法華文句記 3

English (machine translation) 3

Language: English

3.1

Expounded by the Tang Tiantai Śramaṇa Zhanran

"The dharma for teaching bodhisattvas" clarifies that which is relied upon by persons in the stage of causes. From here on, [the text] still draws upon alternative names for its explanation, and therefore adds "abode" (locus). The abode is the one dharma that is able to produce; the one dharma is nothing other than the ultimate character; hence it is called "the truth-principle." The truth-principle is not different from the Lotus Sūtra. Therefore, when Candrasūryapradīpa Buddha praised the Lotus Sūtra, he also said: "The dharma for teaching bodhisattvas, which is protected and remembered by buddhas." Hence one may cite the text below, "universally causing," etc., as verification—verifying the locus of meaning. For this reason, the title of the sūtra in the preface merely says "Innumerable Meanings." Because it includes the main body, "the dharma for teaching bodhisattvas" is supplemented with "abode." Drawing upon the samādhi below to explain it generally makes the meanings of both places equal, so that both are preface and both are main body. Jiāxiáng stated: "This has two meanings: first, the true character is called innumerable; second, that which is produced by the true character is called innumerable." We now say that the designation "innumerable" may designate what is produced, whereas the term "true character" should express that which is able to produce; positing that both the producer and the produced are called innumerable is unacceptable. If, relative to the alternative name, the dharma able to produce is termed "true character," then this is acceptable. To explain the preface directly like that is not the intention at all. The sūtra itself explains: "Innumerable meanings are produced from the one dharma"; "produced" refers to what is produced, and the "one dharma" able to produce is precisely the true character. How could ancient masters explain it through that which is able to produce? Hence the Treatise states: "This is the Tathāgata wishing to preach the Dharma when the time has arrived at fulfillment." Since it says "wishing to preach," it is not entirely identical; if it were entirely identical, it would already have been preached. Hence the Treatise preserves the preface, saying "wishing to preach," but its intention includes the main body, which is an alternative name. When discussing these two paths, our present explanation accords with that text, and also aligns with the praise of the samādhi in the subsequent text. If the samādhi entered were listed solely based on what is produced, it should only say "innumerable." Therefore, we know that while the sūtra's title refers in text to what is produced, its intent includes what is able to produce; the samādhi entered must embrace both meanings. Thus, the previous commentary on the Treatise states: "Wishing to preach this sūtra, he first enters this concentration." Now, from the aspect of what the sūtra signifies, it is praised once more with the "locus of meaning," and the texts cited as proof are entirely within this sūtra. Regarding "protected and remembered by buddhas": that which is protected by the person in the stage of fruition is both the abode of innumerable meanings that is able to produce and that which has been realized by the Buddha; how could what the Buddha realized not be the true character? Hence, "dwelling in it himself" is cited as verification. Because it was not yet preached in the past, it is called "protected"; it is protected and remembered in terms of both dharma and capacity. From "Although wishing" onward, the intent of protecting and remembering is explained: the Buddha's original intention was solely to expound that which is able to produce, but when expounding the Innumerable Meanings [Sūtra], the capacities [of the audience] had not yet unfolded, so he concealed it and did not speak it; hence it is called "protecting and remembering." From "Hence the Innumerable Meanings" onward, the single statement "protecting and remembering" also assumes two directions. However, although that sūtra's text speaks of emerging from the one to the many, it does not speak of returning from the many to the one; being still a concealed aspect, it is called "protecting and remembering." Were it not so, then the Lotus Sūtra would already have been preached—why would it be called a preface? Because it has not yet been preached, it says: "Although wishing to open, reveal," and so forth. Because it has not yet been preached, he "protects" it; because it has not yet been fully articulated, he "remembers" it. Regarding "silent for a long time": from the past down to the present. The meaning of "this essential" and so forth may be understood through reflection. If it were solely from the perspective of what is produced, it would not be exclusively protected by the Buddha; in the past, it was universally expounded at all times without exception. Hence the Lotus Sūtra Treatise says: "The lotus has two meanings: first, emerging from the water; second, blooming." That [earlier sūtra] is like emerging from the water; this [present sūtra] is like blooming. Therefore, it is still named the lotus flower, having only the distinction between not yet blooming and about to bloom.

