法華文句記 10

English (machine translation) 10

Language: English

10.1

Composed by the Tang Tiantai Śramaṇa Zhànrán

10.2

Remaining Exposition of the "Life Span" Chapter

Proclaiming extinction in the traces generally pertains to the three bodies, and again has two [parts]: first, general establishment; from "As in the Vimalakīrti..." downward is the explanation. In the explanation, it first clarifies that the three bodies, not being extinguished, proclaim extinction; next, it clarifies that the three bodies constantly abide and are not extinguished; third, it clarifies that the three bodies are neither arising nor extinguished. Because they are not extinguished, proclaiming extinction is not extinction; because they are neither arising nor extinguished, it is called non-extinction; to speak of them comprehensively reveals non-extinction. The first text itself has three [parts]; first, clarifying the dharmakāya, which has six [parts]. First, borrowing the text of the Vimalakīrti to establish the thesis:

10.4

Question:

10.5

Regarding the dharmakāya here, why cite the shared teaching meaning from the Kātyāyana section of the Vimalakīrti?

10.6

Answer:

10.7

That section on Kātyāyana has five lines in total. The first four lines are called Tripiṭaka and their meaning is shared; the last one line is named shared across the four teachings, but its meaning is restricted to the Mahāyāna gate. Since the concluding text connects to both the perfect and separate [teachings], the first four lines conclude as shared and do not pertain to the separate and perfect, while that one line, although concluding as shared, still connects to the separate and perfect. Now, following the shared meaning, it succeeds in forming the perfect. If one grasps this intention, the various lines will be clear; hence it is briefly cited.

10.8

"Dharmas originally do not arise, and therefore there is nothing to be extinguished" is the meaning of tranquil extinction. Saying "proclaims extinction" refers to this proclamation of tranquil extinction; it is an extinction that extinguishes arising, not an extinction identical to arising. Since the extinction identical to arising is non-extinction, you should know that this extinction is called non-extinction. The dharmakāya constantly abides and has neither extinction nor non-extinction; now, speaking of tranquil extinction corresponds in meaning to proclaiming extinction. From "Why is this?" downward explains the intention of proclaiming extinction: for those who do not understand, it speaks of tranquil extinction; if one understands tranquil extinction, it turns back to point to arising. If it entirely pointed to arising, there would be no benefit for the indolent; hence it must proclaim extinction. Third, from "If one says..." downward, it correlates and explains using "tranquil and illuminating" from the Yingluo [jing]. However, in that sūtra, illuminating the tranquil is taken as equal enlightenment, and tranquil and illuminating is taken as wondrous enlightenment. That is spoken in terms of the teaching path of the separate teaching, so two lines are divided to correspond to the two stages. Now, borrowing the terms of the ultimate fruit of the separate teaching to apply across the initial and the final, it explains the perfect teaching's being extinguished while not being extinguished. Fourth, from "Now, the dharmakāya..." downward explains the meaning of proclaiming extinction. Due to proclaiming extinction, wisdom arises and delusion is extinguished; this is discussed in terms of the mutual contrast of phenomena and principle. As for "If the deluded mind..." and so on: viewed superficially, the phrasing seems the same as the saṃbhogakāya, but its intention is distinct. Here it specifically clarifies that the delusion being extinguished is the essence of the dharmakāya; that the essence has arising and extinction is truly due to wisdom, so it relies on that which reveals to make manifest that which is revealed. Fifth, from "Extinguishing delusion..." downward, it next evaluates the separate and perfect. The separate teaching still belongs to impermanent extinction, because in the ten abodes, identical to the Hīnayāna, only after extinguishing the delusions of the three realms does the understanding of conventional wisdom emerging into provisionality arise, and entering the middle is also like this. Now, in terms of the perfect teaching, it proclaims tranquil extinction. As for "This..." and so forth: although the separate and perfect are not the same, both are called arising and extinction; though both are arising and extinction, all are in terms of the nature of principle. Sixth, from "If there were no..." downward clarifies the conditions for proclaiming extinction. The idea is: coming from delusion and coming from understanding, it therefore says "delusion and understanding." Speaking strictly, it only takes understanding as the condition for proclamation, because in both the separate and perfect teachings understanding arises from delusion.

10.9

Next, in terms of the saṃbhogakāya, there are also six [parts]: first, the heading. Next, from "Who has..." downward, it directly explains that delusion and wisdom originally have no arising or extinction, taking this as the essence of the saṃbhogakāya being free of arising and extinction. Third, from "This generally..." downward concludes the essence of the saṃbhogakāya, clarifying that brightness is wisdom and darkness is ignorance; their essential natures are entirely identical and therefore do not eliminate each other, and since they do not eliminate each other, they are not extinguished. Fourth, from "Sentient beings..." downward is the reason for proclaiming extinction. Fifth, from "Having afflictions..." downward clarifies the marks of proclaiming extinction; the reason they mutually receive the name of extinction is that extinction is in terms of phenomena. Sixth, from "Is it not..." downward concludes proclaiming extinction.

10.10

Third, regarding the nirmāṇakāya, there is also first the heading. Next, from "The response should be..." downward clarifies non-extinction. Third, from "Merely for the sake of..." downward clarifies proclaiming extinction.

