grades and six sense faculties would again neither be "preliminary" nor "pursuit"—what would they be called? However, as for the "ultimate" of the various masters not being refuted: the first four and the fifth for the most part reach the Lotus Sūtra and speak of reaching the buddha-fruit; though they have slight defects, they have no major fault. It is only that one cannot definitively take the adamantine mind as the "ultimate." The present master's intent is: terms such as "preliminary" must wait until the lower faculties to discuss past lifetimes before they can be evaluated, because the human and heavenly vehicles and the preaching of the Mahāyāna took place in the distant past; everything after the distant past is called "pursuit." How could the second, third, and fourth masters take the three flavors of the present lifetime as "pursuit"? Therefore we do not use them. Next, from "I personally consider..." downward, refuting origin and traces: if this is designated as the traces, it should already be the shaking of attachments in the gate of the origin; if it pre-emptively speaks of later chapters, that would mean that revealing the origin is already accomplished here, and the subsequent text would be useless; therefore it is unacceptable.