法華文句記 7

English (machine translation) 7

Language: English

7.1

Exposited by the Tiantai Śramaṇa Zhanran of the Tang

7.2

Explaining the Chapter on Faith and Understanding

Someone pairs faith and understanding into four propositions: those of dull faculties with right view have faith but no understanding; those of sharp faculties with wrong view have understanding but no faith; those of sharp faculties with right view have both faith and understanding; those of dull faculties with wrong view have neither faith nor understanding. Based on what do the first two propositions receive their names? If the third proposition corresponds to this chapter, such an explanation might be made according to the Hinayana, but it is inappropriate to interpret this [chapter] with it. If in the attachment to dharmas there are views and the like, when the śrāvakas express understanding they should enter the seventh bhūmi; why then are they still at the initial mind of faith? Someone takes the mental factors of faith and wisdom from among the universally present mental factors as the essence of faith and understanding. Now I ask: what is the meaning of "essence"? Does it refer to mental factors? Are such mental factors subsumed under the noble stages, or under the ordinary stages? If under the noble stages, is it the Hinayana or Mahāyāna noble ones? The Hinayana is not the present intent; are the Mahāyāna [stages] deep or shallow? Moreover, now they hear the real and express understanding! Therefore, in having faith and understanding the present sūtra, they have already entered the first abidance; thus it is not subsumed under Hinayana mental factors. Raising one serves as an example for all; the rest follow this standard. Someone says that in comparison with the preceding there are seven differences; this does not constitute differences. First, that which is followed is different: I now say this is not so. When those of the three faculties heard the summary, they all gave rise to doubt and shook their attachments; it is only that faith and understanding come earlier or later. How can it be said that Śāriputra followed doubt, while here they follow attachment? Where there is doubt, there must be attachment; where there is attachment, there must be doubt. Moreover, the terms "doubt" and "attachment" are general and need to be distinguished from the Hinayana; for Hinayana doubt and attachment were already eliminated on the path of seeing, so separated by the two curds, how could they still need to be established against each other? Second, difference in breadth and brevity: this is also not so, for it is merely a difference in phrasing while the meaning is identical. Thus Śāriputra said, "Could it not be Māra...", and his recounting of the five buddhas was brief in words but broad in meaning; how could it be called brief? Third, difference in distance: this is also not so, as the phrasing and meaning are both identical. Not only does this text recount [the time] before the Bodhi tree, but Śāriputra's recounting of originally clinging to wrong views also goes beyond the Bodhi tree; thus there is no difference. Fourth, difference between general and specific: this is also not so. The words differ but the intent is identical: Śāriputra said, "We did not participate," and also said, "We equally entered the dharma-nature," and also said, "If we had waited for the explanation of the causes," and also said, "We did not understand skillful means." The text recounting the loss says "we" four times; how could recounting the gain be restricted to a single person? Although four are listed here, they are heads of the Saṅgha and also restricted. If so, Śāriputra extends universally to all, whereas Kāśyapa is specific to the four persons.

7.4

If so, why were not more śrāvakas given prophecies in the first cycle?

7.5

Answer:

7.6

The four assemblies and the eight classes are those very persons.

7.7

The fifth is not discussed. Sixth, difference in joy: this is also not so. If it is said that Śāriputra alone had grief first and joy afterward, the preceding placement of the word "and others" means grief extended universally to all; hence we know that although joy came earlier or later, grief had no disparity. Seventh, the difference of one versus four: the reason this is not so is also as refuted above.

7.8

Someone cites the *Vibhāṣā* saying: Śāriputra is superior, Maudgalyāyana is middling, and the rest are all inferior. These words appear similar, but that is Hinayana while the present is the real; their textual intents are eternally distinct and cannot be conflated. The *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka* translated by Dharmarakṣa titles this the "Chapter on Faith and Delight"; although its meaning is compatible, "delight" does not equal "understanding." Now, as this clarifies expressing understanding, why speak of delight?