3.3

Explaining the entry into samādhi: first, the concentration entered is presented; next, the body and mind that are able to enter are clarified. In the first passage there are three parts: first, concluding the intention of entering; next, from "not dhyāna" onward, explaining the intended conclusion; third, from "doubters" onward, resolving doubts. First, regarding concluding the intention: considering how that sūtra and that concentration mutually accomplish one another, the principle is discernible. Next, regarding explaining the intended conclusion, there are also two parts: first, clarifying the functions of concentration and wisdom, which mutually support each other and each have power and function; next, clarifying their mutual identity, which is the essence of concentration and wisdom. First, regarding mutual accomplishment: preaching first and entering concentration later is stated according to the preface; entering concentration first and preaching later resolves doubts, as explained below. For a buddha abiding in the fruit stage, there is certainly no before and after; yet to accord with the teaching etiquette, there is the appearance of before and after; examining it thoroughly, their essence is mutually identical. Next, regarding raising the doubt: asking on the basis of the preface, in all teaching etiquette, one always enters concentration first and preaches afterward; why here does he preach first and enter concentration afterward? In the response: first, answering in accordance with the question regarding the Buddha's constant custom; next, presenting the meaning of the concentration, wishing to show that the one concentration divides into two paths; next, from "preaching this" onward, setting forth the intent as a preface. Why in the present case does he preach first and enter concentration afterward? Under the constant custom, once the preaching is concluded, the assembly should disperse; entering this concentration anew solemnizes the present assembly, and since the assembly does not disperse, it can serve as the present preface. Next, from "Why is that" onward, setting forth the intent as the main body: because within the one concentration both intentions are embraced. Although there are two intentions, the assembly at that time only saw that after [the preaching of] the Innumerable Meanings, he immediately entered concentration, not knowing what concentration it was that he entered, nor what dharma he would preach after the concentration. Hence the compilers of the canon, again according with the Buddha's intention, only stated "innumerable" in describing the sūtra preached, but added "abode" (locus) in describing the concentration entered. If emerging from the locus of meaning to produce the innumerable, it manifestly forms the intent of the preface; if integrating the innumerable into the locus of meaning, it secretly forms the main body. Even though "abode" was added, the assembly did not know it. Regarding "If treated as a sequence," etc.: this also accords with the teaching etiquette to discern the sequence of concentration; that is, discussing sequence in terms of non-sequence—how could it be divided in the Buddha's inner illumination? Regarding "If explicit text," etc.: this means that the Tathāgata at that time did not first reveal the essence of the concentration, thereby causing Maitreya to pose his question persistently; it was the sūtra-master who, in the specific preface, temporarily concealed the specific to follow the general.

3.4

Question:

3.5

What concentration was it that Mahābhijñājñānābhibhū Buddha entered after preaching?

3.6

Answer:

3.7

Although the text generally says he entered concentration in a quiet room, how could he have entered any other concentration after preaching the Wondrous Dharma?

3.8

Question:

3.9

Why does the present Buddha not follow the model of Mahābhijñājñānābhibhū by also preaching first and entering concentration afterward, thus using both the opening concentration before preaching and the integrating concentration after preaching to serve as prefaces?

3.10

Answer:

3.11

That Buddha deferred to the princes to form karmic connections, whereas the present Buddha merely has Rāhula to transmit the transformation. Forming karmic connections is identical in meaning to transmitting the transformation—what harm is there? Hence, the present Buddha's preface concentration embraces the main body, thereby becoming entering concentration first and preaching afterward. Since wisdom and concentration mutually accomplish each other, where is there before and after? If so, did that Buddha's prior concentration not also contain both? Incurring doubts and reflections is equally true of both.

3.12

Regarding "Maitreya" and so forth: "Earnest" points to the four concealed doubts; "obstinate" points to the four concealed difficulties. Both accumulate up to four, hence the words "earnest" and so forth. The character jin [靳] (fanqie: ju + jin) means "firm." Because both samādhis can serve as the preface, it is said that "its meaning becomes increasingly clear." From "body and mind" below, the text clarifies the body and mind that are relied upon: first clarifying the reason for immobility—because of obtaining the true character that is the cognitive object, body and mind are made immobile. Next, "of the body" and so forth explains the locus upon which body and mind rely. Thus we know that the immobility of body and mind also derives from the locus of meaning; hence both the original source and the nature of principle are called "locus." Two designations are provisionally applied in relation to that body and mind. The Tathāgata truly realizes that the essence of physical form and mind is one; and precisely because this physical form and mind are the three virtues, when wishing to expound the intrinsically existent, marvelous principle of the eternal sūtra, he first expresses it by means of the immobility of physical form and mind. Furthermore, both body and mind express the traces; now using the traces to express the origin, it says, "empty space is ever tranquil." Next, it cites the Great Universal Wisdom Excellence entering the Lotus Samādhi to verify body and mind. Therefore, the essence of this samādhi has different names but an identical principle; if distinguishing the characteristics of what is entered, they differ simultaneously: the upper two lines verify the body, and the lower two lines verify the mind. From "If the body..." below, it employs metaphors again, because body and mind correspond to principle. If it were not the eternally abiding dharmakāya, it could not be illustrated by adamantine; if it were not the intrinsically existent samādhi of principle, it could not be compared to empty space. From "immeasurable meanings" below, it concludes by attributing the merit of this body and mind to the locus of meaning. From "designated as" below, it resolves a doubt. The doubt asks: If the samādhi relies on the locus, it should only be designated "locus"; why does it also retain the name "immeasurable"? From "This samādhi..." below, it resolves it. The word "immeasurable" gets its name from what is illuminated. What is illuminated? That which is produced is precisely it. Nor is it at a different time; hence it says "and illuminates." Since immeasurable is precisely locus, what harm is there in retaining it? Regarding "If one takes..." and so forth: for now we retain the distinct names, [where] the essence of the samādhi is the immobility of body and mind. If one takes these marks to express the preface, by means of this immobility and so forth, it precisely expresses the preface that afterward the single reality will be expounded; now, pointing to the time of immobility and non-discrimination, it is like the locus of meaning. The upper line explains the body, and the lower line explains the mind; this then contrasts with the movement and discrimination of body and mind before the samādhi, which is like the immeasurable. Opening first and uniting later, the meaning of the preface is brilliantly clear. Next, a question and answer further resolves doubt. The question comes first, which is obvious. Next, regarding the intention of the answer: if according to the ordinary convention, having finished expounding they would immediately disperse, what would be extraordinary about that? Now, having finished expounding, he enters samādhi, so one knows that what comes afterward is not in vain; if what comes afterward is not in vain, the essence of the preceding samādhi must be distinct. Thus, the assembly gathering, the expounding, and the samādhi all express what is to be heard, thus causing the assembly at that time to wait with solemn reverence. The character su [肅] has the fanqie xi + liu. The Erya says: "'Solemn and respectful' means reverent." Respectful and reverent, the mind has that which it attains.

