法華文句記 1

English (machine translation) 1

Language: English

1.1

Composed by the Tang Tiantai Śramaṇa Zhànrán.

1.2

Explaining the beginning of the Introductory Chapter.

Regarding "Words and Phrases" (wenju): "Words" (wen) refers to written graphs throughout the entire text from start to finish; thus it is said that wen are just written graphs, which serve as the basis for both [names and phrases]. "Phrases" (ju) refers to syntactic pauses, with their sense extending to long or short; thus it is said that a name expresses the self-nature [of a thing], while a phrase expresses distinctions. Here, moreover, we do not discuss matter, formations, and other such essences; now we merely divide the text by phrases, and therefore call it "Words and Phrases." Ancient commentaries and subcommentaries were sometimes titled simply as shu (subcommentaries) or simply as zhang (chapters). Zhang means an elegant composition, as the Book of Odes says: "When the gentlemen of that capital speak, their words form polished chapters (zhang)"; it also means chapter sections, dividing the explanation into several chapters. A subcommentary (shu) is an expression that conveys meaning; it also means a record (ji). Furthermore, the sound shu denotes opening a path, setting out items, and carving through. That none of these are used now has the intent explained above.

1.4

As for the meaning of the "six difficulties" in the note beneath the title: this adopts the passage below praising the rarity of the Dharma within the explanation of the Dharma: "The arising and appearance in the world of the buddhas / is remote and difficult to encounter; / even if they appear in the world, / it is further difficult for them to preach this Dharma. / Throughout immeasurable, countless kalpas, / to hear this Dharma is likewise difficult; / and persons who are able to listen to this Dharma— / such persons are moreover difficult [to find]." In the sūtra's two difficulties of hearing the Dharma and being able to listen, Zhāng’ān unpacked their meaning into four, namely transmission and translation and so forth, making six difficulties altogether. Now, within "hearing the Dharma," it directly pertains to those present in the assembly at that time, and via Ānanda its meaning extends to the Semblance and Final Dharma ages; thus, relying on transmission and translation, one is able to hear it. A buddha's appearance is already difficult, yet even when he appears one may still not encounter him; hence across many kalpas even those who hear it are rare indeed, how much more so practicing, realizing awakening, and preaching and recording it to transmit it! Among these, the first two pertain to the master and the flavor; the third and fourth praise the teaching and the practice; the fifth and sixth express self-fortune and self-examination. Thus the first two concern the Buddha, the third and fourth belong to the teacher, and the fifth and sixth reprove oneself. Therefore, within the three pairs, each in turn is first general and then specific. For the first two, appearing in the world is still general, because it runs through an entire lifetime, while the subsequent preaching is specific, being specific to the present sūtra. In the subsequent third and fourth, the initial master of transmission and translation is general to all teachings, while the subsequent teaching master is specific to what I received. In the subsequent fifth and sixth, hearing the lecture is still general because it is shared with others, while recording it once is specific as it pertains solely to oneself. Therefore, within the three pairs, they proceed from broad to narrow; hence each subsequent one is narrower than the preceding. Thus, from the Buddha's appearance down to hearing it preached by one who awakened on his own and recording it once, recording the Buddha Vehicle is most extremely difficult.

1.5

Regarding "master and flavor": it is not easy for the Master to arise, and moreover only after passing through the four flavors did he expound this sūtra; thus we know the first two are truly not easy. Regarding "praising the teaching": transmission and translation are not easy; passing across mountains and seas, although [the texts] arrived in this land, only when ruler and subjects were in harmony with the Way and the state was free from various tribulations could they be transmitted. Regarding "praising the practice": receiving [the teaching] from Nányuè, his realization did not depend on others; supported by what was planted in past lives, this wondrous awakening unfolded. Regarding "self-examination": being fortunate to have heard it oneself, he humbly undertook to record it. Thus the preface to the Profound Meaning says: "At Jiangling I received the profound import; only at Jianye did I hear the sūtra text. Patching and piecing it together, I barely completed one version"; how much more so having heard it at twenty-seven and revised it at sixty-nine—from beginning to end over forty years, only then completing the seventh revision, so correcting it was also difficult! Adding the difficulty of the compilation [of the canon] before transmission and translation makes eight difficulties altogether, because at the time of the compilation it also required the harmony of kings, ministers, and the great assembly, preventing Māra or non-Buddhists from gaining an advantage. "Adding" refers to adding refutations of ancient masters and citing sūtras and treatises, meaning rejecting what is wrong to reveal what is right. "Pruning" refers to pruning redundancies and perfecting the textual style, making the text concise and the meaning rich. In refuting the ancients, the fault was not entirely one's own, but because their divergent views were added, it is merely called "adding"; pruning pertained solely to oneself, because the initial record was overgrown and tangled, so it must be called "pruning." Thus the preface to the Profound Meaning says: "Either using the truthful words of sūtras and treatises to accord with this profound wonder, or marking the divergent interpretations of various masters to demonstrate that they are not perfect."

1.6

"Bequeathed to future worthies": The preface to the text of the Profound Meaning says: "If this text should fall into ruin, the future would be lamentable." The Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] speaks of "whether trees or stones," and this sūtra speaks of "whether fields or villages"; practitioners of later generations will know that the gate of sweet dew lies right here.

