法華文句記 5

English (machine translation) 5

Language: English

5.1

Expounded by the Tiantai Śramaṇa Zhanran of the Tang

From 'The Treatise on the Lotus Sūtra says' onward, it cites the treatise to explain. The treatise has three texts: first, regarding the three vehicles, the intent is to cause the two vehicles and the bodhisattva vehicle to obtain and possess together. Within this, it first cites the treatise, and next, below 'the treatise says,' explains the treatise's intent. When it says 'in sequence,' this does not conflict with the sequential explanation of 'causing.' According to the intent of the treatise's text, it first takes the unexcelled as 'opening.' The treatise's text also says: 'The buddha's knowledge and vision means that the Tathāgata can realize it because he knows those meanings as they truly are.' Since the sūtra text says 'in order to cause sentient beings,' if only the buddha realizes it, why does it then say 'in order to cause sentient beings'? Therefore, this is not the present interpretation, and the meaning cannot stand. The second phrase reveals that they possess the unexcelled together. The earlier treatise text merely said, 'The two vehicles and the buddha's dharmakāya are equal.' Therefore, when speaking of the three vehicles in this explanation, it does not mean bodhisattvas alone; hence, by combining bodhisattvas and the two vehicles to explain, this means the three vehicles' dharmakāya is equal to the buddha's. The third phrase causes them to know the unexcelled, which is 'awakening.' The fourth phrase is because they realize the unexcelled, termed 'non-retrogression.' Realization is simply attainment, which is entering the first abode. The treatise's intent is that the first three phrases together cause them to attain entry into the stage of the first abode. First, 'opening' points to what is known and seen as the unexcelled; next, it reveals that this realm is possessed together; next, it causes them to awaken to possessing it together; next, it causes them to enter this realm, hence it says 'non-retrogression.' Since it first takes the two vehicles as realizing together with the bodhisattvas, one knows the sūtra's intent primarily resides with the two vehicles; therefore, the treatise text does not exclude those of fixed nature, let alone when the treatise says 'those not yet ripened will indeed be ripened.' Since 'will indeed' is not 'will not,' one cannot say they do not exist.

5.3

Next, regarding 'in terms of bodhisattvas,' it is verified that bodhisattvas and the two [vehicles] must be harmonized. If they did not need to be harmonized, why would a separate explanation be established equating them with the two vehicles? In explaining the first phrase, the treatise has no separate explanation; now when it says 'as before,' it simply means they attain it together with the people of the two vehicles. Their dullness being the same as the two vehicles truly has its reason, so one knows that prior to this [assembly] they were not unexcelled. In explaining 'revealing,' it says: 'Because bodhisattvas have doubts, causing them to know [it] as it truly is.' Therefore, one knows that prior to this they harbored doubts and were not [in the] real [teaching]; that doubts should extend to the separate teaching is not reasonable in principle. If they were not harmonized, how could they know it as it truly is? Let alone that knowing it as it truly is still requires cultivation. In explaining 'awakening,' it says: 'Causing those who have not aroused the mind to arouse the bodhicitta.' If they do not arouse the mind, they are not called bodhisattvas; therefore, one knows that prior to this, they were named bodhisattvas but had not aroused the perfect mind. In explaining 'entering,' it says: 'Because causing those who have already aroused the mind to enter the dharma.' Therefore, 'those who have not aroused' may refer to the Tripiṭaka and common [teachings], while the words 'those who have already aroused' mostly refer to the separate teaching. Although knowing the middle in the separate teaching seems like having already aroused [the mind], because they have not entered the path of realization, they must be caused to enter. The words 'the buddha's knowledge and vision' explicitly screen out the provisional; one should know that bodhisattvas of the three teachings have doubts, have not aroused [the mind], and have not entered the true and eternal. Therefore, the treatise text currently causes bodhisattvas to open, reveal, awaken to, and enter, and obstinately refusing to accept this blatantly violates the treatise text.