3.13

Question:

3.14

At the end of that sūtra it says that they received, upheld, and departed; why does it now say that they did not disperse and were waiting?

3.15

Answer:

3.16

The words of the compiler of that text apply to the sūtra generally: reverently receiving the strict command, having heard it, they must circulate it; hence it says "departed." Now, relying on this sūtra, there is no text of gathering the assembly; having finished expounding, he entered samādhi, and rising from samādhi, he immediately addressed them. What doubt is there that he addressed those previously gathered who had not dispersed? Thus sūtras like the Avataṃsaka all first gather the assembly by means of sound and light.

3.17

Regarding "Although entering the open samādhi" and so forth: the phrase "open samādhi" still follows the intent of the preceding preface; because it has not yet exhausted its purport, the word "although" is posited. Since the intent lies in uniting, how could the essence of the samādhi be contrary? Ordinary samādhis have not yet been said to issue into the many from the one, much less has anyone ever said that from the many they return to the one. Expressing the united by means of the open, it therefore differs from the ordinary. Since Mañjuśrī cites antiquity, saying "all had this matter," we know without doubt that there are two meanings to the one samādhi; hence it says: how does this verify the present? Regarding "How could it be that..." and so forth: the ancients did not establish the expounding and the samādhi as portents, and therefore they are broadly rebuked; this was established by the great provisionality of the compiler of the sūtra, and hence is not something to be measured by ordinary people.

3.18

In explaining the four flowers: first, the old authors and the sūtras and treatises are brought forth to clarify that the names of the flowers are not fixed. Moreover, the Mahāprajñāpāramitā also says: "pleasing, great pleasing, soft, and great soft." However, the various teachings differ, though the texts mostly list four; as for what was moved by Master Yun, who said it was like mica, this was merely a temporary manifestation in response. In refuting the old interpretation under "according to what is expressed," where it says "narrow and inappropriate": within this, first its narrowness is rebuked, and next its inappropriateness is rebuked. In first rebuking its narrowness: how can the sixteen of each teaching now be compared to the old? Therefore, the reproach that "it does not exhaust the sixteen of the Tripiṭaka" is because there are only four. Furthermore, to merely say "sixteen"—for which teaching is it sixteen? Therefore, one should go through the teachings to discern the sixteen; one could also reproach: is it the sixteen who initiate, or down to the sixteen who establish affinities? Hence it says: "how much more so forty-eight?" Thus we know that although speaking of the four such as the monks contains those who initiate and so forth, there is no principle to reveal it. If one specifies the four such as those who initiate, they subsume the four such as the monks, how much more so the voice-hearers, bodhisattvas, and miscellaneous classes, in every single class of which there is none that does not possess those who initiate and so forth. Because the ancients stated four, it must be stated in contrast to the monks and so forth. From "Now flowers..." below explains the inappropriateness: these flowers secretly foretell the present attainment of marvelous causes that will lead to marvelous fruits; the ancients simply said that four express the monks and so forth, thus inviting the present difficulty. What rains down are flowers, and flowers should express causes; since the four assemblies have already attained them, what need is there to express them further? This reproaches the ancients for not knowing that raining flowers expresses the present marvelous causes, distinct from the causes of the past. If it expresses the four assemblies merely hoping for new fruits, what need is there to rain flowers? This reproaches the ancients for not knowing that scattering them on the Buddha expresses that the marvelous fruits lie in the future, distinct from the fruits of the past. The causes and fruits of the present and past—crude and marvelous—are eternally disparate; blending them into a single designation leaves no way to distinguish present and past. Furthermore, Master Sheng also said: "They express that the four fruits are unreal." This uses the text of the Tripiṭaka bodhisattva rebuking the Hinayana; thus, knowing that the four fruits are unreal, he had not yet understood even the Shared Teaching—how could he reveal the Lotus? Next, from "Now we say..." below is the correct explanation: first raising the past one-sided causes in contrast to the present perfect causes; because the past perfect causes are not distinct, it merely rebukes the three teachings (and so forth). In the Tripiṭaka, only the two vehicles are mentioned because they cannot be intercepted, which should be as the text of the Profound Meaning says: "The past three causes were greatly disparate," and so forth. "Buddha cause" is simply the perfect cause. "Four-wheel causes" are from the first abode upward: copper, silver, gold, and lapis lazuli; the first fascicle of the Notes on Great Calming and Contemplation fully cites the Yingluo [jing]. The text of the Profound Meaning further judges the stages with four phrases: opening the former and uniting the latter like the thirty-three devas, etc.; opening the latter and uniting the former like the fourteen prajñās; opening both like the forty-two syllables; uniting both like heaven raining the four flowers. Next, from "the lower text" onwards, various passages from the present sūtra are cited, all of which are the meaning of stages.