1.7

"Mutually aspiring to buddha-wisdom": If not for receiving it directly at Vulture Peak and matching awakening at the place of the Way, searching out the purport of the teachings of an entire lifetime, and revealing the ultimate principle of the five flavors, what could serve as the foundation of buddha-wisdom for future worthies? Therefore, the phrase "buddha-wisdom" requires opening the provisional and real of the fruit-stage of the three teachings, and bringing forth the great and small that are combined and carried along in the four flavors; only then do the persons, principles, teachings, and practices find their home, and opening, revealing, awakening to, and entering remain non-different—only this is the buddha-wisdom of the present sūtra.

1.8

Question:

1.9

How does the perfect [teaching] in the various sūtras differ from this, such that one must say that opening alone is buddha-wisdom?

1.10

Answer:

1.11

The perfect and the real are not different, but they were not yet opened and revealed. Persons of initial aspiration think the perfect is separated from the one-sided; they must hear the opening and revealing of the true character of all phenomena. If one has already entered the real, one only discusses further advance; provisional persons, when arriving here, must without exception be opened.

1.12

Regarding "explaining in detail" and so forth: specifically explaining the title alone takes seven or eight fascicles, because the initial name subsumes the three dharmas, and the three dharmas run through the entirety of the text from beginning to end. Why is this? Throughout the entire text, nothing surpasses origin and traces. The ground of origin, general and specific, surpasses all other explanations; within the traces, the three and the one achieve supreme merit for that entire period. Therefore, the three within the one is forever distinct from the previous teachings, and the one that is identical to the three is not shared with others. The Life Span [chapter] is expounded only by identifying traces with origin; the traces identical to origin are fully present in the present preaching. Moreover, taking the traces as an example, their essence is neither cause nor effect; relying upon it, cause and effect are distinguished; only when cause and effect grasp the essence do they have superior function. These three dharmas all result from opening and revealing. If one does not first understand the wonder of that which can open, how can one illuminate the coarseness of that which is opened? Therefore, distinguishing the origin against the traces must properly be differentiated; thus explaining the title cannot be done hastily. Specifically explaining beneath the title is truly not easy. Because the general meaning was treated in detail through explaining the title, upon reaching the sūtra text one merely roughs out the chapter sections. The title being called "Words and Phrases" is precisely due to this. Therefore, if one merely divides the words and phrases, the great principle will not be made manifest; if one only discusses the profound purport, one will be confused about the beginning and end; if one expounds them while intertwining them, neither will have its proper place. Consequently, whenever the explanation touches upon the great meaning, it consistently refers to the Profound Meaning's name, essence, central theme, and function, the general and specific of the three and the one, and relying on practice and restricting to teaching. Thus we know that those who are entirely confused about the grand purport of the Profound Meaning yet wish to explain the sūtra through words and phrases, or who obstinately obscure the profound subtleties of the contemplation of principle and merely explain the meaning through concrete phenomena—those who claim to propagate this scripture in this way are far off the mark! Now I ask those who propagate the sūtra: is it for fame and profit that block oneself, or is it out of great compassion to benefit others? If one's own practice is dark regarding the wondrous principle, how is that different from a blind person serving as a guide? Both lead and follower will be confused, and self and other will both drown. Furthermore, the proclamation of the wondrous dharma is not restricted to the main body of the sūtra alone; because all twenty-eight chapters are equally named "wondrous," within each and every chapter the essence and so forth are completely possessed, and beneath every sentence the wondrous name is universally concluded. Teachings, practices, persons, and principles mutually subsume one another, so that the wondrous purport is not lost, somewhat resembling proper propagation. Reflect on the admonition of the robe, seat, and room, and you will naturally master it. However, universally listing concrete phenomena is difficult and cannot be done constantly; now, following what is convenient to the meaning, I expand or abridge according to the occasion. Thus, Skillful Means, Peaceful Practices, Life Span, and the Universal Gate are all the root source of origin and traces, the pivotal hinges of this sūtra, and must be examined in detail; the rest are treated as appropriate.

1.13

From "The preface" downward: the overarching title of the whole text has already been referred to the previous explanation; the specific title of this single chapter will be briefly set forth below. Master Rui also had a sequential order of arising for the twenty-eight chapters; our school's commentary may be understood by inferring his intent. Now, at the beginning of each chapter there are generally four intents: namely, explaining the name, the reason for coming, resolving objections, and explaining the text. Explaining the name must employ the four [meanings] of conditions and so forth; the reason for coming and resolving objections may or may not be present. Or, within the explanation of the name, the reason for coming is brought along; when there is an objection it must be resolved—how could there be a uniform rule? Furthermore, explaining the name and the meaning mutually include or exclude one another; hence the single item of explaining the name is either explained separately prior to the meaning, or explains the meaning while carrying the name along. Even if it is explained separately prior to the meaning, it still takes the specific to thread through the meaning. If the name and meaning are manifest, then that single chapter can be followed, thereby making each chapter entirely identical with the purport of the whole text. Those who explain in this way can truly serve as a mirror for the lost; merely talking on and on will confuse this and that. If one grasps this intent, what follows will be easy to understand.