10.11

Next, from "Moreover, the dharmakāya..." downward, in clarifying the non-extinction of the three bodies: first, in the non-extinction of the dharmakāya, the statement "in its very essence" does not look toward the other bodies, because the other two bodies must look toward the Dharma. If one brings the essence to look toward the function, the function conversely becomes extinguished.

10.12

Next, regarding the non-extinction of the saṃbhogakāya, there are two [parts]: first, repeating the previous explanation. Non-extinction is the saṃbhoga matching the Dharma; since the Dharma is not extinguished, the saṃbhoga is also not extinguished. Next, from "In terms of principle..." downward explains by contrasting phenomena and principle: first, in terms of principle there is no extinction; next, from "Taking it in terms of existence..." downward, in terms of phenomena there is extinction; from the side of principle, it is non-extinction. In the first part, in terms of principle, when it says "Does it do so by reaching..." and so on, it examines and questions delusion and wisdom through the four propositions, which still examines in terms of essence: delusion is not yet extinguished, and the essence of wisdom has no destruction. This employs the objection of Siṃhanāda in the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, where he objected: "If vipaśyanā destroys afflictions, why cultivate śamatha again?" The Buddha questioned him in return: "If you say that wisdom can destroy afflictions, does it destroy by reaching them, or can it destroy without reaching them? If it destroys by reaching them, ordinary people could destroy them. If it destroys without reaching them, the initial thought should destroy them. If the initial thought does not destroy them, subsequent ones would not destroy them either. If it destroys by both reaching and not reaching, this principle is not correct. Investigating in this way, who has the wisdom that can destroy afflictions?" As for the words "together or alone," the Buddha said: "Just as one blind person cannot see forms, even if accompanied by a crowd of blind people they still cannot see." Wisdom and concentration together or separate can be known by following this explanation. This means that the wisdom of the saṃbhogakāya cannot extinguish delusion. Next, from "Taking it in terms of having wisdom..." downward, it further determines it in terms of phenomena: wisdom can extinguish delusion, and wisdom is not called extinguished.

10.13

Third, regarding clarifying non-extinction in terms of the nirmāṇakāya, it also looks toward the dharma[kāya] and saṃbhoga[kāya]. Because the saṃbhoga is in terms of the dharma, the previous dharmakāya merely said "in its very essence"; now this nirmāṇakāya, benefiting beings without interruption, is also non-extinction. Therefore it says, "Its responsive functioning is constantly thus and never ceases," because the three bodies correspond to one another. Since the dharma and saṃbhoga are omnipresent, the essence of the response is also omnipresent; whether the capacity [of beings] is present or absent, the responsive dharma is constantly so. If this were not the case, although one explains the perfect and constant, it would still be identical to arising and extinction. As for the statement "If sentient beings are not exhausted, it does not pass into extinction": at the time of passing into extinction, beings are in truth not exhausted, so what is its meaning? One should question in return: verifying that beings are not exhausted, it does not pass into extinction; thus proclaiming passage into extinction is for the sake of those who do not generate the thought that it is difficult to encounter, not because beings are exhausted. Therefore we know that the nirmāṇakāya constantly abides and is not extinguished; why only the dharmakāya? If one does not understand, the dharma and saṃbhoga are also extinguished; why only the response?

10.14

Third, clarifying that the three bodies are neither arising nor extinguished: the dharmakāya, the same as before, does not admit of arising and extinction. As for the saṃbhogakāya: wisdom itself understands wisdom, and there is none that can extinguish it; since wisdom belongs to the active agent and is neither arising nor extinguished, how could it cause delusion to either arise or be extinguished? As for the nirmāṇakāya: because it is continuous, it does not arise; because it is continuous, it is not extinguished. When it merely says "not arising [and] extinguished" for the three bodies, the character "not" carries through to the character "extinguished" below, which means neither arising nor extinguished; merely for the convenience of phrasing does it simply say "not arising [and] extinguished." "And so forth" explains the meaning of the three bodies being neither arising nor extinguished, because they are mutually interfused. Based on this single sentence of text—the nirmāṇakāya's "not being extinguished yet proclaiming extinction"—it broadly opens up the three bodies having extinction, having non-extinction, and being neither arising nor extinguished. If this were not so, arising and extinction would be fixed; how could it be called the three bodies being neither identical nor separate? If one grasps this meaning, throughout the entirety of the teachings of [the Buddha's] lifetime, merely hearing a single phrase proclaiming extinction, one will immediately recognize the meaning of all extinction and non-extinction, as well as the differences in extinction and non-extinction according to how many bodies are possessed. Only then will one comprehend that the ground of origin is originally free of arising and extinction, and only then will one comprehend that the intermediate and present teaching paths have extinction and non-extinction, because the teaching of the ground of origin and all the teachings of the traces in the intermediate and present do not go beyond the three bodies and four propositions.