3.19

The intention within the question and answer is: borrowing the Separate to reveal the Perfect. Saying "borrowing the Separate": it is not that the Perfect lacks stages; it merely borrows the gradations of higher and lower to reveal the non-gradual equality. May later scholars bear this meaning of "borrowing" in mind! Because scholars of this school sometimes also mistakenly think that the four wheels of the Yingluo are the meaning of borrowing the Separate. If one discusses the Perfect stages, the six identities are already sufficient; why must one further list forty-two? Because the stages of true partial realization are long, it borrows the Separate stages to distinguish their ranks, just as empty space is one in essence while flyers go shallow or deep (and so forth). Therefore, the end of the sixth fascicle of Great Calming and Contemplation says: "or borrowing the high to establish the low," and so forth. If the text of the Profound Meaning still uses "names common, meaning perfect," how much more so "names separate, meaning perfect"? The next question asks: Since the Separate stages are borrowed, and the Separate has worthies and sages, does the Perfect have them or not? The answer points to the "Profound Meaning": fully as in the ninth fascicle of the Profound Meaning, it is not that there are no worthies and sages, but only that the higher and lower differ. Furthermore, within the four applications of mindfulness, there is also distinction by four phrases: if definitively determined, before the abodes belongs to worthies; if determined by the four phrases, they are merely posited in meaning to take each other's names: the abodes are stages of worthies and yet distant from sages, hence called "worthy sages." The Separate bhūmis are called sage; those in the practices and dedications of the Perfect are close to this bhūmi, hence called "sage worthies." In the present text of the Perfect, the practices and dedications are sage, and they further enter the bhūmis, hence called "sage sages." If not contrasted with each other, the names within that teaching are fixed. From "If one says..." onwards, it again goes through the teachings to refute the old: although it is called one cause, one should recognize the essence of the cause; the bodhisattvas of the four teachings, each looking toward their respective buddha, are all one cause, yet the one cause is different. Therefore, the tenth fascicle of the Profound Meaning says: "opening the one from the one, returning to the one from the one." Since it does not distinguish the differences, what doubt is there that it is the Shared Teaching? Hence the Shared Teaching says: "The three causes are largely the same; because they are the same, they are one." Thus it says: "does not go beyond the Shared Teaching." Regarding "If one says that the four assemblies are equally the bodhisattva cause": it is because from their initial aspiration they are not in common with the Hinayana. The Lotus intention is as previously explained: fully like the four wheels down to opening and revealing.

3.20

In explaining "buddha worlds everywhere" and so forth: first refuting the ancients: using six to express six, its meaning is acceptable; but to simply say "three vehicles" only refutes the Tripiṭaka, and the meaning of the causes and fruits of the three vehicles is not yet comprehensive. Therefore, comparing it with the three of both the Tripiṭaka and Shared, as well as the horizontal and vertical of the Separate, only then reveals the sixfold refutation of the Perfect sūtra. Dharma Master She said: "The earth deity caused the shaking"—this view is very shallow. In refuting the Separate, where it says "vertical and horizontal": it is just as cited in the third fascicle of Great Calming and Contemplation. From "Now we explain..." below is the correct explanation. The first text seems to be according to teaching; the Sūtra of Pure Conduct seems to be according to causes and conditions. Where it says panbo [磐礴] in the explanation of the first text: it is the appearance of being firm and vast. That is, the people of the seven skillful means have not yet shattered great ignorance; coming to this assembly, they first shatter ignorance; ignorance is difficult to shake just like a great rock, and for this reason it is said. Furthermore, it is not that they did not shatter it before, but based on what is difficult to shatter, up to now it is all shattered, hence it says panbo. If according to the Dīrghāgama, the earth quaking due to multiple conditions can also serve as an expression. The sūtra says: "There are six conditions for the earth quaking, namely entering the womb, leaving the womb, renouncing the home, attaining the Way, turning the Dharma wheel, and entering extinction." Although the Hinayana teaching does not state what is expressed, since they are the latter six among the eight phases, they are the functional applications of the stages of the first bhūmi and the first abode. Thus this stage stands at the head of the six rounds: the four wheels are only causes, hence taking their name from causes; the six movements encompass fruits, hence taking their name from fruits. Furthermore, both ultimate fruits and partial fruits can be called fruit, hence named fruit. Refuting the old in contrast to the present, it then possesses the four teachings. Furthermore, as for marvelous enlightenment: although not yet immediately entered, its arrival is not far off; bringing up both beginning and end together, it is therefore said to be taken from fruits. As for the words "and so forth" after origin and traces: one should cite the root text: "When I originally practiced the bodhisattva path" is the original four wheels; "Since I achieved buddhahood" is the original six rounds. The original true realization at the beginning also used this portent to express the six rounds. Therefore, in the revealed teaching, Mañjuśrī cites the past events of other buddhas to match the present preface of our Buddha; the secret intention precisely expresses that the past buddhas must have had what is present, and how could the present Buddha have lacked what was in the past? Since the past realization was long ago, it was not merely once.