1.14

Now, first, explaining the name. In saying "defining it as order (xiangxu)" and so forth: first the gloss of the character is explained, and next the meaning of the character. However, within explaining the gloss it also seems to follow the meaning. Xiang means orderly and tranquil; schoolhouses and rearing palaces are not the present meaning. The Erya says: "The east and west walls are called xu (prefaces/side halls), distinguishing inside from outside." This can be borrowed to explain the specific preface. Just as it is by the specific preface that [this sūtra] is differentiated from other sūtras, so the general preface differentiates it from non-Buddhists and can also be used in combination. Therefore, initially using the gloss of the character strictly follows the specific preface, hence it speaks of stages and the like; combining it with orderly tranquility conveys the sense of not being hasty or skipping steps. It is also common to both prefaces. If we distinguish them comparatively: the verification of faith must come first and then the launching; or the launching must come first and then the verification of faith; the two prefaces must come first and only then the main body. The two prefaces each possess this, and the sequence is likewise so. Therefore, the sequential arising of Guangzhai is not entirely devoid of reason, but because it lacked the expression of the reward, he was rebuked. Thus the words "stages of ranks" in meaning span both general and specific; the words "questions and answers" do not pertain to the general, for the sequence is naturally auspicious signs first and questions later. Maitreya and Mañjuśrī are the guest and host; whether asking or answering, both are orderly and dignified, and within them lie the resolution of doubts and the suppression of objections between guest and host.

1.15

From "The compiler of the sūtra" downward: explaining from the meaning of the character. The three meanings are divided into two, next general and two specific. Between the two prefaces, the general again crowns the specific. Both prefaces are at the head, but the general most properly obtains the name so as to crown what follows; crowning is being the head, hence it is called crowning the head. Consequently, only the twenty-seven chapters are named sūtra; by subsuming the preface under the main body, it is universally named sūtra, and therefore it is called "The Introductory Chapter of the Scripture of the Lotus Blossom of the Fine Dharma."

1.16

Regarding "reasons and narration": the auspicious signs and doubts are the reasons; the questions and answers are the narration. In the text, the reason doubts and thoughts are not matched against reasons and narration is that they can also span both: giving voice to proclaim doubt can also be called narration; gathering the assembly can also be considered a remote reason, but being distant, it is temporarily set aside.

1.17

Regarding "prelude and overture" (longyin): this is elucidated by metaphor. The overture of a lecturing and reciting master is called a prelude-overture. It is also possible that the main prelude is also called an overture, just as the prelude to a song and dance makes the meaning of preface evident. Thus the main preaching is like the prelude, and the two prefaces are like the overture; hence overture is also singing. It means narrating and reciting, and also has the sense of initiating. Ancient commentaries, glossing it with the sound yin (lineage), simply interpreted it as succession (yin). Moreover, confusing cursive script, they took long (prelude) for hu (calling), and yin (succession) for che (penetrating); errors like confusing fish (yu) and Lu (lu) have existed since antiquity, and the character che becomes a double mistake.

1.18

"Possessing these three meanings": because the chapter spans both general and specific, it must possess all three.

1.19

Regarding "chapter" (pin): the name "preface" resides in the specific, while the meaning of "chapter" is common to all the subsequent chapters; subsuming the general under the specific, it is not explained again, so only the specific is explained while setting aside the general. Herein, first the name is translated, next the meaning is explained, and finally the reason for establishing chapters is clarified. What is called "meaning" explains the meaning of the character pin, not the meaning of the chapter title; therefore, the meaning of the character is general, while the title name follows the specific.

1.20

Regarding the statement that 'their categories of meaning are identical', all chapters are like this. As for who gathered them, their person is therefore indicated. First, other sūtras are generally cited, as in the 'Mind Ground Chapter', which the Buddha himself proclaimed. As for [the reference to] the Great Commentary (*Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa*), this refers to the single work of the *Large Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra* recounted in the commentary. The compilers originally had only three chapters: first, the preface; second, the deeds of Māra; and third, the entrustment. The phrase 'the translator' also refers to the *Large Sūtra* originally having only three chapters; when the Venerable Kumārajīva finished translating it on the twenty-third day of the fourth month in the fifth year of the Hongshi era of the illegitimate Qin, he added [chapters] according to four considerations and categorized them into ninety chapters, namely: persons, meanings, dharmas, and events. 'Person' is like Pūrṇa; 'meaning' is like contemplating emptiness; 'dharma' is like the three designations; 'event' is like the deeds of Māra; and it is also like Cunda's lamentations in the *Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra*. Furthermore, it was not only the translator, but also an assistant to the translator—namely, Lord Xie who made additions. One may understand by analogy that [the chapters of] the various sūtras were either not proclaimed by the Buddha himself, or added by the compilers and translators. Next, the present sūtra is properly cited. As the 'Medicine King Chapter' says: 'The Buddha addressed Star King Flower: If there is someone who hears this Chapter on the Former Deeds of Medicine King Bodhisattva and can rejoice in accord and praise its goodness,' and so forth. It also says: 'Star King Flower! With this Chapter on the Former Deeds of Medicine King Bodhisattva, I entrust it to you.' Down to saying: 'If there is a woman who upholds this chapter, after this female body is exhausted, she will never again receive one.' At the end of the 'Gadgadasvara Chapter', the compilers of the sūtra state: 'When this Chapter on the Coming and Going of Gadgadasvara was spoken, forty-two thousand sons of heaven attained the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas.' At the end of the 'Universal Gate Chapter', the compilers also state: 'When the Buddha preached this Universal Gate Chapter, eighty-four thousand sentient beings all generated the aspiration for peerless anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi.' Down to the ends of the 'Dhāraṇī' and 'Encouragement of King Subhavyūha' chapters, it is the same in every case; hence it says 'and so forth.'