10.15

In explaining that not [proclaiming] extinction brings harm, there are two parts: first, explaining the reasons for proclaiming [extinction]; second, correlating and explaining harm and benefit by means of the four siddhāntas. Here, [the explanation] is provisionally given in terms of the nirmāṇabuddha. From “due to this, sentient beings” to “the two goods are harmed and do not arise”: because extinction is not proclaimed, for those who are indolent, neither the two goods of the true [realm] nor the middle [realm] arise or grow; views and thoughts that have already arisen are still not severed, so how could afflictions distinct [from them] that have not yet arisen be severed? Because afflictions are not severed, only harm is done to the two goods of the true and the middle. What has already arisen, what has not yet arisen, and so forth are analyzed in full as in the notes to the seventh fascicle of the Cessation and Contemplation. Next, from “if one relies upon” to “supreme truth”: this correlates and explains proclaiming extinction by means of the four siddhāntas; therefore, proclaiming extinction has the benefits of the four siddhāntas. Because of proclaiming extinction, good arises and evil is eradicated; thus the four siddhāntas are divided to correspond to good and evil. Regarding “the supreme truth eradicates the unarisen” and so forth: the supreme truth siddhānta can see the middle way and can destroy ignorance; therefore, ignorance is called the evil not yet arisen. Regarding “counteraction eradicates evil already arisen”: generally speaking, counteraction cures present evil. Regarding “the worldly [siddhānta] causes unarisen good to arise”: joyful aspiration is at the beginning, and its aiming mind is distant, just as hearing the Dharma gives rise to joy, so that subtle good will arise. Furthermore, the worldly [realm] consists of the aggregates and sense-entrances; if the aggregates and sense-entrances are transformed, the dharmakāya is revealed; therefore, the dharmakāya is called the good not yet arisen. Furthermore, at the time of joyful aspiration, the roots of good have not yet arisen, and their arising through this is called making the unarisen arise. Regarding “for the sake of persons causes good already arisen to arise”: the true truth viewed from the middle is called good already arisen; even if it has not yet arisen, viewed from the middle it is distant, so from its proximity it is called “already”. Regarding “furthermore, the worldly [siddhānta] eradicates evil already arisen”: this is further explained from proximity; it merely removes present reckonings, which can be known. Regarding “counteraction eradicates the unarisen”: because the path of counteraction is long. The passage below from “like the five aggregates of dhyāna” explains the preceding worldly [siddhānta]: as when practicing dhyāna, in order to eradicate the evil of desire, the aggregate of form arises and can eradicate the aggregate of desire; viewing realm against realm is called worldly; therefore, the aggregates of the desire realm are called evil already arisen. Corresponding to this, formless removes form, emptiness removes the three realms, and the middle eradicates transformation [birth-and-death]; with respect to the aggregate of their corresponding station, all are called already arisen, and cultivating the higher to eradicate the lower is called eradicating what has already arisen. Counteraction curing the unarisen is not explained again in the text, but although the name counteraction is the same, it extends all the way to equal enlightenment. The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra in the section on the assembly of upāsakas says: permanent, impermanent, pleasant, unpleasant, and so on. Constantly delighting in contemplating such gates of counteraction—since this is what is used as counteraction by the king of Pure Stainless Fame (Vimalakīrti), it is not near. Since extinction and non-extinction are discussed in terms of the three bodies, stimulus and response in the four siddhāntas must also be profoundly understood; that it is explained in multiple passes is precisely due to this.

10.16

In the second part, the detailed explanation, there are two: first, the reason for manifesting extinction; second, from “seeing and hearing” downward, universally explaining harm and benefit in terms of the three bodies. In the first text, “must proclaim extinction” means there is harm without benefit, because of [the Buddha’s] constant presence. Although the reason for proclaiming was explained before, its underlying cause was still not known. Next, in universally [explaining] in terms of the three bodies, first, distinct harm and benefit are explained, which is directly shown in terms of each of the three buddhas. First, there is still a general heading; next, from “thereupon claiming” downward, first regarding the dharmakāya: the dharmakāya originally has no designation of tranquil extinction; for those of overweening pride who reckon that [they] are not distinct from suchness, tranquil extinction must be proclaimed, fully as explained before, and so forth. From “furthermore, hearing” downward is in terms of the saṃbhogakāya: the former called itself suchness; this one calls itself wisdom; both reckonings are overweening pride of the Great Vehicle; however, these two forms of overweening pride are not without depth and shallowness: claiming suchness makes one a person of great shamelessness; claiming wisdom still recognizes that wisdom is needed to illuminate afflictions, but because of a lack of understanding, does not comprehend the designation of “identical”. Whenever one speaks of “identical”, it is to reveal “distinct”; just as ice is not distinct from water, in principle the ice must be melted; only when its meaning is equivalent to distinction is identity revealed. Furthermore, speaking of distinction is to accomplish identity; if they were not distinct, sentient beings would be identically buddhas, so why would there be need to cultivate the path? For the sake of those who do not recognize distinction and merely say “identical”, extinction must be proclaimed. Even one grade of equal enlightenment is severed only by buddha-wisdom; how could one on the common ground claim to be identical? The nirmāṇakāya is as in the preceding and following texts. Next, from “if one proclaims” downward, specifically explains the reason for benefit in terms of the saṃbhogakāya, again in two parts: first, proclaiming; second, benefit. In the first text, it first refers to the dharmakāya to argue for the necessity of wisdom; next, from “the sūtra says” downward, it cites scriptural teaching to raise an objection; next, it adduces a simile to resolve the objection. But when there is light there is no darkness, which proves that when there is darkness there is no light; therefore, with wisdom one severs the darkness of affliction. From “you now” downward rebukes them with principle. From “one should know” downward concludes the meaning. Because the nirmāṇakāya is visible, it is omitted. From “sentient beings” downward, all giving rise to respect for the three buddhas: because the wisdom of reward occupies the middle, since there is wisdom, it is darkly united above and accords below; if one gets to see one, it necessarily possesses all three; therefore, they give rise to reverence.