5.4

Third, in the explanation concerning ordinary beings, the Treatise also does not explain the phrase on "opening"; here as well it points to being identical with the first text. Hence we know that ordinary beings are identical with [those of] the three vehicles. Although the second phrase is explained, its wording is entirely identical with the second phrase under the initial [section on] the two vehicles. Only upon reaching the third phrase does it differ from the former two explanations. Hence we know that ordinary beings are identical with people of the three vehicles in having the dharmakāya and buddha-nature. The reason the latter two phrases differentiate ordinary beings from the three vehicles is that non-Buddhists impute permanence, and all sentient beings do not yet know bodhi. Since a distinct round of explanation is made for ordinary beings, we know that it must not be explained according to deep stages; hence the explanation of the phrase on "awakening" says "causing them to awaken," and the phrase on "entering" says "causing them to enter bodhi." One should know that ordinary beings neither know nor perceive that there is an unexcelled dharma, nor have they ever generated the thought of bodhi; yet in all cases it says that they are identical with the three vehicles. Hence we know that across the three rounds the persons differ while the meaning is identical; therefore, the initial phrase can in all cases be identical in meaning. Next, in the explanation of the second phrase concerning bodhisattvas, it says "causing them to know as it truly is"; "as it truly is" is merely another name for the dharmakāya, so here too the words differ while the meaning is identical. The third phrase, in contrast to the two vehicles' not knowing, says "causing them to know"; in contrast to bodhisattvas having previously generated the thought, it causes them to generate it further; in contrast to ordinary beings, it causes them to differ from non-Buddhists and also causes non-Buddhists to awaken—thus the meaning differs while the intent is identical. In the fourth phrase, in contrast to the two vehicles retrogressing from the Great [Vehicle], it says "non-retrogression"; in contrast to bodhisattvas having generated [the thought] but not yet entered, it says "entering the Dharma"; in contrast to ordinary beings having never generated it, it directly says "the Great Path." One should know that there is only the single buddha-knowledge and vision; in order to cause these persons, though distinct, to be identical in opening, we know that by adducing the three vehicles and ordinary beings, the capacities are completely encompassed, and all are called "sentient beings." Encompassing the six realms with ordinary beings, and contrasting the three vehicles with the real, constitutes an explanation in terms of the ten dharma realms. If considered in terms of where they tend, there is solely the single buddha realm, which constitutes an explanation in terms of the buddha realm. The three rounds pervading the meanings constitutes an explanation in terms of stages. The buddha realm contrasted with the nine again forms separation and union; moreover, the Treatise's explanation of the four phrases is identical in meaning to the four explanations here, such as in terms of stages. As for "the Treatise explains phrase by phrase," in the Treatise's three explanations each phrase is explained separately; here, in the initial explanation, it is separated into four, thereby constituting four explanations for each of the three rounds. It merely adduces the two vehicles to exemplify the rest; this is also adducing the difficult to illustrate the easy, as the two vehicles are difficult. Now, the first explanation initially correlates with the text of the Treatise: first, taking the realization of non-retrogression as the explanation in terms of the four stages refers to the Treatise's fourth phrase—since it says non-retrogression, opening, revealing, awakening, and entering are all non-retrogression of mindfulness. Next, clarifying what the Buddha realized as the explanation in terms of the four wisdoms refers to the first phrase; the Treatise states: "Except for all-knowledge, there is no other matter." Next, by the meaning of identity refers to the second phrase; the Treatise states: "The dharmakāya of the two vehicles is equal, with no distinction whatsoever"—without the contemplation of mind, how could one know this identity? Next, by not knowing the ultimate place refers to the third phrase; "place" is that which is penetrated to, which the two vehicles do not know, and now [the Buddha] causes them to know it. Knowing is the gate, and the gate is that which can penetrate; hence it is explained as the four gates. Since this is so for the two vehicles, bodhisattvas and ordinary beings are all by analogy like this. Thus all three classes require the perfect teaching. Taking the teaching gate as that which can penetrate, entering contemplation and cultivating wisdom, one is then able to reach the stages and know and see the buddha-sphere. If one were to make any other explanation, the talk of "causing them to..." would be applied in vain, and where would the buddha-knowledge and vision be? Therefore, our school's explanation relies on the sūtra and accords with the Treatise, tallies with practice and attains the principle; how could the Buddha's intent in appearing in the world be otherwise! How could the present explanation of the Buddha's intent run contrary to it? If one expansively asserts high stages, ordinary beings would have no hope. If one clears the two obscurations before explaining opening, then revealing and the other three would all reside on the buddha-ground; such a teaching would not even be the share of those prior to the stages [of the bhūmis], so what benefit would there be for ordinary beings and followers of the small? As for saying "and so on," one ought to clarify in detail the meaning of the horizontal and vertical explanations, in order to express the use of the Treatise's text both horizontally and vertically. Hence, in the Treatise's three explanations, each is explained vertically; here, within each explanation, each phrase is both horizontal and vertical, causing the four phrases of the Treatise also to become horizontal and vertical. Although there are horizontal and vertical, the intent resides in non-duality.

5.5

Next, from "Now to explain..." onward is the present text's proper explanation. First, it briefly contrasts the ancient and present; next, from "If boundless..." onward, it clarifies using the present intent, citing texts to explain and establish it so as to discuss discarding and maintaining. As for the initial intent, contrasting the present and ancient refers to the brief, the intermediate, and the expansive. First, concerning "expansive," the words are few but the meaning is comprehensive: once the real has been revealed, one must know that among all dharmas there is none that is not real. Now, the ten subtleties are termed the intermediate; yet while their designation is intermediate, their meaning is expansive. In parsing the text that reveals the real, it seems difficult to apply them; hence, temporarily harmonizing with the old, we preserve the four unities, which is extremely brief. Next, regarding using the present intent: if expansive, then minds, dusts, practices, dharmas, persons, and principles are none other than the one real, which in the approach of explanation becomes overly broad and diffuse; it can only be grasped and illuminated, hence it says "it may be known." From "If one takes..." onward, it states that although the present ten subtleties do not parse the phrases, they are not without correlation in meaning; hence it first cites the sūtra to correlate them with the ten so that they may be seen.