1.21

Regarding 'having not heard of translators [doing so]', this is absent from the present sūtra; if there were neither the words of the compilers nor the personal proclamations of the Buddha, it would seem to belong to the translators, but since the various chapters in the text were already complete beforehand, one must know that they were all established by the compilers, and it is evident that there was reliably no translator [who added them]. Therefore, most of the other remaining chapters of the present sūtra were established by the compilers; because there was no mention of the benefit of hearing the chapter, there is simply no concluding statement after the chapter.

1.22

Subsuming the general under the specific should possess fourfold explanations; because sentence by sentence within the general preface the four [siddhāntas] such as causes and conditions are all preserved, whereas at the time of the specific preface one or two may be lacking, the explanation of the word 'preface' lacks the four meanings. If the two prefaces are contrasted, establishing them by meaning is also permissible, for the two prefaces differ as mundane. The specific preface giving rise to joyous admiration is for the sake of persons; the general preface verifying faith and removing doubt is antidotal. The two prefaces introducing the main body is the supreme truth. As for the three such as according to the teaching, they are fully as in the explanation of the three sections. If one treats the general preface separately, the five meanings differ as mundane. They all generally remove doubt as antidotal; they all generally give rise to faith for the sake of persons; they all generally introduce the main body as the supreme truth. The remaining three and the specific preface can be known by analogy to this.

1.23

From 'The Buddha responded to conditions' onward, wishing to divide and section the text of the sūtra, the presence, absence, merits, and faults of dividing the text are first distinguished. Therein are four parts: first, citing various sūtras and treatises in general; second, the faults of ancient lecturers; third, clarifying that chapters are not structural divisions; fourth, generally showing division and sectioning. The first text completely does not divide the text. Second, regarding the ancient faults, the lecturers from antiquity onward mostly did not divide into sections, until Master Dao’an came; without distinguishing whether a sūtra was Great or Small [Vehicle], it was first divided into three sections, namely: preface, main body, and transmission. *Dai* means danger. It is not the main meaning here; it also means nearly (*ji*, *ju-yi* cut, meaning close), as the *Xijing Fu* says, 'a human life is nearly lost.' 'Beginning and end' refers to the start and finish of a section. Once divided into sections, both the great and the small each have an overall and specific beginning and end. Third, from 'Furthermore, what the Buddha preached' onward, the intent clarifies that establishing chapters only accords with categories of meaning and not textual forms; therefore, the two forms of verse and prose cannot establish chapters, nor are they structural divisions. Fourth, from 'Ekottara' onward, sūtras and treatises also have precedents of division and sectioning; furthermore, when propagating the sūtra in the final age, one must recognize guest and host, so the three piṭakas of the Hīnayāna each have their divisions. The preface to the *Ekottarikāgama* says: 'Ānanda spoke sūtras in immeasurable numbers; now we briefly gather them into one cluster; I now divide them into three portions: sūtras are one portion, vinaya two portions, and abhidharma sūtras are three portions. Sūtras shall now be made into four sections: the first is named Ekottara, the second is named Madhyama, the third is named Dīrgha, and the *Ratnamālā* and miscellaneous sūtras are placed behind as the fourth portion, thus using the four Āgamas as four sections'; hence we now follow this and borrow it for division and sectioning.

1.24

Regarding 'the vinaya was divided into five divisions', during the one hundred years after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, Upagupta upheld the Dharma, and the sentient beings he transformed did not argue right and wrong, but possessed only a single division of the Vinaya Piṭaka, namely the Eighty Recitations. One hundred years later, Upagupta had five disciples, each holding to a single view and unable to harmonize as one; thereupon they divided the single piṭaka into five differences, like breaking a gold staff without losing the use of gold. Dividing the text now is also like this: although it is divided into many sections, one knows that the great purport was originally one; contrasting what is divided with the origin, it says 'and so forth.'