10.17

Regarding “there are ten kinds of physicians”: this comprehensively includes heterodox and orthodox, penetrating one-sided and perfect. The first three kinds are also called physicians because before the Buddha appeared, all non-Buddhists claimed to have gone forth from household life and each led an assembly; hence the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says: “The king’s territory is peaceful, leveled, and serene; it is truly a place for those who have gone forth to dwell.” In the third physician, it says “cures what has already arisen”: although severs afflictions of phenomena, one still falls into the three evil paths, fully as in the views on the fundamental kalpa and so forth, each reckoning the four dhyānas and so forth, because the severing of afflictions differs. The Āgama says: “A good physician has four [qualities]: first, thoroughly knowing the signs of illness; second, knowing the causes from which illness arises; third, thoroughly knowing recipes and remedies; fourth, ultimate non-recurrence.” However, this physician’s knowledge of illness does not exceed the internal realm; knowledge of the causes from which illness arises does not exceed environmental and primary rewards; recipes and remedies do not surpass arising, ceasing, and impermanence; and non-recurrence is merely dwelling in the two nirvāṇas; viewed against the present, this only constitutes the fourth and fifth physicians. If one extends the four terms in meaning through the various teachings, then in each teaching they differ according to their respective meanings, and even up to the perfect teaching there is no obstacle in principle. Simply citing this as evidence deeply contravenes the sūtra’s purport; it cannot even equal the two vehicles of the shared teaching, so how could it illustrate the repeated arising and ceasing of the origin gate? If one explains the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra’s mastery of the eight arts, it is only contrasted with the Hinayāna and non-Buddhists, and contrasted with this it is still distant. Regarding the sixth physician “cannot cure those who must die”: because what they realize is identical. The seventh is the distinct teaching, merely before the stages. Among the final three physicians, it first says “cannot cause recovery”: merely because one’s own entry is not deep, one cannot cause others to see the original dharmakāya; that ignorance is originally present is in meaning like an impairment; causing them to see it again is called “recovery”. Although the ninth may be called the final mind, because the eighth physician is only at the ten faiths, the ninth in principle must be from the first abodes upward to the diamond-like mind. The tenth is ultimate and called “surpassing the original”: contrasted with the former it was called “recovery”, so here it is called “surpassing”, because the ninth physician, from the first abodes up to equal enlightenment, is already called recovery. Why is this? The dharmakāya is originally present, and now one is caused to realize the original; hence it is called recovery. If so, when subtle enlightenment finishes recovery, why is it called surpassing? Because contrasted with what is obtained by nature it is effortless, cultivation is called surpassing. If so, the first abodes and above may also be called partially surpassing; why only subtle enlightenment? Because residual afflictions remain, it is tentatively called recovery; moreover, yielding to the ultimate stage, it is definitively called surpassing. Furthermore, among the seven guest physicians, the first two are inferior conveyances; because the first severs milk, it has no skillful arts. The third and fourth have arts, but apply them incompletely. That the third does not mention persons of the two vehicles is because what they cure is identical. Although the fifth and sixth are comprehensive, the benefit they bring is not much. “The latter seven” and so forth: contrasted with the ultimate, it sifts out the small. From “having arts” downward: contrasting the cause to reveal the fruit; therefore, the three penetrations and five eyes are taken as eight. The first six lack them entirely; yielding to the Buddha, it is said that they lack them. The fifth and sixth guests also obtain them partially; if abandoning the eight inversions is taken as the eight arts, the first four have a share, because the first two guest physicians also attain impermanence and so forth; hence it says “like using bitter and astringent” and so forth. Therefore, in the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra they are gathered into six flavors: suffering is sour flavor, impermanence is salty flavor, non-self is bitter flavor, pleasure is sweet flavor, self is pungent flavor, and permanence is bland flavor. In that worldly realm there are three flavors, namely impermanence, suffering, and non-self. Afflictions are firewood, and wisdom is fire; through these causes and conditions, the food of nirvāṇa is accomplished, causing all disciples to find it entirely delicious; however, the three flavors of impermanence, suffering, and non-self reside in the small, so they are called worldly. In the present text, “pungent” is feared to be a textual error; it should say “bitter, sour, and salty”. Having arts and coming from afar: among the seven guests, this refers solely to the seventh; because in that sūtra only the Tathāgata contrasted with those non-Buddhists is new and old; therefore, one knows the new physician is replete with the three penetrations and five eyes, and can use the eight such as impermanence; therefore, he first causes them to sever milk and use impermanence and so forth, and later when they ingest milk again, only then uses permanence and so forth. Now speaking from the latter, it merely says ingesting milk; if taking persons in the causal stage, it may also extend to the fifth and sixth guests. Moreover, speaking generally: bodhisattvas of the shared and distinct teachings in transmitting the teaching to śrāvakas can all expound permanence; however, regarding the eight arts, the sūtra raises eight similes to cure eight kinds of illnesses, and here it merely explains the number eight. Regarding “three penetrations”: the three clarities occupy the ultimate, so they obtain the name penetration, briefly as in the notes to the Cessation and Contemplation. From “twelve” to “prescriptions and medicines”: “text” is the prescription; “principle” is the medicine. Medicine universally applies to practice and principle, but is tentatively called “principle”. Below, explaining color and fragrance as the three samādhis as well as the three virtues is precisely for this reason. The three samādhis are practice; the three virtues are principle. Regarding “the Sūtra of Innumerable Meanings calls them king of physicians and great king of physicians”: the eighth and ninth physicians can both be called kings; only the tenth physician is uniquely called great king. From “many” down to “the children of bodhisattvas are altogether three”: tentatively setting aside the two vehicles to first specify bodhisattvas, those who have not yet given rise to the aspiration are generally taken as the first of the two vehicles, and still subsumed under the second category because they are taken as the two vehicles who have regressed from the Great. Dividing them further into three among bodhisattvas is because cultivated and nature three causes have separation and combination. The first is in terms of all sentient beings, which is precisely what the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra refers to when it calls those who have not given rise to the aspiration bodhisattvas. Although in the ten minds they are individually paired with the three causes, here the nature three combine to form the direct cause.