5.6

Question:

5.7

Why does the sūtra text not accord with the ten subtleties, but is instead mixed and unordered?

5.8

Answer:

5.9

The six [subtleties] of principle, wisdom, and so forth are already in sequence in the sūtra; however, although the latter four passages appear out of order, they are not without profound significance. Why is this? If there is stimulus and response, there are retinue; the retinue attain awakening and penetrate, and by penetrating they are stimulated; seeing penetration and obtaining benefit truly arises from expounding the Dharma. Relying on the sequence in the Profound Meaning is certainly one approach, but the six cannot be bypassed, as the sūtra text makes clear. First, saying "not that which can be thought" and so on correlates with the unity of principle, because it is that which is contemplated. "Only buddhas..." and so on correlates with the unity of wisdom, because it is that which can know. Since the text beginning with "only by..." fully possesses the three meanings, in principle one must distinguish them; although the text fully possesses the three, the intent of the words resides in the one great matter. "Matter" is cause and effect, hence it says "convenient to the meaning," making it the unity of practice. Furthermore, only when wisdom can illuminate the realm does it thoroughly comprehend the greatness of the realm; hence greatness is named wisdom. Taking matter as practice has two meanings, because both self-cultivation and transforming others are called matter; now, transforming others is the great matter of the Buddha's appearing in the world. One should know that the initial distinctive explanation uses the previous meaning of analyzing individual characters, while the subsequent following of what is convenient to the meaning uses the previous general explanation. Although there were previously two explanations, the general explanation is easy to see; hence it is used now.

5.10

Next, from "Knowledge and vision..." onward, the intent takes the sūtra text from "desiring to cause..." onward as the unity of stages. The text merely says "knowledge and vision" because every phrase of the sūtra text says "knowledge and vision": that which can know and see already belongs to wisdom and practice, and the truth of principle that is seen already belongs to the unity of principle. Although it does not distinguish the shallowness or depth of knowledge and vision, by correlating opening and the rest with distinct stages, it belongs to the unity of stages. Next, it also takes the concluding text to correlate with the unity of the three dharmas, reiterating the previous text and expressing it by gathering its intent; hence it says "also." In "It also takes..." below, the words "appear in the world" in the various phrases constitute the unity of stimulus and response; all four phrases are identical, being differentiated according to meaning, yet none are other than stimulus and response. The remaining four may be known.

5.11

As for "The sūtra text..." and so on, it clarifies the intent of discarding and maintaining: although not used to parse the text, the meaning and principle are not absent; therefore, among the three, it preserves and uses the brief. From "If briefly..." onward, wishing to use the old brevity, it again discusses selecting and rejecting, winnowing the meanings while preserving the numbers. Therein, it first winnows, and next preserves. First, discarding the fruit to establish the principle: the old [commentators] took the four phrases as collectively being the unity of fruit; although taking the fruit as principle, the name was not distinctly manifest, so it must be refuted and principle established separately. Thus, according to the truth of principle, having no principle belongs to Māra; since every phrase says "knowledge and vision," how could that which is known and seen not be the unity of principle? Next, discarding the cause to establish practice: the beginning and end of practice are precisely cause and effect; merely by pointing out the unity of practice, both meanings are gathered. Although the designation of fruit is discarded, it resides at the culmination of practice; merely adding the unity of principle provides the basis for teachings and the rest, thereby causing the name of principle to pervade opening and the other four, which accords with the meaning. Next, from "unity of persons" onward, it preserves the two.