3.21

In the explanation according to contemplation practice, the first sentence is a general indication; next, in the correct explanation, it first explains it through movement as symbolic representation, and next through the number six as symbolic representation. Regarding the first passage: although the words include the six, it primarily speaks of the movement, all of which symbolizes the impending destruction of fundamental ignorance; calling it 'moving the difficult-to-move ground' refers to that which symbolizes, while 'purifying the unpurified faculties' refers to that which is symbolized. Next, regarding the two sets of six, such as 'east' and so forth: both use the number six for symbolic representation. Because symbolizing the purification of the six faculties is explained in terms of contemplative understanding, it applies generally across the stages of contemplation practice, resemblance, and partial realization of the real, all of which purify the six faculties. Within this, regarding the first six: the phenomena of surging in the east and so forth are fully detailed in such texts as the Sūtra on the Intermediate State (Antarābhava-sūtra), and now entering the contemplation of mind, the meanings correspond once again. Saying 'symbolizes the faculties': the eyes and nose have already symbolized the east and west, while the ears and tongue inherently correspond to the south and north; the center is the mind, and the four directions are the body. The body possesses the four faculties, and the mind universally takes conditions from all four; thus, pairing mind with body in terms of surging and sinking—meaning surging in the center while sinking at the edges, or surging at the edges while sinking in the center—can symbolize the six and twelve sense bases (āyatanas). There are also six kinds of movement that implicitly encompass the eighteen [elements]. Among those six, the first three are forms, and the latter three are sounds; forms are solid while sounds are empty, and the six faculties likewise resemble the three forms and three sounds. The explanations of these six phenomena differ between the old and new translations. The new calls them moving, surging, shaking, striking, roaring, and crackling; for now we follow the old: swaying and restless is called 'moving'; rising up from below is called 'arising'; swelling unevenly with mounds and hollows is called 'surging'—appearing and disappearing in the six directions is also called 'surging'; a muffled sound is called 'shaking'; a crashing resonance is called 'roaring'; causing beings to awaken is called 'awakening'. The new says 'striking' is like beating and clapping, and 'crackling' is like the sound of fire; sūtras and treatises generally indicate them in brief mostly as 'quaking and shaking', which indicates one of each of the three forms and three sounds. The Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says: 'Not long after Cunda departed, the earth suddenly quaked and shook in six ways.' 'Each also having three': this symbolizes that each faculty possesses the three of faculty, consciousness, and object. In the first passage's representation of the six, although the representations alternate, the destruction must be simultaneous. 'Purifying the eighteen elements': next it determines that what is symbolized is the destruction of fundamental ignorance in all cases; thus we know it is simply seeing that the aggregates, elements, and sense bases are all eternally abiding. 'Et cetera': one ought to detail fully what is symbolized so as to accomplish the contemplation of mind; here, however, it merely records the numbers in brief and omits the mind and objects, delineating the wondrous features, whether sequential or non-sequential, and so forth. One may also cultivate the three contemplations in faculty after faculty just like the eighteen movements; here it only addresses the characteristics of that which moves, while that which is moved is merely a single ground. Just as the faculties, though six, are all simultaneously shattered because they are shattered by the mind.

3.22

In explaining the assembly's rejoicing in heart, first regarding cause and condition: in the past teachings, how could they not have witnessed such signs as the raining of flowers? Now their joyful leaping is extraordinary, and in principle the sweet dew [of the Dharma] must be about to descend. Although no one in the assembly at that time could fathom it, they certainly knew that their capacity would soon mature; when capacity and response are attuned to one another, what doubt will not be resolved?

3.23

The question is as in the text. The answer generally clarifies that it is because [this joy] is extraordinary. Quoting the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra as proof is as in the text. Next, from 'if one speaks of' onward, it explains according to the teachings; although it lists all four, compared with the four joys of the past, they differ: now there is only pure, unadulterated, real joy, without any further distinction. That the four, such as humans and devas, are all said to move is because the provisional moves for the sake of the real.

3.24

Question:

3.25

The real principle has no movement; why now speak of movement?