10.18

Question:

10.19

Why not point to wholesome and unwholesome mental factors together as the direct cause?

10.20

Answer:

10.21

Good belongs to the arousal of the mind [for bodhi], while evil belongs separately elsewhere. The general subsumes the specific, but the specific does not subsume the general. Hence we know that the general mind arises simultaneously with the mental king and must possess the three causes; it is called only the direct cause, because the worldly and world-transcending roots of goodness have not yet arisen. According to the conditioned cause mentioned below as 'slight cultivation,' one should know that any goodness such as hearing a single phrase or snapping one's fingers is subsumed under the conditioned cause. According to the citation adduced as proof, 'The sentient beings therein are all my children,' the roots of goodness of humans and devas still fall under the subsumption of the direct cause. Adducing as proof of the conditioned cause the 'thirty sons,' the roots of goodness of the two vehicles are likewise subsumed under the conditioned. If judged by today's opening [of provisional teachings], humans and devas are also included among the conditioned; based on the Mahāyāna being segregated from the Hīnayāna, the two vehicles would not be the conditioned. Now, based on the fact that those who retrogressed from the Mahāyāna yielded to those who received prophecies, entering the rank of the first abodes is called the revealing [cause]; contemplation-practice and semblance [stages] are both subsumed under the conditioned. In order to yield precedence to what comes before and after and make the direct follow the secondary, from after the initial arousal of the mind up until before the abodes, all is called the conditioned cause. Moreover, taking the direct cause merely within the mutual interpenetration of the ten generals into a hundred, establishing the affinity means that those who joined in arousing the mind already possess the revealing cause. But if one merely takes the mutual interpenetration of the ten faiths into the number of a hundred, all can generally accomplish the roots of goodness prior to the abodes; therefore, only when the minds of the ten faiths mutually interpenetrate one another does it reach a hundred. Because the roots of goodness of the three vehicles all become the semblance [stage], this still subsumes the five grades within them; after receiving the prophecy, they are manifested as attaining the partial-true. Therefore, the conditioned and the direct causes hearing the sūtra today enter into the first abode through the hundred of the ten faiths as the hundred of the partial-true, born from the mouth of the Buddha. Hearing the teaching today, they attain a portion of the Buddha-Dharma and enter the first abode. Regarding the passage from 'this also has three causes' to 'the Buddha-son of the revealing cause': in contrast to the previous conditioned and direct [causes], it ought to say merely 'revealing.' Moreover, saying 'also' means that since the preceding two each have three, now this also has three; taking its name from the predominant, it binds the three into one. As for why they are bound: sentient beings from beginningless time never lack the three; because they are in delusion, their name is established on the basis of principle, so all three within principle are subsumed under delusion. From the conditioned and the revealing [causes], one may know by analogy. Regarding 'likewise taking,' etc.: subsuming the former into the latter, since the general is subsumed into faith, faith is subsumed into the abodes; changing semblance into reality, it is likewise only a hundred, and its meaning can be understood like turning ice into water. Regarding the three causes of cultivation and nature, both the text of the Profound Meaning and the Cessation and Contemplation share this idea; only in this text are the characteristics of the text prominent. Because it is intended that the power of having heard the sūtra in the past is great, the three [causes] of nature are all bound into the direct cause, and the conditioned and revealing are each combined and both called one. Hence we know that various texts, in terms of cultivation, speak of the conditioned and revealing each having three, or merely discuss that the nature-principle possesses the three from beginning to end, as in speaking of the three paths, the three virtues, the three buddha-natures, and so forth, as fully explained in the Gate of the Non-Duality of Cultivation and Nature. Only when all nine gates are completed is this purport fully understood. If one grasps this meaning, the practice and principle of the perfect teaching will form its own skeleton and eyes, while its skin, fur, and luster will appear across the various scriptures. Thus we know that this sūtra is the teaching that determines the grand outline, and one must not interpret it merely through details and subheadings. If one grasps this meaning, then the overarching principle of our school's teachings can be penetrated; wishing to practice the contemplation gates, one will have solid ground for cultivation; hearing various bizarre theories, one's mind will remain calm; viewing the provisional sūtra teachings, one's dedication of mind will not err; harmonizing names and characteristics, one will be clear without doubt; the increase, decrease, separation, and combination of numerical dharmas can be seen; and one can affirm or negate others' explanations, bringing them back to the great path, because in the previous three teachings no such matter exists.