5.12

Next, regarding the proper explanation: it first clarifies the rationale by saying "provisionally following the brief"; it is called brief in contrast to speaking of the ten and so forth, and because the ten and so forth are still preserved, it says "provisionally." First, explaining the unity of principle in itself comprises four meanings, and here again there are three parts: first, listing them; next, the proper explanation; third, from "therefore" onward, concluding the essentials and returning to the central theme. In the proper explanation, first, regarding the four stages: these are the gradations of the eye and wisdom; within this, it is divided into eight to present the textual aspects. First, the designation is as in the text. Next, from "The realm of truth..." onward, it uses what is relied upon and what can function to reveal what is traversed, also expressing the rationale. However, these four unities, based on the parsing of the text below, all have two orientations, both proceeding from one side and mutually encompassing each other left and right to distinguish the four unities; hence, when the four are viewed against one another, each still fully possesses the four—how much more so the two orientations! Why is this? Just as that which is known is principle, that which can know belongs to wisdom, that which can receive is the person, and that which can explain is the teaching; the present text possesses both, so it provisionally follows principle, hence calling it the unity of principle. Now, in revealing this principle, the principle is not revealed in isolation: using the three of wisdom, gate, and contemplation to traverse the stages covered, together they reveal the principle; this is taking the three of person, teaching, and practice to traverse the stages and lay hold of principle as the person of contemplation of mind. The four gates are the teaching; the four wisdoms are the practice. The three rely on one another to destroy defilements, enter the stages, and ascend to the ultimate principle. If so, the mutual completion of the latter three should also be like this. Therefore, now first presenting the truth relied upon cannot reveal itself; wisdom is that which can function, and by means of it one sees principle; hence it says "then is able to." Third, from "The two wisdoms..." onward, it evaluates whether that which can function advances or not: the two wisdoms and four eyes do not advance; the wisdom of all modes and the buddha-eye advance. Although their essence is identical, to reveal superiority they must be distinguished. Fourth, from "The sūtra says..." onward, it cites texts according to stages to explain the reason: sentient beings by meaning extend to the buddha fruit, which is solely ultimate; causing beings immediately to attain the knowledge and vision of the ultimate fruit is why this differs from previous sūtras. Fifth, from "The three teachings..." onward, it evaluates the intent according to the teachings: when past and present masters explained buddha-knowledge and vision, in terms of sentient beings its principle was not made apparent; were it not for the present insight minutely presenting the wondrous realm, wherein the minds of sentient beings and the Buddha are of one essence without differentiation, how could one know that sentient beings possess buddha-knowledge and vision? Hence, evaluating according to the teachings, its principle is distinct. Therein, it first sets forth the persons who can know and see; also, from "partially attaining" onward, it clarifies the opening of sentient beings, being restricted to the initial abode to be named opening. Sixth, from "Hence lodging..." onward, it concludes the intent: all are stages of realizing buddha-knowledge and vision. Seventh, from "Like the auspicious sign..." onward, it clarifies what is symbolized: following concentration and wisdom, the raining of the four flowers immediately occurred, which symbolizes the common return traversing the four stages; the flowers are all scattered on the Buddha, reaching the fruit without vanity, and are also scattered upon the people of the vehicles and stages in the great assembly. Eighth, from "Opening..." onward is the proper explanation, which has two parts: first, the proper explanation; next, from "However, the perfect path..." onward, the integration.

5.13

In the initial explanation of opening, there are two parts: first, a brief correlation; next, from "Why?" onward, the proper explanation. Within this there are again five: first, clarifying the obscurations of the stages—general defilements refer to views and thoughts, and distinct defilements refer to ignorance; both general and distinct defilements reside together in a single thought-moment; the essence of the thought-moment is precisely this; this essence is not principle, this phenomenon is not right, yet right and non-right are of single suchness; being of identical essence constitutes the obscuration, and the two defilements cannot be separated, hence it says "difficult to understand clearly." Next, from "The initial mind..." onward, clarifying the stages that rely on the obscurations: prior to rejoicing in accord, the initial mind of perfect faith is the stage of verbal identity; perfect acceptance is the stage of the five grades of practice; perfect subjugation is the stage of the purification of the six sense faculties. Taking this ordinary mind, it directly effects subjugation and severance; hence it says "able to." Subjugation leads to faith, and acceptance leads to faith; faith must be at the beginning, unlike worldly people who hold that the initial mind is directly the Buddha. Third, from "Internally applying..." onward, clarifying the application of effort to eliminate obscurations, there are the doctrine, the analogy, and the application; by means of this practice one is able to enter the initial abode. The application's stating "cultivation through auxiliary conditions" refers precisely to prior to the abodes.

5.14

Question:

5.15

If only entering the initial abode is named opening, one should know that ordinary beings have no share in this sūtra. Why then do you not permit others to explain it from high stages? Why does the Treatise's text say it is for ordinary beings?

5.16

Answer:

5.17

Among the four explanations, in terms of wisdom and in terms of stages, only the noble undergo opening; in terms of contemplation and in terms of gates, it extends to verbal identity. Furthermore, the phrasing "desiring to cause..." causes the ordinary to enter the noble; the benefit of establishing karmic affinity may be known by analogy with this. Therefore, only with the four explanations is the present intent revealed, without precluding high stages and without abandoning ordinary beings.

5.18

Fourth, adducing proofs to determine the stages: the words "entering principle" in sense apply throughout the shallow and deep; naming it from the beginning, he therefore temporarily says "abiding." Fifth, from "abides in" downward, concludes what is symbolized in order to establish the name.

5.19

Next, in explaining "revealing," there are three parts: first, clarifying that through destroying obstacles the essence is manifested; next, clarifying that the manifested essence is endowed with virtues; third, concluding the names of the stages. By principle, it should also be like entering the ten abodes: first, the text is concise; second, one has already entered the path of effortless action; the subsequent stages are also like this.

5.20

Next, in explaining "awakening to," there are four parts: first, clarifying that with obstacles eliminated, practice is perfected; next, from "phenomena and principle" downward, clarifying that the virtues of the essence completely encompass all; third, adducing proofs; fourth, concluding the names.