3.26

Answer:

3.27

Moving is precisely issuing forth. When the capacity for the perfect [teaching] is about to mature, this is called moving the true character, because the other four movements are about to tend toward the real.

3.28

The text lacks [explicit sections on] origin and traces and the contemplation of mind. If one interprets it through origin and traces: originally abiding in the samādhi of immobility, the traces use the earth's movement to symbolize issuing forth. If one interprets movement in the contemplation of mind conceptually: it is like shattering the empty, provisional, and middle movements of the Four Heavenly Kings within the twenty-five samādhis.

3.29

In explaining the light from the tuft of white hair: the initial text generally indicates the emission of light; in the explanation, it first explains the white tuft, and next explains the emission of light. In the initial text there are only two explanations: first, it jointly indicates the two explanations—"in response to capacity" indicates the causal conditions, "establishing the teaching" indicates according with the teachings; and from "destroying delusions" onward, it clarifies the intent of the two matters. The manifestation of light originally signifies these two; only by possessing both are doubts and confusions removed. In [explaining] the white tuft, the first is causal conditions, and from "moreover" downward is according with the teachings. Regarding the four siddhāntas in the initial text: the first text is worldly; from "that tuft" onward is for persons; from "emitting light" onward is antidotal; from "light illuminating" onward is the supreme truth—all four pertain to this sūtra. Next, in according with the teachings, it completely reproves the two vehicles of the three teachings, which correspond to the former two teachings. Although there are bodhisattvas, they equally perceive only the two truths. From "moreover" downward, it clarifies the emission of light, fully providing four explanations. Among the causal conditions there are three: first, emitting; second, retracting; third, the intent of retracting and emitting. First, it should possess the four siddhāntas; though the textual characteristics are not prominent, it can universally cause [beings] to see and obtain the four benefits. "In the Pañcaviṃśati each and every mark emits [light]" means that through the bodily wheel it signifies that prajñā is all-pervading. "The Mahāparinirvāṇa's portal of the face": the portal of the face is the mouth, signifying that the Buddha's secret of the mouth expounds the secret treasury. In the present sūtra, within concentration, between the brows signifies the intention: manifesting individually according to capacity, all possess the three secrets and the benefit of the four siddhāntas. Although throughout his lifetime he deployed the transformation through the three wheels, for immediate benefits none surpasses the oral teaching; on the verge of extinction, light emits from the portal of the face, signifying that this oral teaching flows to future ages. Now, we broadly discuss the emission of light for the time being; if discussed specifically, based on what various texts say, not illuminating the formless realm is equivalent to assembling the assembly. Next, regarding "retracting the light": it first cites the Aśokarājasūtra, mostly being an explanation by causal conditions; herein the single sentence "the present" is Zhāng’ān's private opinion, and from "entering from the feet" onward are all sūtra texts. Each signifies predicting their corresponding realm; hence when other sūtras bestow predictions of attaining buddhahood, they all combine the various realms, whereas only this Lotus Sūtra exclusively signifies the prediction of buddhahood. Saying "corresponding realm" merely clarifies that each of the various realms has dying here and being born there, as well as greater and lesser fruitional stages; since [the light] from below signifies the lower and so forth, it belongs to the Vaipulya section, and thus corresponds to many conditions. Regarding "yet in the present sūtra" and so forth: rising from concentration must involve retracting; retracting must be into the uṣṇīṣa. "It is merely omitted": because when the Buddha rises from concentration he must retract the light, and since the matter signified has been accomplished, he must collect the minds of the assembly to cause them to enter the one real [truth]; therefore there ought to be a retraction of light, yet it is merely an abbreviation of the text. Next, from "another explanation" downward is the intent of retracting and emitting, which can be seen. It is also one approach, not because it is exhaustive. This is because the present [manifestation] primarily taking the converging of the three into the one as primary, and future attainment is secondary. In according with the teachings, from "if the sixteen-foot [body]" downward: first it correctly explains, next it clarifies the signification of the light. In [clarifying] the signification, it first refutes the old: the old [view] held that although it horizontally illuminates eighteen thousand [worlds], from the earth to Akaniṣṭha these are all portents of this land. The present view is not so; the single portent of emitting light universally applies in meaning to both lands. The statement "due to persons" means it cannot completely refute [the old]. Next, under "the old": the old explanation merely accords with one direction to signify completeness or incompleteness. From "if it illuminates" downward is the refutation: since it is granted that it actually illuminates the ten directions, how can one exclusively take the eastern direction as that which is signified? Some say: the brow is the place of emitting light. "Brow" (mei) means "charm" (mei). If a person has no brows, then they have no charm. Regarding what is called "emitting": first, uninhibitedly it illuminates only the trichiliocosm; second, by consciously initiating it, it illuminates eighteen thousand [worlds], and it is also said to signify the One Vehicle. This fails to recognize that the Buddha acts without deliberation, explaining the functions of the buddhas in terms of emitting through conscious intention. From "now clarifying" onward is the correct explanation. Next, under "if with respect to": in origin and traces, signifying "the increase of the four stages" means that the four directions signify the four, and collecting signifies increase. Speaking of "increase": it extends from faith entering the stages of abiding up to equal awakening; hence the lower text says, "with only one lifetime remaining." Next, in the contemplative interpretation, "these realms" means that the eighteen realms each contain the hundred realms and thousand suchnesses residing within the eighteen; because buddha-wisdom has not yet been opened, it is signified