法華文句記 3.185

3.185

From "Now, examining in detail" onwards, [the text] merely refutes them comprehensively and briefly. This also has five parts: first, a brief rejection; next, from "The sūtra says" onwards, directly demonstrating by citing text; third, from "Moreover, the first" onwards, concluding the rejection and demonstrating the errors; fourth, from "As Vasubandhu" onwards, citing parallels; fifth, from "One should know" onwards, the concluding demonstration. In the first passage, by leaning on and using another's idea of the five periods, he concealed the name of the five periods to surreptitiously make it his own interpretation. Now, by cross-analyzing in each period the quantity of the essence and function of the provisional and real, the intention is to clarify the Tathāgata's inconceivable skillful function; if skillful function is not established, it becomes a mere gradual progression, and for this reason it is rejected. Later, concerning the three turnings, he further excluded the stage of fruition, intending to use it as wisdom and truth free from attachment, using the cause to reveal the fruit; without realizing it, this also incurred the error of gradual progression. Next, in directly demonstrating by citing text: now, only when the five periods and eight teachings interpenetrate does the one real come to be established; within each period, horizontal and vertical are intermingled, and only when one reaches the Lotus Sūtra are truth and wisdom pure and unmixed, yet it still analyzes them to establish the characteristics of skillful means. Therefore, at the beginning of "Skillful Means," it praises the wisdom, truth, and skillful means of the five buddhas; for this reason, the chapter title must rely on the perfect and sudden. The *Sūtra* says: "All were able to behold you, up to [...] only the fruit is eternal." The sūtra directs one to abandon skillful means, yet you conversely use them instead. The *Great Sūtra* (*Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra*) itself points to the *Lotus Sūtra* as the ultimate, yet you only point to the mind after the vajra[-like samādhi]; where the various teachings should be opened, you instead discard them. Next, in demonstrating the errors, "faith, understanding, transformation, and fruit" refers to the gradual entry from beginning to end through the four levels mentioned before. Next, from "What relation" onwards, it directly demonstrates his error. Thus Jiāxiáng also says: "The body and the vehicle are each made into four propositions. The four propositions of the vehicle are: 1. The three are skillful means and the one is the real, causing one to abandon the three and take up the one. Although the practitioners who receive the teaching abandon the three, they cling to the one real; though coarse afflictions are eliminated, subtle afflictions promptly arise." Now I ask: upon reaching the Lotus assembly, if they have already abandoned the three, where then do they cling to the one real? If they have not yet reached the Lotus, prior to this there was no teaching of abandoning the three. For the śrāvakas before the Lotus Sūtra, [afflictions of] views and cultivation had long been destroyed; upon reaching this point, what sort of subtle afflictions promptly arise? Under what kind of affliction is clinging to the real subsumed? How could subtle afflictions arise from hearing the Dharma? Next he says: "To counter and break this, it is explained that both the three and the one are skillful means." Now I ask: I wonder whether both the three and the one being skillful means occurs before the *Lotus Sūtra*, or after having already reached the Lotus assembly? Prior to this, they were still deluded about the three being skillful means; when did it ever say that the one was also a skillful means? Therefore, the beginning of this chapter only says "in the past, by skillful means, I demonstrated the three"; there is definitely no statement that both three and one are called skillful means. In what assembly did this countering refutation take place? Third, he says: "The person receiving the teaching then recognizes that both three and one are skillful means, and further clings to the double negation as the ultimate principle." Now I ask: among the three cycles [of preaching], which cycle contains the text receiving the double negation? Prior to this, the two vehicles did not even have the first two, let alone the double negation! If bodhisattvas can gain entry everywhere, why would they need the *Lotus Sūtra*? Third, he also takes the three and the one as the two, and the double negation as non-two, with both the two and the non-two being skillful means, and neither two nor non-two being the real; the refutation also follows the above in inquiring about the person and the place. Fourth: "The two, the non-two, and the double negation still belong to the four propositions, not escaping names and words, and are all called skillful means; that all dharmas are quiescent and ineffable is the real." Now I ask: when [the Buddha] arose from samādhi to proclaim, and in the three cycles revealed the origin, was he speaking or not speaking? The meaning of quiescence is pervasive; why would it be restricted to the Lotus? The principle under the teaching is originally wordless, not to mention that the great ineffable was first [spoken] for the five persons, let alone now broadly clarifying the five buddhas' opening of the provisional and discerning the provisional and real of the teachings; once the provisional and real are revealed, who would still cling to words? As for saying they cling to the three, this is delusion regarding the teaching and delusion of sentiment. Now, in classifying the teachings by division, resolving the name "skillful means" must have a point of reference; how could it merely be dispelling words? Pursuing words with words, delusion will never be eliminated; even with thousands of refutations, it can never be exhausted. The four propositions of the body can be known by following this. Moreover, the title of this chapter is "Skillful Means"; one should use skillful means to explain this chapter, yet making an interpretation in terms of the real thoroughly contradicts the chapter's title. Thus we know that Jiāxiáng's person was moistened by the wondrous transformation and his spirit was permeated by its meaning, but because the old treatises were circulated first, it is necessary to thoroughly refute them; only by recognizing this great gist can the master-disciple [transmission] be established. Following this one approach, the rest can also be understood. It is also like the three turnings of the wheel of the Dharma, which thoroughly depart from what was received and inherited: the Great Master called it the sudden and the milk, whereas he took "fundamental" as its name; the Great Master took the three flavors as branches and twigs, whereas he also took ghee as returning to the origin. Now I ask: whenever one speaks of "fundamental," it means "able to produce"; only when "able to produce" is established at the beginning can things later be gathered and returned to the origin. If the origin is instead not the beginning, the two statements contradict each other; if branches and origin are not established, the gathering in also has no basis. Moreover, if the fundamental is divided in two and only becomes one upon being gathered in, then the one is the fundamental and the two are named the branches; thus the fundamental was originally a branch. One ought to converge the beginning and follow the end, and therefore open the branch-distinctions of the *Avataṃsaka* to enter the fundamental perfection of the Lotus. Furthermore, the distinct and perfect [teachings] of the *Avataṃsaka* both become recent traces; the meaning of "root" is destroyed again, and the origin of the Lotus is established. Furthermore, if one says that the three flavors are branches and twigs, could that be so for Deer Park? How could it be so for the two curds? If the perfect and distinct of the two curds are branches, how could the *Avataṃsaka* be the origin? If so, then it becomes converging the origin to return to the origin, or converging the branches to return to the branches. If the Lotus has no relation to the *Avataṃsaka*, this causes the two origins to be eternally different; how could it be called converging the branches to return to the origin? Moreover, within the Lotus division there is no text on entering the *Avataṃsaka*, only on entering the knowledge and vision of the buddhas; not to mention the clear text of the five flavors as the ultimate in the *Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]*. The old treatises that the original master relied on must be revised; if one establishes [his doctrine] according to the old, the master-disciple relationship cannot be formed, the discourse of yielding from the heart cannot be applied, and the words of carrying upon the crown have nowhere to rest. Fourth, in citing the two texts as parallels: these belong to the category of skillful means within the essence in the present sūtra. The ten kinds of skillful means in the *Mahāyāna Upāya Sūtra* have not yet been examined. Fifth, from "One should know" onwards, the concluding demonstration repudiates the errors. Speaking of "like space or like the ocean": it comprehensively encompasses the streams of form of the various sūtras, all returning to the space and ocean of the present sūtra.