5.21

Next, in explaining "entering," there are five parts: the elimination of obstacles is omitted, though by analogy with the above it should be present, but since it merely connects and reiterates the previous text, it only says "essence"; next, from "at ease" downward, praises the virtues of the essence; third, from "flowing at ease into" downward, praises the fulfillment of practice; fourth, adducing proofs; fifth, concluding the stages. As for citing the Mahāyānasaṃgraha in both explaining "awakening to" and "entering," this is borrowing the separate [teaching] to establish the perfect [teaching]; therefore, in explaining "awakening to" it says "principle and measure are non-dual," and in explaining "entering" it says "principle and measure are at ease." One should know that within the separate [teaching] this matter does not exist. If so, as for the previous explanation of "abiding" citing the Renwang [Sūtra] that "entering principle is called abiding," this is likewise borrowing the separate; it may also be that the ten abodes conform to principle and the ten practices conform to measure: because measure is principle, it is called abiding, and because principle is measure, it is called practice.

5.22

As for harmonization: because of borrowing the separate [teaching], harmonization is required. In it there are four parts: first, the direct harmonization, which means there are no longer shallow and deep; next, from "merely conforming to principle" downward, clarifies the reason for shallow and deep; third, in adducing proofs, first citing and next explaining; fourth, in adducing the simile, there are opening and joining. First, in opening, when it says "the new moon and the full moon," "the new moon" means illumination, referring to the moon's initial illumination. "The full moon" refers to facing each other, that is, when full, the sun and the moon face each other. The moon is not the new or full moon; by relying on the new and full moon there is waning and waxing, which is evident in joining the text. Where it says "and so on," one should cite the moon-love simile of the Great Sūtra.

5.23

Next, regarding the four wisdoms, first, distinguishing differences: it is simply the wisdom capable of tallying with the perfect stages. When it says "not like," it means not identical, distinguishing it from being pervasive. Because in that Prajñā it is common to the three teachings, it is called "common." Here we do not rely on it, for there is only the one perfect path; therefore it says "not like" (the character "ru" being pronounced in the level tone).

5.24

Next, the direct explanation: previously, in terms of stages, the aspects of practice were already briefly clarified; here, in clarifying them again, it simply describes them directly; there are explanations and conclusions. In the explanation there are two parts: first, the direct explanation; next, from "furthermore, the wisdom of the path" downward, reinterpreting it with the purport of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha to make it evident. In the first text, wisdom as cause and knowledge as fruit each apply to both general and specific: by adding "species" to both cause and fruit, they obtain their specific names, and by adding "all" to each, they receive the designation of fruit. By initially saying "the path," it therefore receives the designation of cause; this is provisionally so for wisdom and knowledge. If relying on various sūtras, it is not necessarily entirely like this, as fully stated in the commentary on the third fascicle of the Great Calming and Contemplation. Next, from "this also" downward, concludes the text's meaning, which is also a harmonization. Speaking of concluding the meaning: since it belongs to perfect wisdom, principle and measure are mutually identical; it is not cause, fruit, general, or specific, yet it is cause, fruit, general, and specific. Although the previous text has words such as "conforming to principle," they are not the primary meaning of the text; now, in explaining the four wisdoms, they should properly be applied, but must only be harmonized. Like the number of conventional objects, like tallying with the real principle: each saying "conforming" means each corresponds to the object. However, each stage is fully endowed with the two wisdoms, non-dually entering both; provisionally relying on the convenience of the four stages and four names, they are distinguished without being distinct, and the beginning and end share the same principle. Next, regarding the gates: since the gates are the teaching, in principle they should be listed first, but here they are placed here, each having its own reason. If explaining these four exclusively, then first the teaching, next contemplation, and only then wisdom and stages; here, in explaining principle, all four are capable of expressing it, and among the four dharmas, the intimate ones are listed first, fully as in the forward and reverse sequences below. Because the intimate comes first, stages and wisdom come first, followed next by teaching and contemplation; between stages and wisdom, the stage is what is traversed and wisdom is that which realizes, so what is intimate and what is distant differ, hence first stages and next wisdom. Between teaching and contemplation, without teaching there is no contemplation, hence teaching comes before contemplation. Here also, first is the direct explanation, next the harmonization. When it first says "horizontal," the dharma of the teaching received by the initial mind is fully endowed with the four; comparing the dharmas with one another, there is no longer superiority or inferiority, hence it is called horizontal. One should know that stages and wisdom mostly pertain to the vertical; in terms of contemplation it becomes neither horizontal nor vertical; generally speaking, all are speaking of horizontal and vertical in terms of neither horizontal nor vertical, because contemplation gates also have shallow and deep, and the four teachings compared with one another also seem to have shallow and deep. Here, first is the explanation; next, from "capable of accessing" downward, integrates the teaching with principle, integration being harmonization. Therefore, within every gate wisdom and stages are accessed, running through [the gate of] existence and the rest from shallow to deep, all accessing contemplation up to abiding, so the gates become horizontal. Although contrasted with opening and the rest, they merely clarify existence and the rest as having the same sense as opening and the rest, not opening and the rest in terms of the depth of the stages. Furthermore, each gate stating "all" is originally to reveal mutual access and mutual endowment. Still fearing lack of understanding, below it further harmonizes them with the nature of principle. Next, the explanation by contemplating the mind: it provisionally speaks in broad outline to interpret opening and the rest; a detailed discussion of contemplation methods is fully given in the Great Calming and Contemplation. Contemplation originally has no obstacles and requires no harmonization; for this reason, the first three explanations do not initially describe principle, and so after each explanatory text harmonization is attached to principle, because principle is the primary intent of the textual meaning. Contemplation intimately relies on principle, and therefore it first discusses the principle of the three truths. From "this is" downward is the conclusion, concluding with the three contemplations to subsume them under opening and the rest. Next, from "the reason why" downward is the forward and reverse sequence: first clarifying that what is based upon depends on what can base; next clarifying that what can reveal discloses what is revealed. In summary, it brings together the four explanations to return to the two aspects of principle. Having understood that the four explanations all interpret opening and the rest, one should know that opening and the rest are each fourfold; moreover, the four texts intimately and distantly subsume each other, and the active and passive illuminate each other. This is teaching, practice, and persons, the three relying on principle to be distinguished; since principle is like this, the remaining three follow this pattern. Therefore we know our school seemingly borrows the text of the treatise while secretly tallying with the treatise's purport.

