法華文句記 5.4

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.