1.25

Regarding 'the abhidharma was divided into six feet', the text itself cites the six pāramitās of the *Āgama*, not the *Six Feet Treatises* (*Ṣaḍpādābhidharma*); as the *Ekottarāgama* says: 'Bodhisattvas give rise to the Mahāyāna teachings; the Tathāgata expounds these diverse teachings; the Honored One among Men speaks of the six limit-transcending pāramitās: giving, upholding precepts, patience, diligence, meditation, and wisdom whose power is like the new moon; when one attains the limit-transcending, one beholds all dharmas.' What the Buddha spoke in diversity does not go beyond these six; this also resembles the intention of dividing sections. If one were to take the *Six Feet Treatises*, it is completely not the present meaning. As it says: first, the *Saṅgītiparyāyapāda*, eighteen thousand verses, composed by Śāriputra; second, the *Dharmaskandhapāda*, six thousand verses, composed by Mahāmaudgalyāyana (these two treatises were translated by the Tang Tripiṭaka Master); third, the *Prajñaptipāda*, eighteen thousand verses, composed by Kātyāyanīputra (the Tang Tripiṭaka Master brought it but did not translate it; these three treatises were composed while the Buddha was in the world). Fourth, the *Vijñānakāyapāda*, seven thousand verses, composed by Devaśarman, one hundred years after the Buddha's passing. Fifth, the *Prakaraṇapāda*, three hundred years after the Buddha's passing, composed by Vasumitra. Sixth, the *Dhātukāyapāda*, six thousand verses, also composed by Vasumitra at the end of three hundred years. Kātyāyanīputra composed the *Jñānaprasthāna*; because the former six were few in meaning, they were like feet, while the *Jñānaprasthāna* was abundant in meaning, like the body; but having the feet precede and the body follow makes the division of meaning awkward; moreover, these six treatises were all brought by the Tang Tripiṭaka Master and did not exist in the Sui period, so it would not be fitting to refer to them. Furthermore, in the absence of section marks, it is refuted by saying: since the former three treatises were in the Buddha's time, how could they conversely serve as feet for treatises after the Buddha's passing? It is not necessarily so that the body wholly subsumes the feet. Furthermore, the *Tattvasiddhi-śāstra* says, 'As spoken in the Six Feet Abhidharma,' which refers to the Six Feet Abhidharma treatises, so it does not pair them with the *Jñānaprasthāna* as the body; mentioning 'faculties and natures' and so forth briefly lists the skandhas (*skandhaka*), where *skandha* is a Western sound translated here as 'aggregate of dharmas'. Because a single work is divided into eight aggregates, namely: karma, defilement, knowledge, concentration, faculties, great, view, and miscellaneous. When the text says 'faculties, natures, path, and concentration', 'faculties and natures' is faculties, and 'path' is knowledge; it merely briefly raises three, and the rest are as listed above. The *Great Commentary* says: 'Question: Who composed the eight skandhas? Whence did the sixfold abhidharma emerge? Answer: While the Buddha was present, there was no fault. One hundred years after his passing, King Aśoka assembled the treatise masters, and because of this distinct schools arose; those of sharp faculties thoroughly read the three piṭakas, and wishing to explain the Buddha's sūtras, composed the eight skandhas; later, various disciples, for the sake of future generations who could not completely understand, composed abbreviated abhidharmas; the first one who composed them was Kātyāyana.'

1.26

From 'Vasubandhu' onward, next it cites that the present commentary (*Saddharmapuṇḍarīkôpadeśa*) has seven consummations of merit, five manifestations, and so forth, to serve as examples of dividing into sections. Regarding the seven merits, the commentary says: 'The very first chapter of this Dharma-gate clarifies seven kinds of consummations of merit: first is the consummation of the preface. Second is the consummation of the assembly. Third, from preaching the Mahāyāna sūtra for the bodhisattvas onward, is the consummation of the arrival of the time when he wishes to preach; if he preached the *Sūtra of Immeasurable Meanings*, that is the arrival of the time when he wishes to preach the *Lotus Sūtra*. Fourth, from having preached this sūtra onward, is named the consummation of abiding in deportment in accord with the preached Dharma, because entering samādhi is called abiding in deportment. Fifth, from emitting the light onward, is named the consummation of relying on the cause of preaching, because by emitting light one sees the preaching in other lands. Sixth, from Maitreya's doubtful thought onward, is named the consummation of the great assembly wishing to hear the Dharma being manifest before them; because of asking, there is answering, hence it says wishing to hear. Seventh, from Mañjuśrī answering the question onward, is named the consummation of answering the question.' The commentary says: 'In the consummation of the preface, there are again two kinds: first, supreme among all Dharma-gates, namely [the words] "Thus [have I heard]" and so on.' By this we verify that the author of the commentary fully acknowledged this single work to be supreme among Dharma-gates before designating 'Thus' and so on as supreme among all Dharma-gates; 'all Dharma-gates' refers to the teachings of the entire lifetime; otherwise, how could one explain the word 'all'? Since it is the highest among the teachings of the entire lifetime, it is fully as in the text praising the teaching in the 'Medicine King Chapter'. The six consummations below each have their divisions. As for the five manifestations, the commentary also speaks of five divisions: first is the division praising the supreme wondrousness of the Dharma. Second, from 'Since I became a Buddha' onward, is the division praising the merit of the Dharma teacher. Third, from 'At that time in the assembly' onward, is the division where the assembly of the wise resolves their doubts. Fourth, from 'The Buddha told Śāriputra' onward, is the division of fixing predictions. Fifth, from 'Śāriputra, the Buddhas appear in the five defilements' onward, is the division of cutting off doubt.

1.27

From 'Hexi' onward, this properly clarifies sectioning. For Hexi, see his standard biography; Yao of Jiangdong was from Xiaoshan Temple in Wuxing (fully as in the separate biography).

