法華文句記 8.115

8.115

此中四度云「見寶塔」，下文云「四番」即四悉也。初世界中翻名有無三世不同，覩必歡喜故是世界。言「經云佛三種身」者，借《普賢觀經》也，既結此經故可證同。「當佛亦然」者，未來有說《法華經》處，此塔還現、彼佛亦坐。本論亦云「此經為三身菩提故。此經已說師弟因果，故古佛證、集分身佛。」彼《華嚴經》加四菩薩說菩薩因果，能加但是迹佛主伴，故不假集佛，但云十方互為主伴，仍不云伴是佛分身，但云眷屬而已。文中諸品皆云「集諸菩薩」，注家云：道非存亡，古今一揆。然則裂地踊塔以表雙林不滅，更延接影微顯丈六非生，故云「見寶塔品」。今謂古佛塔今佛坐，則表古今實道不生，未必預表雙林不滅。一往觀之，謂今現佛入古滅佛之塔，表滅不滅。今謂不然，古佛塔現示滅而不滅，釋迦入塔示生而不生，不生不滅故並坐表之。集分身召本屬，乃顯舍那非成，豈唯丈六示滅他人？問云：大眾見塔為根為識？為塔令見？廣約譬類以破自他，此深不曉經之大旨，三周之後縱有凡夫咸殊凡見，然《中論》觀法被末代鈍根，佛世當機何勞設此？消經觀行理合如然。凡諸釋經若無通見，致令後學不閑宗途；今正為證經旁論所表。有人問：召古佛、集分身，身何故多，塔何故一？今為答之，證經義足，故寶塔不多，合多寶願，故分身不一。假令證經須集多塔，塔豈不多？既能應現十方，信知塔亦非一，故分身是化、塔亦宜權。今從所表，今佛一身而集多身，密表迹用之非一；古佛多塔但示一塔，顯表實理之不二，況從地在空及諸校飾，悉非徒爾。「明顯此事」者，三世諸佛轉法輪等，皆至法華出世事說，故今經文加四支徵。「瓔珞」下為人者，以校量福為生善也。「善吉問」等者，第九〈供養舍利品〉云：「佛因善吉問供養全碎生法同耶別耶？佛廣校量云：如供養一佛舍利起塔滿一四天下，不如供養生身，由色身有舍利故。又起塔滿大千供養色身，不如供養法身，由法身有色身故。」當知見色不及聞經，以由聞經有法身故，故經偏圓即法身全碎功德不等。「頂王」等者，曾檢《大乘頂王經》及《方等頂王經》各一卷，並未見此。難意者，教與舍利時同益同，何得不等？答意者，舍利時等亦生身之力。