by illumination of light as opening—and opening specifically resides in the initial abiding. From "the text says" onward, it cites that the capacities of the ten realms all open the eighteen realms. Regarding "dividing the text to belong to this land, etc.": beginning from "at that time" and ending at "all-pervading," all belong to the text of the sixth portent of this land. The first portent of the other land merely extends from below up to Akaniṣṭha Heaven; now this text takes this text on emitting light to apply universally to both this and that [land], and therefore the textual scope also contains the short and the long: if taken in the short sense, it is as listed above; if taken in the long sense, it must reach up to Akaniṣṭha, turning around and taking this sixth [portent] as the summary for the other; if it serves as the summary for the other, it also has the long and short, which should be known by analogy. Next, from "next clarifying" downward directly clarifies the six portents of the other land, divided into two: first brief, next extensive. In the first brief [section] there are four: first, indicating; second, from "first, seeing" downward listing the sections, which corresponds to the direct explanation; third, from "since there are" downward the arising of the six portents; fourth, from "if this" downward contrasting with this to clarify what the portents signify. Next, in the text listing them, merely speaking of above and below without speaking of stimulus and response is because the meaning of stimulus and response universally applies to the three pairs; unlike the preceding two pairs of this land which both reside in the response, therefore the third pair can be called stimulus and response. Furthermore, regarding the portents of that land, in the arising of the third pair it says, "the practice beginning must end," which merely mentions them alternately, clarifying that the bodhisattva has a beginning and must end, while the Tathāgata has already ended and has a beginning. Moreover, in the pair of persons and dharma, although persons extend to the end of the Deer Park, dharma is solely the beginning of the milk flavor; yet dharma must involve persons, and persons must correspond to dharma, so they are provisionally contrasted and distinguished. Moreover, in the pair of above and below, although the higher expounding covers the lower, that which is covered among beings is not yet manifest; that is, although not yet manifest, beginning and end depend on it, so one can contrast them to discuss above and below; how much more so since all such pairings are provisional, and therefore one must further seek their beginning and end. In the first pair, regarding the "six destinies": extensively explaining the headings is not the intent here, extending to dividing and combining them into the four modes of birth, five destinies, seven stations of consciousness, etc., as extensively explained in the treatises (and so forth). Regarding "total retribution": although the portents are six, they take the light as root; the light signifies awakening wisdom; the light illuminates here and there, first signifying the two awakenings, next signifying the three identities. Within the three identities there are two: first general, next specific. First, it generally clarifies identity of the path: what is the character of identity if not expressing the three identities? Since identity at present is still concealed, it only forms two. If among what is seen one also saw the bestowing of predictions upon śrāvakas and the expounding of long life span, then the Tathāgata would have nothing to do and the ritual format of transformation would not be established; nevertheless, even if one saw the prediction of the small and long life span, this assembly would also doubt, not knowing whether the śrāvakas of this land would likewise receive predictions; since they are taught to well up [from the earth], what would their life span be? All alike being unknown, they are therefore both concealed to give rise to doubt and inquiry. Mañjuśrī's extensive answer fully relates the three identities, and the assembly's capacity comes to know briefly the characteristics after concentration; therefore we know that the text of the general preface is general yet its explanation accords with specific principle, because of the four explanations; the text of the specific preface is specific yet its meaning is wondrous, because of the five periods. Therefore, as soon as the answering of matters is completed, concentration rises from this; matters tally with the answer, showing that Mañjuśrī's insight is ultimate. From "completely seeing" downward is specific, namely the three identities. Next, in the extensive explanation, the initial text first presents the other land; next, from "one should know" downward it cites that to analogize this, concluding that beginning and end are identical: although the appearance of erecting stupas signifies the two sūtras, the characteristics of the Lotus Sūtra are not yet clarified; therefore it only forms possessing the two identities of the already and the future, while the three identities of this land have not yet arisen. The statement "the intention of the two lands appearing in the world is identical" means that because they are identical in the five defilements, therefore their bestowal and so forth are not different: opening the provisional is the characteristic of the Lotus Sūtra, and ceasing transformation is the evidence of the Nirvāṇa. Regarding "neither sudden" and so forth: the One Vehicle of the Lotus is not subsumed under the sudden or the gradual; emerging from the opening of the One, the sudden and gradual are produced; therefore it now says "neither sudden yet sudden." "Neither gradual yet gradual" may be understood by analogy with this. Regarding "erecting stupas of the seven precious substances": the flavor of the two sūtras is identical, and what was concealed has not yet been expounded. The Dvādaśāṅgapratītyasamutpāda Sūtra says: "Eight persons should have stupas erected: namely, the Buddha, bodhisattvas, pratyekabuddhas, the four fruits, and wheel-turning kings. The Buddha has eight tiers of dew-basins, and the remaining seven persons decrease by one in succession." Since this land is thus, the other should be known by analogy; hence what is seen now must all be buddha stupas. From "one should know" downward cites that to analogize this, generally concluding the preceding text. The statement "from the one produces the immeasurable" means that beginning from the Avataṃsaka up to the Prajñā, all are opened from the one dharma; by the time of the Prajñā, the sudden and the gradual have already ended. Yet people do not know that the Lotus emerges outside of the sudden and gradual; please consider the word "ended": the Lotus merely collects the immeasurable to return to the one.