1.28

Regarding 'Guangzhai became even more minute', for instance, Dharma Master Dong'an (Dharma Master Kuang of Yong'an Temple in Dongyang of the Tang) lectured on the Three Treatises, the *Lotus Sūtra*, and other sūtras, and composed commentaries and subcommentaries on them. When he entered extinction on the fifteenth day of the first month in the thirteenth year of the Zhenguan era, he curled back three fingers, indicating a person of the third fruit. He authored a four-fascicle *Commentary on the Lotus Sūtra*. In the beginning it says: 'Since the Liang and Chen dynasties, among those interpreting the *Lotus Sūtra*, Guangzhai alone held preeminence, and later scholars followed him like rolling thunder without exception. Although Master Fa’yun has passed away, his written works still remain; I have drilled and looked up to them for years, but saw only chaotic words and phrases, and redundant, overlapping sections; probing his textual meaning, I could not comprehend the main purport. Now, setting myself against Master Yun's meanings to investigate the reality of the Dharma, that the Great Master specifically refuted him indeed had good reason.' Therefore, we know that Master Yun became increasingly prolix compared to predecessors; our school abides in the middle, free of those two faults, merely preserving the great purport without engaging in tedious fragmentation.

1.29

From 'dense mist' onward, Zhāng’ān rebukes the ancients. *Fen* refers to heavy snow and dense fog; it can obscure the pure qi of the great void, causing the three luminaries to hide and lose their radiance. Therefore, fragmenting and confusing the textual divisions causes one to lose the great path of the sūtra, and the three tracks are concealed and without use. A ford (*jin*) is a crossing place. If one divides into minute, fragmented sections, it is unsuitable for one who seeks the sūtra's purport; like someone asking the way at a crossroad, not answering where the enquirer is going, but instead expounding extensively on thoroughfares and avenues, it is therefore not the essential point of the questioner. Tanluan, a man of the Northern Qi, rebuked this, saying: 'Subdividing the text of the sūtra into minute sections is like smoke and clouds being tossed by a violent wind.' *Yang* means flying in the wind. 'Obscuring the great void, mingling with whetstones' and so on: according to that [text], it should be written with the characters for 'articles and regulations' (*tiaoli*), meaning that the analytical headings are like dust; or perhaps he altered the words, borrowing the momentum of the expression, so it is not completely identical with that. Fine sand and stone are called *di* (pronounced *zhi*); coarse ones are called *li*; the mixed dust flying along with them is the same as that obscuring smoke.

1.30

Regarding the words “If one goes to excess,” and so forth: judging the ancient [commentators] by this, [whether they were too detailed or too brief,] they fell into error in both ways. Thus, even Tanluan did not entirely approve of chopping up the sūtra text into fragments. Regarding the two interpretations of Master Long of Mount Lu: the former says “the skillful means of the body,” and so forth, meaning that from the “Precious Stūpa” chapter backwards, [the Buddha] spoke of the provisional and spoke of the real, also regarding the provisional prior to the Lotus [Sūtra] as the skillful means of speech, and reaching the Lotus [Sūtra] as the reality of speech. From the “Precious Stūpa” chapter onwards, the ancient buddha reveals his whole body and the present buddha gathers his emanation bodies; the ancient body invites the present body, and the present body approaches the ancient body; both bodies sit together in the stūpa, manifesting that the Dharma is identical in present and ancient times—this is the skillful means of the body. In the “Life Span” [chapter], [the buddhahood] attained in the remote past surpasses [the sands of even multiple] dust-mote [eons], while [the attainment] intermediate [between then and now] is set aside and [the awakening at] Gayā is not the real—this is the reality of the body. The principle is necessarily so, but establishing one side exclusively constitutes an error: could the earlier part be without body, and how could the later part be without speech? If one simply relies on the provisional and the real, origin and traces, then both body and speech are spontaneously encompassed. If one only speaks of body and speech, the matters of origin and traces become obscured; only when one discusses origin and traces are body and speech naturally made apparent. Therefore, in the “Life Span” [chapter] it says: “I have spoken sometimes of my own body, sometimes of another’s body”; thus body and speech are both complete. Since from the “Skillful Means” [chapter] onwards speech must entail a body, why must one give rise to confusion? In the second interpretation, the text of the Profound Meaning extensively refutes it, because here both gates each possess cause and effect.

1.31

Regarding “Yin of Zhongxing in the Qi”: Zhongxing is the name of a monastery (the details are as in his separate biography). Xuanbing took the Devadatta and Upholding chapters in the transmission section of the trace gate, together with chapters such as Supernatural Powers in the transmission section following the Life Span of the origin gate, as jointly constituting the fruition portion, with fruition residing in the origin gate. Furthermore, he divided out “protecting and upholding”; since “protecting and upholding” is merely an alternative name for transmission, this is inadmissible.

1.32

Regarding “There is also a master,” and so forth: this master’s intention was to take the main body of the sūtra as the essence, but he located it only in the main body of the trace [gate], failing to recognize that he instead turned the main body of the origin gate into transmission, saying that it consists of the merit of receiving and upholding. While the traces may arguably share commonalities with previous teachings, the origin is forever utterly different from prior sūtras; to turn around and mix this eternal difference into transmission is why his view cannot be used.