5.25

"The expedient teachings of the past," and so forth: dividing the four meanings from the first stage of the separate [teaching] onward, namely, the first stage is opening, from the second to the sixth is revealing, the seventh and eighth are awakening to, and the tenth is entering; yet since they carry what is prior to the stages, this is not the buddha-knowledge and vision, so the separate knowledge and vision cannot immediately be opened for sentient beings. Since this relies on the separate meaning, one may also comprehensively take the three worthies and ten stages in sequence to match them. Or, conforming to the ancient masters, as in the previous various explanations determining that among the eight kalpas of the Ganges the latter four are it, because the separate knowledge and vision believes through kalpas and quite reaches it. In the common teaching, the stage of seeing is opening, the stage of thinning is revealing, the stage of freedom from desire is awakening to, and the stage of what has been done is entering. In the Tripiṭaka teaching, if in terms of the two vehicles, it is spoken of by analogy with the common teaching; if in terms of bodhisattvas, the first asaṃkhyeya is opening, the second asaṃkhyeya is revealing, the third is awakening to, and the hundred kalpas are entering; if combining the noble stages, then the third asaṃkhyeya and hundred kalpas are awakening to, and the thirty-four minds severing bonds are entering. These two teachings from beginning to end do not clarify the buddha-knowledge and vision. Because their respective teachings do not speak of it, it is therefore said to be absent; one cannot take the four stages of the Vibhāṣā, the three common [paths] of Prajñā, or the sequence of the Yingluo to interpret the buddha-knowledge and vision of the Lotus. Therefore one knows that the names "knowledge and vision," "opening and revealing," and so forth can be used generally, but the single word "Buddha" is restricted exclusively to this sūtra. If one wishes to use the meaning of "Buddha" generally, then because those who generate the mind in each teaching all seek the buddha-fruit of that teaching, opening and the rest are also allowed to be called "Buddha," but one must merely distinguish the category and distinguish the teaching. In explaining the oneness of persons, the statement "only transforming bodhisattvas" is spoken from the perspective of the Buddha's intent; the poor son's own understanding is discussed according to sequence; here, speaking from the perspective of opening, it is therefore called the oneness of persons, and teaching and practice are known by analogy. In the oneness of practice, that Guangzhai takes it as the oneness of teaching is because according to the present determination of the text it differs from Guangzhai; it is not establishing a name, for Guangzhai's establishment of names mostly agreed with the old masters. In "being perfect, the many are simply the one thing," what is performed is called "the many," the one is that which is intended, and one is simply perfect; this is because within our one school's "many," none are not one. "It may also," and so forth, is an explanation in two directions. In terms of the lord of the teaching, the six words "all that is performed is constantly for" are used to clarify the intent of the teaching: the intent lies in what is performed, hence it says "one"; it is the matter of one single school, hence it says "matter," pointing back to what is performed as the matter, hence it says "teaching and transforming." From "if in terms of practice" downward reiterates the explanation in terms of practice, by analogy with the first intent above. If by analogy with the previous text, since wisdom was taken as practice, now in explaining practice it should fully point to the four wisdoms; if not, using this practice as the teaching points to the four gates, and this is also like this. The person capable of receiving it in turn cultivates the previous contemplation; the subsequent two follow this, which is precisely why the explanation of principle lists them fully. Below "However, the four phrases," our school explains each in two directions. If discussing the meaning, there are two directions: provisionally relying on the present text, the ancient is also no hindrance; in terms of where the text's force leads, one must rely on the present explanation; although the text's force is such, if viewed comprehensively in terms of meaning, both possess all four meanings.