Here, it says 'seeing the jeweled stūpa' four times; the text below says 'four turns', which are the four siddhāntas. First, in the mundane [siddhānta], the translations of the name, existence and non-existence, and the three periods of time are distinct; beholding it inevitably brings joy, hence it is mundane. Regarding 'the sūtra says the three kinds of bodies of the Buddha': this is borrowed from the Sūtra on the Contemplation of Samantabhadra; since it summarizes this sūtra, it can serve as corroboration. Regarding 'the future buddhas are also thus': wherever the Lotus Sūtra is preached in the future, this stūpa will appear again, and that buddha will also sit within it. The basic treatise also says: 'Because this sūtra is for the awakening of the three bodies. Because this sūtra has already spoken of the causes and fruits of master and disciple, the ancient buddha bears witness and the emanation buddhas assemble.' In that Avataṃsaka Sūtra, four bodhisattvas are empowered to explain the causes and fruits of bodhisattvas; those capable of empowering are merely the host and retinue of the trace buddha, hence there is no need to assemble buddhas, but merely to say that the ten directions mutually serve as host and retinue, still without saying that the retinue are the Buddha's emanations, but calling them merely attendants. In the text, various chapters all say 'assembling the bodhisattvas.' The commentator says: 'The Dao neither persists nor perishes; ancient and modern are of one measure.' Thus, the earth splits and the stūpa emerges to signify that the Twin Trees [nirvāṇa] does not perish, further extending and connecting the shadows to subtly reveal that the sixteen-foot form is not born; hence it is called the 'Chapter on Seeing the Jeweled Stūpa.' Now I say: the ancient buddha's stūpa is sat in by the present buddha, which signifies that the true Dao of ancient and modern is unborn, not necessarily predicting that the Twin Trees does not perish. If viewed superficially, it might be thought that the present appearing buddha entering the ancient perished buddha's stūpa signifies that extinction is non-extinction. Now I say this is not so: the ancient buddha's stūpa appearing demonstrates extinction yet non-extinction; Śākyamuni entering the stūpa demonstrates birth yet non-birth; because of neither birth nor extinction, they sit side by side to signify this. Assembling the emanations and summoning original subordinates reveals that Vairocana is not newly accomplished; how could it merely be the sixteen-foot form demonstrating extinction to others? One asks: when the great assembly sees the stūpa, is it due to the sense faculties or consciousness? Or does the stūpa cause them to see it? Broadly applying analogies to refute self and other shows a deep failure to understand the great purport of the sūtra. After the three cycles, even if there are ordinary beings, all are distinct from ordinary perception; yet the contemplative method of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā was addressed to dull faculties of the degenerate age—for those suited to the Buddha's presence, why labor to set this up? Explaining the sūtra through contemplative practice should naturally be like this. In general, if expositions of sūtras lack comprehensive insight, they will cause later students to be unfamiliar with the essential path. Now, it is primarily to bear witness to the sūtra, and secondarily discusses what is signified. Someone asks: 'Summoning the ancient buddha and assembling the emanations—why are the bodies many while the stūpa is one?' Now I answer: to bear witness to the sūtra the meaning is sufficient, hence the jeweled stūpas are not many; to accord with Prabhūtaratna's vow, the emanations are not single. Suppose bearing witness to the sūtra required assembling many stūpas—would the stūpas not be many? Since he can responsively manifest across the ten directions, one certainly knows the stūpas are also not one; therefore, emanations are transformations, and the stūpa should also be an expedient. Now, following what is signified: the present buddha, being one body, yet assembles many bodies, secretly signifying that the trace functions are not one; the ancient buddha's many stūpas are demonstrated as only one stūpa, clearly signifying that the real principle is non-dual; how much more so emerging from the earth into the sky and the various adornments—none are in vain. Regarding 'clearly revealing this matter': the turning of the wheel of the Dharma by all buddhas of the three periods of time and so forth all reach the Lotus to explain matters of appearing in the world; therefore, the present sūtra text adds four limbs to examine it. Below 'necklace', regarding [the siddhānta] for individuals: through assessing merits, it engenders goodness. Regarding 'Subhūti asked', etc.: the ninth chapter, 'Offering to Relics', says: 'The Buddha, because Subhūti asked whether offerings to whole or broken [relics], or to the physical or Dharma bodies, are identical or distinct, broadly assessed: 'Just as offering to one buddha's relics by erecting stūpas filling one four-continent world is not as good as offering to the physical body, because relics exist on account of the physical body; and erecting stūpas filling the great thousandworld to offer to the physical body is not as good as offering to the dharmakāya, because the physical body exists on account of the dharmakāya.'' One should know that seeing the physical form does not equal hearing the sūtra, because the dharmakāya exists on account of hearing the sūtra; therefore, whether the sūtra is biased or perfect corresponds to whether the dharmakāya is whole or broken, and their merits are not equal. Regarding 'Crown King' and so forth: I once checked the Mahāyāna Crown King Sūtra and the Fangdeng Crown King Sūtra, one fascicle each, and found neither of these. The meaning of the objection is: if the teaching and relics are identical in time and benefit, why would they be unequal? The meaning of the answer is: the equality in time of relics is also the power of the physical body.