1.33

The master with four sections merely joined the second and third to make the main body of the sūtra, which accords closely with the sūtra text; he only lacked the intention to establish the two gates of origin and traces, each having three sections. Since the designations were missing, the meaning was likely incomplete. As for Guangzhai’s twenty-four sections: they are fully found in his commentary. The expression “and so forth” (yunyun) resembles the dispersing of vapor, like clouds in the sky that cannot be swiftly measured. The intention is to say that what has not yet been spoken below remains as manifold as clouds; the same applies below. Where Guangzhai’s divisions of the text are listed below, for the most part they are largely the same with minor differences compared to our school.

1.34

Regarding “orchids and chrysanthemums”: Zhāng’ān is refuting attachments. When the Buddha spoke to meet the capacities of beings, it was fitting and appropriate to that moment; later generations divided it into sections to express the principle thereby. Obstinate clinging generates disputation, both advancing and retreating fall into error. Even if there are differences and agreements, they are like orchids and chrysanthemums compared to each other; he still allows those who grasp the import to speak. Even if it does not entirely contradict the holy intention, it remains ultimately human opinion. If it roughly attains general utility, there is no need for bitter contention, for fear of losing the four benefits. When the Book of Changes says, “Its odor is like the orchid,” the ancients consistently used “odor” (chou) to mean scent.

1.35

Regarding “Tiantai”: Zhāng’ān sets this against the ancients, hence speaks of it separately. Regarding the name Tiantai, its details are as in the Notes on Great Concentration and Insight, the present Notes, and so forth: although both are preserved, the first intention is provisionally adopted; hence it says “from the former.”

1.36

Regarding “Question: How can one sūtra…” and so forth: the question's intention, since both interpretations are preserved, asks what harm is there in the latter? The reason why, between the two interpretations, he does not exclusively follow the latter interpretation is that transmission was provisionally established before the main body of the origin gate, which was only a preliminary formulation.

1.37

Regarding “The answer says: In the Avataṃsaka, the assembly is gathered place by place,” and so forth: the places and assemblies are fully as cited in the Annotations; in every place of assembly there is first a preface and next the main body, with the adornment of the dwelling place functioning as the preface. Saying “gather the assembly” means that, as in the “Wondrous Adornments,” “Names,” and “Awakening by Light” chapters, and in each and every assembly, the assembly is first gathered, with the intention of explaining that a single sūtra possesses multiple specific prefaces. “In the Āgama every section is like this”: this explains that a single sūtra has multiple general prefaces. Those four Āgamas each combine many small sūtras to form one collection, and each small sūtra does not exceed a sheet or half a sheet of paper; only the text of the Sūtra of Traversing in the Dīrgha Āgama consists of two fascicles on its own. There is also the Great Discourse Sutra, which constitutes a single fascicle by itself; at the beginning of each and every sūtra the five elements are placed. Since Āgama is used as the general title, the small sūtras within the collection are called “sections.” “In the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā [Prajñāpāramitā], there are earlier and later entrustments”: this clarifies that within a single sūtra there are multiple transmissions; thus in the second fascicle there is the chapter on “Repeated Instruction,” which is the earlier entrustment, and in the twenty-seventh fascicle there is the chapter on “Entrustment,” which is the later entrustment. According with those three sūtras, what harm is there in having two prefaces? Regarding “the five elements are not placed”: this resolves an implicit objection. The objection says: If so, why does it not resemble those Āgamas, so that the present origin gate would also place “Thus [have I heard],” and so forth? The intention of the resolution is that, although it is explained that the origin gate of the present sūtra is not the head, it is still necessary to resolve the difficulty regarding the Āgamas: the Āgamas have multiple general prefaces, and the origin gate should also be so; however, because the Āgamas combine distinct sūtras and are therefore not subsequent to a head, they may also establish the five matters. The present sūtra is a single, identical sūtra, hence it has only specific [prefaces] and no general [prefaces]; therefore it is exemplified solely by the Avataṃsaka. Thus the causal origins of the Āgamas are distinct in each case, whereas the causal origin of the present sūtra is not different; therefore the origin gate does not establish the five elements. “The trace gate has only a single transmission”: comparing the trace to the origin, and drawing an analogy from the origin to the trace, the origin gate is not the head and therefore only establishes a specific preface; the trace gate is not the end and therefore has only a single transmission, having only encouragement to uphold and no entrustment. Hence from the “Dharma Master” to “Peaceful Practices” chapters, there are five chapters in all that explain that the merit of propagating the sūtra is profound in order to encourage transmission. In the origin gate, first the three and a half chapters starting with the five chapters after extinction serve as the transmission of encouragement to uphold; from “Supernatural Powers” onwards there are eight chapters in all that explain the transmission of entrustment. After the trace gate, since the sūtra has not yet concluded, it is not the time of transmission and entrustment is not yet needed. The phrase “so it is said” refers to the line-by-line interpretation that follows.