5.26

From "merely with" downward explains the oneness of teaching. In it, first, the oneness of teaching is directly clarified; next, from "from the separate teaching" downward clarifies what is absent within the oneness of teaching: first showing the correct explanation, and next refuting the three masters. In the refutation, Guangzhai also already knew there are no four-stage bodhisattvas, but Guangzhai's pointing to the past was not clear, so the text of the Profound Meaning has a refutation; here, saying "one-sided practice" still covers both common and separate, but because Guangzhai still did not state that the common vehicle is provisional, he must be refuted, especially since he now further takes bodhisattvas as the third. The second master is the same as Guangzhai, also knowing to abolish the one-sided bodhisattva, but merely in listing the three names compared to Guangzhai, it is inverted and different. From "if taking" downward comprehensively refutes both masters: it also merely succeeds in refuting the Tripiṭaka bodhisattva, not yet touching on the common and separate, so it is not completely appropriate. The third master is the same as Jiaxiang; Jiaxiang was still like this, so they all did not know that the common stages of the three vehicles, and the sequential practitioners of the Yingluo and the like, are provisional bodhisattvas. Were it not so, why in the ninth chapter of the Da yingluo, in the Wisdom Chapter of the "Three Paths Chapter," did "the Bodhisattva Huiyan ask the Buddha: 'What are the three vehicles?' The Buddha said: 'As for the Bodhisattva Vehicle, there are again three kinds, namely, the Bodhisattva Great Vehicle, the Bodhisattva Pratyekabuddha, and the Bodhisattva Śrāvaka. The Pratyekabuddha also has three: namely, the Pratyekabuddha Great Vehicle, the Pratyekabuddha Pratyekabuddha, and the Pratyekabuddha Śrāvaka. The Śrāvaka also has three: namely, the Śrāvaka Great Vehicle, the Śrāvaka Pratyekabuddha, and the Śrāvaka Śrāvaka.'" Thus we know that the three kinds of bodhisattva are the separate bodhisattva; as in the Great Sūtra explaining the separate five flavors, it also relies on the three vehicles to determine the bodhisattva stages; the three kinds of pratyekabuddha are the common three vehicles; the three kinds of śrāvaka are the Tripiṭaka three vehicles. Furthermore, the eighth chapter says: "The Bodhisattva Huiyan said: 'There is again a concentrated mind called the inexhaustible gate, which surpasses the three vehicles and accomplishes the title of bodhisattva.'" Since it surpasses the three vehicles, it is surpassing the preceding three kinds of three vehicles; it cannot be said solely to surpass the third vehicle. Nor does the sūtra say surpassing the second and third vehicles; is this not the Bodhisattva Vehicle of the perfect teaching? From "if so" downward is the refutation, in which there are four parts: first, refuting the Tripiṭaka bodhisattva that is maintained—if the Tripiṭaka is still maintained, the common and separate must also be maintained; next, from "in what place" downward refutes their listing of names; third, from "if relying on" downward presents a concessive objection; fourth, from "if like" downward concludes the objection.

5.27

Regarding the passage in the direct explanation from "Now it is said" onward, on "there are no other vehicles" and so forth: since it says that there are no other vehicles and also says "whether two or three," one should know that beyond having no others, there are also no two or three. The "other vehicle" refers to the distinct teaching vehicle in the Avataṃsaka. Having recognized the three flavors, the Deer Park can be known; it is the same as the Hinayāna compared and contrasted in the Vaipulya. Therefore, the present text merely highlights the Deer Park by comparison, hence saying: "How much less the three of the Tripiṭaka?" If one does not explain it in this way, how could one reveal the marvel of this scriptural division as differing from other sūtras? Since others do not interpret the sūtra by means of the teachings and divisions, we know that the marvelous meaning of the teachings and divisions is difficult to manifest. In "the sections on the buddhas of the three periods of time each explain the teaching and the practice," each passage says that these dharmas are all for the sake of the one buddha vehicle; this is the text on the oneness of the teaching. From "all these sentient beings" down is the text on the oneness of practice. In "then generally discusses," the end of the section on the buddhas of the three periods of time generally says: "Śāriputra! All these buddhas merely teach and transform bodhisattvas"—this is the oneness of persons. From "desiring to [use their own]" downward is the oneness of principle. Occurring after the three periods of time, it is named "general." In "if in the respective sections" and so forth: "sentient beings" is the oneness of persons; what is known by all-knowledge is the oneness of principle; yet, only sentient beings endowed with all-knowledge are called the oneness of practice, so these are explained separately. From "not as [clear as]" downward is a synthesis. Furthermore, because it is already fully complete in the text of the section on the buddhas, to avoid redundant text, among the three periods of time two are distinct and two are implicit. The mention of "nine periods of time in chapter thirteen of the Yingluo" is feared to be an error; the text is in chapter eleven. In that sūtra, "the Pure Abode Deva asked the Buddha: 'Now that there are past buddhas and buddhas of the ten directions, I do not doubt this; how are there future buddhas?' The Buddha said: 'Do you ask about the three periods of the past, the three periods of the future, or the three periods of the present?' The deva said: 'I do not ask about the past or the present, but only about the future.' The Buddha said: 'There are two causes and conditions for the existence of future buddhas: first, past buddhas enter the future period with a mind of compassion; second, future bodhisattvas attain buddhahood.'" The present text relies on the text of the Buddha's answer to the deva. Each period of time, viewed comparatively from before and after within itself, naturally contains three periods of time; hence the Buddha questioned the deva using three kinds of three periods of time, from which we know that there is the doctrine of the nine periods of time. If in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, it further adds the phrase on equality across the three periods of time, making ten phrases in all.