10.22

Regarding 'rolling around on the ground': looking from the perspective of world-transcending dharmas, it is temporarily called 'the ground.' Regarding 'analogizing the aforementioned benefit of bodily form': the text is abbreviated; it should say that above there are two: first, not being born yet manifesting birth; second, not being extinguished yet manifesting extinction. Within birth, there are two parts. Regarding 'receiving false teachers,' and so forth: all that is not world-transcending is called false. Ever since meeting within the traces, they have believed in false and heterodox teachings; because the depth of their belief in the false varies, this results in some losing [their minds] and some not losing them. Regarding 'losing the three vehicles': because their encounters and conversion within the traces differed, it is fully as the two beginnings, great and small, within the traces were both matured alike. As for 'those who did not lose their minds,' he proclaimed birth and matured them. As for 'those who lost their minds,' he proclaimed extinction and entrusted them to wait for a later time; thus, proclaiming birth and extinction is not real birth and extinction. From 'good is strong' downward, it re-explains the conditions for proclaiming birth and proclaiming extinction. As for 'strong and weak': before severing [defilements], when one is far removed from the past seeds and present manifestation is difficult to arouse, this is called evil being strong. Good being strong is analogous to this. As for 'seeing from afar': because their own fivefold [dharmakāya] is obstructed, it is far removed from the Buddha's fivefold [dharmakāya]. In 'analogizing the aforementioned benefit of sound,' where it mentions 'the two truths,' it should say the three truths; the two are general and the three are specific. Temporarily setting aside the specific to follow the general, these are the two truths within the sudden [teaching]. 'Analogizing exhortations and prohibitions' is like the great deliberation in the three cycles. The name 'medicinal herbs' is general and its auspicious meaning is not limited, so that both gradual and sudden are called 'prescriptions,' and none are not good, and so forth.

10.23

Regarding 'from the Buddha emerged the sūtras': this is analogous to the five flavors producing one another. Saying 'from the twelve divisions emerged the sūtras, up to nirvāṇa' is spoken in terms of mutual generation according to persons and times. One should know that all five flavors emerge from the Buddha; here, setting aside the sudden to follow the gradual is the reason. Regarding 'color and fragrance,' and so forth: both the gradual and the sudden generally possess morality, concentration, and wisdom. Morality is coarse, concentration is subtle, and fragrance cannot be seen; fragrance can be recognized from afar, while flavor is known only upon arrival, just as wisdom is called attained only when it reaches principle. Regarding 'this morality, concentration, and wisdom are precisely the eightfold noble path': speech, action, and livelihood are morality; right concentration is concentration; the remainder are wisdom. The present text follows the specific and temporarily belongs to the unconditioned; though the text is temporarily specific, its meaning is general. Since these are the color and fragrance of medicinal herbs, and medicinal herbs are general, how could color and fragrance be limited? Now, speaking of 'seeing buddha-nature' and matching it to the three virtues is spoken from the beginning; initially accommodating the sudden, the intention lies in the One Real. Yet the name of the three virtues is still shared with heterodox views, let alone the one-sided and Hīnayāna? It is fully as explained in the six meanings of great and small, as well as the perfect three, in Cessation and Contemplation. Regarding 'explaining the emptiness of the three vehicles,' and so forth: next, it cites the dharmas ingested within the gradual. Although possessing morality and the rest, as well as the three virtues, one must rely on emptiness and the rest to be able to practice them; therefore, each and every samādhi possesses morality, concentration, and wisdom. Hence morality and the rest in the sudden are, for the faculties of the gradual, like medicine that has not been pounded and is unfit for ingestion; though pounded, if not sifted, it is like clinging to the mark of emptiness; though sifted, if not combined, one still calculates what is constructed. Therefore, only when all three are complete and ingested can they cure illness; emptiness, the provisional, and the middle may be known by analogy with this. Although accommodating the gradual and sudden, the root lies in the Real Vehicle; fully as explained in Cessation and Contemplation after the exposition of the bodhipakkhiyā dharmas, where all dharmas are contained within the perfect three emptinesses—that is precisely this matter. Therefore, adducing both common and distinct characteristics to subsume the sudden and gradual, the gradual and single-minded [approaches] may be understood by analogy.