3.30

Next, explaining further in terms of causal conditions: within the text there are naturally two explanations, general and specific. The initial statement "general" applies generally to the gradual and sudden and pervades the four periods; within the four periods each has stimulus and response, which when contrasted with the present are none other than the causal conditions of the present teaching. Therefore we know that causal conditions have many kinds: one's own practice and transforming others, oneself and others contrasted; the text accords with one's own practice, hence it says "past goodness, present teaching," and so forth. Next, from "explaining specifically" downward directly clarifies the causal conditions of the present. It may also be that these three mutually generate each other in turn: through the causal conditions of generating the aspiration, one has faith and understanding; through faith and understanding, one carries out practices. If explained specifically, it specifically points to the three teachings in the Prajñā as "various"; hence it says "after the Tripiṭaka," because the Prajñā division consists of bodhisattva practices. Next, under "moreover with respect to": because each teaching among the three teachings in the Prajñā has four doors and four siddhāntas, etc., it therefore says "there are again immeasurable forms." Saying "five hundred" clarifies that within the shared door the varieties are vast; although the five hundred belong to the existence door of the Tripiṭaka, based on their realization being identical they provisionally realize the shared [teaching], and arriving at the Prajñā they all become persons of the shared [teaching] and secretly obtain the specific benefit; now provisionally following what is manifest, one may cite them as identical, yet following the past they constitute the "various." Shared and non-shared are easy to know, merely being analogous. The names "shared" and "non-shared" appear in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa; since it says "after the Tripiṭaka," in principle it should generally point to the Vaipulya and Prajñā; the reason it mentions only the Prajñā is that the three [teachings] of the Vaipulya are identical with the three of the Prajñā, and the small is identical with the Deer Park, so it does not point to it separately. Other people divide this into three doors: namely, the door of causal conditions, the door of faith and understanding, and the door of forms. I now say that although the words are like that, the principle is not so: causal conditions refer to differences in stimulus and response; faith and understanding refers to differences in that which can be stimulated; forms refers to differences in practice after faith. Having these differences, all are called "various"; although their paths are distinct, they do not exceed the two flavors: in stimulus and response there is mutual distance and closeness, hence called causal conditions; in that which can be stimulated, one internally harbors reception, hence called faith and understanding; in cultivation of practice, it is externally displayed in body and speech, hence called forms. Because of external forms and deportment, it is called forms.

3.31

Question:

3.32

If practice is one and understanding is different, how can the practices be distinct?

3.33

Answer:

3.34

Seeing the external and knowing the internal, they are therefore called different.

3.35

Regarding "that clarifies this form": "that" refers to that land; because it is the form manifested by that [land], it says "this form"; although again various, all equally arriving at the Lotus there are no further remaining forms; but not yet seeing the seats of the Lotus assembly, it is signified by entering extinction; hence it merely says "one cause and one condition," and so forth. Saying "one cause," and so forth, is also because prior to the Lotus in that land they may be called various; once converged and entered into the real, they are identical in one causal condition, form, and so forth; these are the characteristics of stimulus and response, and so forth.

3.36

Question:

3.37

What is illuminated in the light is seen simultaneously and horizontally; how can one say "first sudden and then gradual" up to converging and returning? Furthermore, among what is seen, could there not be purely sudden, solely gradual, and so forth?

3.38

Answer:

3.39

It is indeed as you ask: the assembly at that time only knew that they saw by virtue of the light; the great marvel lay with the World-Honoured One, and what was seen was not their own realm. However, the intention behind causing them to see was fundamentally to verify identity; the radiance emitted was to accomplish the single reality. Those whose phenomena diverge and whose principle is severed are not bathed in this light. Since it caused them to see and hear both the far and the near alike, how could the past and future ever obstruct their seeing and listening? Thus, it caused the origins and terminations of the ten directions to be as clear as if before their eyes. How could one measure the holy realm with ordinary sentiments? Nor was it only the Buddha’s power as host of conversion that made them see; among the assembly who heard alike and among those who compiled the sūtra, there were ancient buddhas at that time who had concealed their traces therein, whose wisdom illuminated the occasion and related this horizontal and vertical [teaching], additionally causing those who saw—both holy and ordinary—to become of one equal level. Hence we know that simply by relying on the sequence of the text, the intention of the sūtra is vivid and clear.

First 39 of 195 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

法華文句記 — Classical Chinese