5.28

Question:

5.29

Why does the Avataṃsaka further speak of equality?

5.30

Answer:

5.31

First, the doctrinal characteristics of the Avataṃsaka reach ten in order to make the number complete. Second, it intends to clarify that the three periods of time are inconceivable in order to fulfill the principle; hence, the tenth is necessary. Furthermore, the Avataṃsaka explains that it is not merely nine periods of time and equality, but speaks of ten kinds of three periods of time; thus we know that each of the previous nine has three periods of time. Because it intends to clarify that nine and three are just the nine periods of time, the nine periods of time are just the three periods of time, and the three periods of time are just a single kṣaṇa, and kṣaṇa after kṣaṇa completely exhausts the past and future—this is the mutual subsumption of the long and the short. We will not discuss it now, but temporarily discuss it in terms of the mutual perspective of the three and the nine. In order to draw a parallel: if the three periods of time are identical, the ten directions are identical, and then all lands like dust motes are identical. Readers merely say that lands preach and sentient beings preach, without considering that if both lands and sentient beings are those capable of preaching, who are those who are covered? This is precisely because they do not reflect upon the nature of sentient beings and lands. If one grasps this meaning, each illuminates the other.

5.32

In "two point upward and two point downward," the headings in the sections on the five buddhas must all possess six. The section on the general buddha contains only four, lacking the fifth and sixth; the section on Śākyamuni lacks only the first; and the buddhas of the intermediate three periods of time each have only two. The two pointing to the general buddha are the first two meanings; the two pointing to Śākyamuni are the latter two meanings. However, in the sections on the three periods of time, the revelation of the real always says "this dharma," and in the section on Śākyamuni, the two words "like this" both point to the provisional being the real; hence it is called revealing the real. Why? In the past when the provisional was deployed, there was not even the name of "provisional," much less "real." Therefore, now opening the provisional, the provisional is precisely the real, hence it says "these dharmas are all for the sake of the buddha vehicle." Thus we know that recounting their deployment of the provisional had the intention of opening it. In the section on the past buddhas, the statement that within the revelation of the real it concurrently encompasses the oneness of persons should also concurrently encompass principle; the word "concurrently" above extends to what follows below. Because being concurrent is not primary, the text above says it is not as apparent as the general text. The future and present are also like this. In the section on the present buddha, from the very beginning it opens the provisional and reveals the real; the sūtra text from "Śāriputra, all these buddhas" downward corresponds to the general text. Therefore, in the preceding evaluation it was said that the sections on the buddhas of the three periods of time each explain the teaching and practice, and afterward generally explain persons and principle. According to this, it should first open the chapter by saying "first the specific, next the general." The reason it does not open it first is that in the subsequent general text there is no general [statement] on opening the provisional, but only a single text on revealing the real; hence, compared to the three periods of time each having provisional and real, it would be inconvenient to divide general and specific. Therefore, combining it into the section on the present buddha to complete the text together, it is said that the text is complete. If so, why not simply combine it into the section on the present buddha as the text of the four onenesses, rather than taking it as the general? Because the beginning of the sūtra text itself says "Śāriputra, all these buddhas" and so forth, we know that it is general.

5.33

From the sūtra's "knowing all sentient beings" down to "using the power of skillful means to preach the Dharma for them," this is the mutual correlation between stimulus and response. From "knowing all sentient beings" onward is the stimulus. From "various causes and conditions" onward is the response. In the sūtra's "various desires" and so forth: only the faculties, desires, and natures of sentient beings across the past, present, and future serve as the capacities stimulating the Buddha. In the sūtra there are only two, desires and natures; if these two exist, there must be faculties, so faculties are added in the comparative explanation. In "what is deeply attached to in their minds is the faculty": past seeds are difficult to transform and are not abandoned along with habitual practice, so they are called "what is attached to." Being in the provisional teachings, those who practice them are called "attached." Why? Faculties have the meaning of being capable of producing; due to past habitual seeds, present desires are formed. Desires have the capacity to grasp objects, because they can grasp the teachings of the five vehicles. Habitual desires become natures, so nature viewed from the perspective of desires and natures is called future; the future viewed from the perspective of the present is called the fundamental nature. In "above it was already explained" down to "deploying the provisional": based on principle, first explaining that the provisional concealing the real is precisely what is opened; having already clarified the opening, one knows that whatever was once deployed is completely real. However, fearing that the intention of what was deployed may not be understood, its intention is explained first.

First 33 of 181 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

法華文句記 — Classical Chinese