1.38

Regarding “line-by-line interpretation”: even our current, general manner of explaining the sūtra differs from various perspectives, not to mention that the Lotus division also differs from other sūtras; therefore, line by line and phrase by phrase, it is explained using four perspectives. Still fearing that later students would not comprehend the four perspectives, four tiers of explanation of the four perspectives are provided in advance. Regarding “grasping the import”: when it comes to the line-by-line interpretation of the text, sometimes the four explanations are not completely presented, retaining only one or two, while the rest are to be known by inference.

1.39

Next, in explaining the rationale for the four perspectives, the initial intention of the question is: if it is brief it should be only one, and if extensive it should be immeasurable; since it is neither extensive nor brief, neither of the two paths is established. “Fei” means not. Why is this interpretation made using only these four?

1.40

In the answer, a single passage contains two points: first, it generally clarifies the rationale for the four meanings; second, it clarifies the rationale for each of the four. Both points can be considered hitting the middle: the first is that there are only four, neither too many nor too few. Next, from “causes and conditions” onwards, it clarifies that each one is neither lost nor errant. Hence, although one is in the middle, it must still reach four; since the four subsume all meanings sufficiently, there is no need to exceed them. Even if one were to exceed them, they are subsumed within the four meanings; therefore both four and one are named “hitting the middle.” As with the ten subtleties and the like, each subtlety also possesses the four perspectives, and ten also enters four while still being called hitting the middle. Now only these four are required, hence it is termed the middle. Therefore the first point says that if extensive, it would be [immeasurable], and so on. If the first meaning were absent, one would not even be distinct from non-Buddhist views, to say nothing of the fact that the term “causes and conditions” applies generally to the whole of [the Buddha’s] teaching career, beginning from the hells and ending with the buddha realm, and in between covering the sudden and gradual, whether teachings or flavors. Therefore, one must know that the four siddhāntas of the present great matter are not other stimuli and responses: the opening and revealing of the four siddhāntas is the single path without exterior; the four siddhāntas of the remote past are not present in other sūtras; the four siddhāntas of contemplating the mind are all-encompassing within a single contemplation; and the four of person, principle, and so forth can be seen by analogy with the teaching. Because these four siddhāntas run through beginning to end, the three such as according to the teachings must also be comprehensively recounted, the meaning of which can be understood. If the second meaning were absent, one could not distinguish the one-sided from the lesser; therefore, using the four and eight [teachings] to select, open, and discard, in comparison with the previous collections and teachings, only now is it the real, and all expressive teachings no longer bear divergent designations; thus it must be clarified in order to manifest the wondrous scripture. Without the third meaning, who would know its transcendent eminence? The bodies and lands discussed throughout the period of the teaching, intermediate and present, were all provisional acts of the traces; pointing back to that [awakening under] Mahābhijñā-jñānābhibhū is like two nights ago. Having previously been ignorant of the esoteric teaching and bewildered by the trace body, only upon reaching this point are [such doubts] dispelled, yet those who stubbornly stick to old ways remain benighted. Without the fourth meaning, by what means would one discern the efficacy of the expressive teaching? What would serve as the basis of the practice long since accomplished? Therefore, line by line and phrase by phrase enters the mind to become contemplation. Hence it says: “Contemplation harmonizes with the sūtra and is not counting another’s treasure.” Only then does one know that the single work of Great Concentration and Insight is the fish trap and hare snare for the Lotus Samādhi. Only if one grasps this meaning will one accord with the sūtra’s purport; only by combining these four meanings can one briefly manifest the ultimate destination of the whole work. Hence it says, “If brief, the meaning is incomplete”; one should know that two or three are still too brief, so how could one suffice? Reaching four hits the middle and makes the meaning easy to understand; thus when every single line and phrase obtains these four meanings, it causes each phrase to be distinct from other teachings, and then the meaning of the Lotus is truly not difficult; hence it says “easy to understand.”

1.41

Next, from “causes and conditions” onwards, it clarifies the distinct explanations of each, among which the first is causes and conditions; next, from “if ten directions” onwards, is according to the teachings; next, from “if responding to capacities” onwards, is origin and traces; next, from “if seeking” onwards, is contemplating the mind. Regarding the first, causes and conditions: the initial passage provides the direct explanation. From “thus” at the beginning to “departed” at the end, none is not the true mutual interaction of stimulus and response; therefore we know that the stimulus and response of the present sūtra are wondrous. Prior to the Lotus [Sūtra], the lesser and dull capacities entirely lacked receptivity; the principle is present yet they are deluded, so it is called “although near”; their capacity had arisen but was not yet attuned, so it says “not seen.” The compassion spanning beginning to end is called the power of good roots; because matter and principle are distinct, it is called “far.” Meeting without premeditation is called “naturally communicating.” Therefore, previously the wondrous path of stimulus and response did not interact; the differences among the various collections, the superiority and inferiority of the masters of the teachings, and the differences in the gradual or sudden accommodations applied to beings—each and every one was the intention of stimulus and response. Although generally called stimulus and response, the manifest benefit was not yet complete; although generally called the four siddhāntas, there were distinctions of shallow and deep. Whether combining or standing alone, expanding or contracting without uniformity, only upon arriving at the Lotus [Sūtra] do they become of a single flavor. Speaking of “lacking receptivity” uses past absence in contrast to explain present possession.

First 41 of 197 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

法華文句記 — Classical Chinese