10.24

Regarding 'deliberation,' and so forth: the Sūtra says, 'one should devise skillful means'; 'should' means 'deliberating.' Regarding 'leaving behind the teachings of the scriptures': this is like entrusting the treasury of the Dharma. Regarding 'or taking from within Nirvāṇa,' and so forth: others say: either taking great sounds or employing spiritual powers, etc., such as after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, the golden coffin moving by itself into and out of the four gates, etc., causing all people to know that the Buddha had already entered extinction; the intention of relics and scriptures is also like this. Although various explanations differ, each is not without a principle; yet in the end none matches taking the four reliances as envoys. Regarding 'like Guptaka': Guptaka was one of the four reliances after the extinction, as fully explained in the fifth fascicle of the Notes on Cessation and Contemplation. From 'like the Legacy Teaching' downward, it clarifies the differences in attaining deliverance after the Buddha's extinction: specifically, in the future one will see Śākyamuni again. Regarding 'there are also,' etc.: it is not Śākyamuni alone, and therefore it cites the Sūtra on the Contemplation of Samantabhadra seeing Prabhūtaratna, and so forth; how does what is seen through repentance differ from encountering him directly? Regarding 'the father hearing that his sons had recovered': the words 'had recovered' do not mean that delusions were entirely severed; so long as one possesses the capacity of the three vehicles and is capable of joining, regardless of whether [delusions] are severed or not, all are called 'having recovered.'

10.25

Regarding 'constantly on Vulture Peak as the reward land': if, according to other lands, one points to the land with remainder, the reward land must refer to [the land of] enjoyment for others. Based on the words 'constantly residing,' it belongs to the land of self-enjoyment; if based on the verse's mention of jeweled adornment, then it is not one's own land, but rather the other at the fundamental time, just as the Avataṃsaka mostly clarifies enjoyment for others. Regarding 'that is the meaning of other lands above': it points to the previous text, 'I in other lands.' This temporarily points to what lies outside the reward land; in general terms, it also pervades the ten directions, whether pure or defiled. Regarding 'those who cultivate merit,' and so forth: this refers to those who are complete in the conditioned and revealing [causes]; the Sūtra says, 'then all see my body in the true reward land.' Regarding the Sūtra saying 'at times for this assembly,' and so forth: this also refers to the first bhūmi and the first abode. Regarding the Sūtra saying 'only after a long time seeing the Buddha': this refers to those whose five defilements are heavy. Regarding the Sūtra saying 'such is the power of my wisdom': it summarizes the great power.

10.26

Explanation of the Chapter on the Discrimination of Merits.

10.27

This chapter possesses prophecy, understanding, and transmission. 'Discrimination' belongs to prophecy; because it is spoken from the beginning, it is called 'discrimination.' Regarding 'the two periods': the emerging from the earth was in the past; Vulture Peak is in the present. Regarding the word 'merits': it indicates what is determined [therein]. Regarding 'this text,' and so forth: if judged by the merits of hearing the sūtra, it belongs only to the remainder; now, according to the words 'they will attain,' it is again identical to receiving a prophecy.

10.28

Concerning the power of the Dharma, there are five aspects. Among the five, it cites the first three passages to verify the intent of the present chapter, while the other two are secondary additions. 'Dharma' means that which is accomplished through the Dharma, hence called 'the power of the Dharma.' 'Realization' refers to the six hundred and eighty ten-thousand kotis up to one lifetime [remaining]. 'Faith' refers to the eight worlds. 'Making offerings' refers to when it is said that when these bodhisattvas attained the great benefit of the Dharma, heavenly flowers rained down in the empty sky, and so forth, up to reading, reciting, and upholding, which are by no means not practice; for now, that which is accomplished through the true cause and Dharma is called the power of the Dharma.

10.29

In explaining 'increasing in the Path and decreasing rebirths', Master Guāngzhái's view is that from the first up to the middling thousand [worlds] elucidates progress in practice as the 'gateway of merit', from eight rebirths to one rebirth treats the diminution of rebirths as the 'gateway of wisdom', and the eight world-realms represents the outer ordinary [stages] where there is not yet progress or diminution. Below, at 'Now, regarding conferral of prophecy...', Guāngzhái explains the three intended meanings as given above. Therein, he first generally classifies them by the general and the distinct: in general, both cause and fruition are collectively named 'conferral of prophecy'; hence, he takes all three passages together, [regarding] the initial resolve as the cause and the final consummation as the fruit. Therefore, the initial resolve and so forth all generally consummate the fruit. Next, below 'Below, the eight world-realms...', he explains the sequence of the three meanings. The reason the sūtra text is rearranged is because of progressing from the shallow to the deep. That is, from the outer ordinary entering the inner ordinary is the gateway of initial resolve; next, from the inner ordinary entering the first bhūmi up to the sixth bhūmi is the gateway of increasing in the Path; from the small thousand onwards is the gateway of decreasing rebirths. Within the gateway of decreasing rebirths, he takes from the seventh bhūmi on up to the tenth bhūmi, each stage severing two grades—upper and lower—and the single grade of equal enlightenment, combined together into nine grades, thereby correlating the eight rebirths with the former eight grades. Next, regarding 'the Lotus Sūtra Commentary (Fāhuá lùn)': the Treatise says, 'In the Maitreya chapter there are four kinds of gateways: first, realization; second, faith; third, offering—all of which are in the present chapter; fourth, hearing the Dharma, which refers to the "Chapter on Joyful Praise".' The first passage is fully like the present text. Next, faith is the eight world-realms and so forth. Regarding 'We now evaluate the Treatise as deep in the former and shallow in the latter...', our school assesses it: the Treatise takes the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas to be the first bhūmi, and from eight rebirths down to one rebirth to be before the bhūmis; hence it says 'deep in the former and shallow in the latter.' Guāngzhái also takes the first bhūmi as the acceptance of the non-arising of dharmas, but takes eight rebirths down to one rebirth to be the diamond-like mind; being different [from the Treatise], it becomes 'shallow in the former and deep in the latter.' These two masters contradict each other, and since antiquity this has not been resolved. Below, at 'Now, regarding the non-arising...', our master, wishing to explain it, first traverses the four teachings to establish the hierarchy of stages, and only then is it understood that neither interpretation accords with the sūtra; thus he concludes: 'All are clear passages of sacred teachings and must not be conflated.' That Guāngzhái did not hit the mark is beyond doubt; but how could the Treatise Master Vasubandhu have been so haphazard? It is only to be feared that the translator twisted [the meaning] to fit personal sentiment—just like the division of consciousness into eight and nine in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, or the sixteen characters in the Vibhāṣā; these shifts reside with people, so what do they have to do with the sage's intent? Furthermore, Guāngzhái's explanation simply speaks of bhūmis without distinguishing the doctrinal characteristics; though he divides the grades of delusion, the meaning has no proper place to settle. Next, from 'Moreover, in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa...' down to 'the general meaning cannot be applied determinatively': one must discard the general and follow the distinct; one cannot use the meaning of non-arising in 'unequalled' to interpret the non-arising here, because the non-arising here is definitively at the first dwelling; nor can one see the name of 'subduing acceptance' at the summit of the diamond and judge it to be the eight realms, because the subduing stage is definitively before the dwellings. Therefore, general terms cannot be correlated to distinct [stages]. Now, from non-arising onwards, in elucidating the gateways of increase and decrease, they must not be severed and separated. One should know that increasing in the Path is not without decreasing rebirths, and decreasing rebirths definitely possesses increasing in the Path; how could one determinatively divide the two passages before and after the sixth bhūmi? Nor can one, taking non-arising to be at the first bhūmi, turn around and project the eight rebirths back to before the bhūmis! Thus we know that both masters miss the great purport of the sūtra. From 'That is, Guāngzhái...' onwards, applying what our school uses, he critiques Guāngzhái as belonging to three meanings: before the bhūmis and the first bhūmi become the distinct [teaching]; from the first bhūmi to the sixth bhūmi becomes the common [teaching]; from the seventh bhūmi onwards becomes the distinct connecting the common. The common teaching does not sever fundamental ignorance, so it is not the common; the first bhūmi of the distinct teaching immediately severs fundamental ignorance, so it is not the distinct; hence, that fundamental ignorance reaches the seventh bhūmi is allowed to belong to the distinct connecting the common. Still, one must properly call them the nine grades of distinct delusion; therefore, those who are connected of superior faculty at the seventh bhūmi immediately shatter one or two grades, not to mention that there is no text dividing the grades into upper and lower! Since the meaning spans three passages, it is called 'undecided and floating.' At first, when it says 'Guāngzhái takes the initial resolve as the thirty [minds] of the inner ordinary', this is already as listed before. Previously it said 'dwelling in the thirty minds', and now it says 'as (wèi)'; 'wèi' is just 'to make', simply meaning that the inner ordinary makes the first bhūmi. The other two points are clear. Since the text of the Treatise contrasts before the bhūmis with on the bhūmis, it exclusively judges by the meaning of the distinct teaching.

10.30

Regarding 'Now divided into three': properly there should only be two, with the addition of the sūtra compiler's narration. Regarding 'The Buddha's words are perfect and wondrous': this points to the two gateways of origin and traces, which is why the realization of the Path is real. Below, at 'Therefore the previous passage...', he explains the two gateways of origin and traces. Regarding 'Therefore the ten-goodness bodhisattvas of the Benevolent King Sūtra': this clarifies the ten faiths; every single faith universally possesses the ten kinds of good conduct, and it does not mean exclusively using human and heavenly non-killing, non-stealing, and so forth to correlate with the ten faiths. Since it says 'forever parting from the wheel of suffering of the three realms', and some scriptures on the faith stages say 'forever parting from the ocean of suffering of the three realms', these cannot be used to judge the stages of the dwellings, practices, and dedications; one must know that these must be the ten faiths that sever delusion. Were it not for our school basing itself on the Lotus Sūtra text to determine that the merit of the Dharma Master with the six faculties mutually functioning constitutes the stage of the ten faiths as the inner ordinary, and prior to the ten faiths, using the text from 'after the Tathāgata's extinction' onwards at the end of the 'Discrimination of Merits' to establish the five grades of stages as the outer ordinary, how could one determine that the ten faiths sever the suffering of the three realms, and how could the meaning of the Benevolent King Sūtra be resolved? If it were not so, how could the first dwelling of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra be judged as a holy stage? If one judges the text on the ten brahma-practices in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra by holding that the merit of the ten minds of faith equals the ultimate stage, that again becomes excessive. If the first dwelling belongs to the holy, how could the ten faiths not be the inner ordinary? This is eternally unrelated to subduing delusion before the bhūmis and the path of seeing at the first bhūmi. Therefore, we now resolve the text with the perfect meaning, further citing various scriptures as evidence; hence, the principle of judging stages by the six identities cannot be discarded. The ten practices are the inconceivable provisional; we temporarily explain them in correlation to retaining what is heard, delight in speech, and revolving dhāraṇī, aligning them with the stages.

First 30 of 202 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

法華文句記 — Classical Chinese