7.9

Now, before explaining the chapter title, the reason I cite the past masters' intent in evaluating the chapter is that failing to understand the title leads to losing the intent of the text. Therein, first generally listing the three periods, calling them "preliminary," etc.: because this chapter fully grasps the beginning and end—after retrogressing from the Mahāyāna, using the Hinayana to arise again is taken as the "preliminary"; the middle is the "pursuit"; and the final is the "ultimate." The ancients only grasped the names of the three periods, not understanding their meaning. Now we take them as five periods, adding the provisional transformation of probing and grasping the dharmakāya; yet we still fear not understanding the sentiments of the four noble ones. Merely making designations such as "preliminary"—how could that resolve this chapter? Therefore one must cite and refute them to recognize the correct principle. In all there are six masters. "Saṃnāha" is translated here as great vow. Next, from "I personally consider..." downward is the refutation. The initial general rebuke states: A text says, "Shredded silk filling a basket cannot be woven into damask ribbons; jade chips filling a box cannot be carved into ritual sceptres. Disparate and fragmented interpretations are unfit to rely upon." From "Now, 'preliminary'..." downward is the specific refutation; it first indicates the beginning and then briefly brings forth the main intent, from which the intermediate may be known by analogy. Next, in the direct specific refutation, the first two lines grant and then refute, conceding the second and third masters' "preliminary"; hence it uses their "preliminary" to refute the first master and the fifth master. Next, from "If the Lotus..." downward, it again contrasts the fifth master's "preliminary" with the second's "preliminary" as a parallel example. Next, from "Furthermore, the two vehicles..." downward, it uses the third master's "preliminary" to refute the first master's "preliminary"; therein it first refutes them in parallel. Next, from "If one is refuted and one is not..." downward, it establishes an analogy. Next, from "Furthermore, father and son..." downward, it singly refutes the first master's "ultimate": seeing his father from afar is called seeing each other, and if that is called "ultimate," then at the time of the Avataṃsaka teaching they should already have received prophecy, and the Lotus Sūtra would be useless. From "If the latter is ultimate..." downward, it draws an inverted parallel: if the latter is right, the former is no longer of use; if it is no longer of use, the hearing of the Mahāyāna to establish affinity in the past would not be accomplished. Moreover, if the "ultimate" established by the second, third, and fourth masters all lies in the Lotus Sūtra, the intent may be acceptable; yet their near and distant assignments of "preliminary" and "pursuit" are hard to rely upon. Since the fifth master's "preliminary" is identical to what was refuted before, his "pursuit" and "ultimate" do not explain the *Lotus Sūtra*. How could a single lifetime of transformation in the present necessarily lead them all the way to the adamantine [stage]? For the fourth master, Zhāng’ān has no refutation, but this is merely an abbreviation. His saying that "preliminary" lies in turning the wheel of teaching means that before turning the wheel of teaching was not "preliminary"—what then would it be called? Taking attaining awakening as "ultimate," the five grades and six sense faculties would again neither be "preliminary" nor "pursuit"—what would they be called? However, as for the "ultimate" of the various masters not being refuted: the first four and the fifth for the most part reach the Lotus Sūtra and speak of reaching the buddha-fruit; though they have slight defects, they have no major fault. It is only that one cannot definitively take the adamantine mind as the "ultimate." The present master's intent is: terms such as "preliminary" must wait until the lower faculties to discuss past lifetimes before they can be evaluated, because the human and heavenly vehicles and the preaching of the Mahāyāna took place in the distant past; everything after the distant past is called "pursuit." How could the second, third, and fourth masters take the three flavors of the present lifetime as "pursuit"? Therefore we do not use them. Next, from "I personally consider..." downward, refuting origin and traces: if this is designated as the traces, it should already be the shaking of attachments in the gate of the origin; if it pre-emptively speaks of later chapters, that would mean that revealing the origin is already accomplished here, and the subsequent text would be useless; therefore it is unacceptable.

7.10

From "Now in explaining the chapter..." downward: the present intent is for the moment to discuss the faith and understanding of those of middling faculties; therefore it first evaluates the intent with five of the ten meanings at the beginning of the three cycles. Faculties being sharp or dull is the previous transformation of faculties. Being untransformed in faculties and having thick or thin [capacities] to respond is the previous delusions being thick or thin. Preaching with dharmas or parables is the previous general and specific. Awakening being earlier or later is the previous awakening or non-awakening and the awakening being deep or shallow; the remaining meanings are not primary. Because of this principle, the three faculties express understanding earlier or later; why is there any need to establish "preliminary," etc., here? As for "field peas" (wāndòu), if written with the character wān (to gouge), it is simply the character "to gouge with a knife." People of the two vehicles prior to the Lotus Sūtra were like raw field peas: an awl piercing them could not enter. As for "only contemplating emptiness, signlessness, and wishlessness," these are their entry gates to the taintless within their teaching; hence they constantly contemplated them. As for "dancing with joy," etc.: although the text uses the four words "faith" and the rest to match faith and understanding as [the siddhānta of] producing goodness in people, this good must rely upon the initial joy. Moreover, when goodness of principle arises, evil is destroyed and realization is attained; the four siddhāntas in harmonious integration are obtained simultaneously, which is the supreme truth of partial realization. The other three siddhāntas are named according to their stage, and following along they are called "partial"; thus these four siddhāntas must arise simultaneously. It is only because pairing faith and understanding with producing goodness in people is convenient that they are temporarily stated separately; this is the specific within the general. Why here are the four siddhāntas all real? Because it is from hearing the Dharma that understanding is attained. It is unlike the preceding text listing the assembly which included the Hinayana, where the three siddhāntas were in phenomena, and the supreme truth siddhānta still required differentiation by teaching; only at the end of the five periods is the present intent distinguished.

7.11

Next, the passage from "receiving the Small" onward explains [faith and understanding] in terms of the teachings. Here, wishing to explain faith and understanding in terms of stages, one ought to list the four teachings in full; however, it simply states generally: "receiving the Small and Great Teachings." The "Small" refers to the Tripiṭaka [Teaching]; the "Great" must point to the Perfect [Teaching], temporarily omitting the middle two. Since both the Small and Great Teachings without exception establish the two practices and two paths, it first clarifies the Small. Next, from "conforming to the Small" onward, looking at it from the perspective of the Great, it divides the two characters to assign them to the two paths: because doubts are broken, there is faith; because of advancement and entry, it is called understanding. Faith pervades both paths, whereas understanding pertains only to cultivation; hence it says, "the path of cultivation is called understanding." If one follows this meaning, one should take only the first abodal stage as the path of seeing, because one first sees the principle; adding effort in the first abodal stage is called the path of cultivation, because one cultivates relying on the principle. The text does not say "from the second abodal stage onward" but merely says "advancement and entry"; that is, from the first abodal stage there is necessarily progress. Thus, after hearing the Dharma, the voice-hearers mostly enter the path of cultivation. Now, speaking in terms of their progress from hearing the Dharma, it is called "faith and understanding." It is also like the sixteen mental moments being called the path of cultivation; if formerly they had entered secretly, by this point it has clearly become entirely the path of cultivation. Speaking from the perspective of being revealed, faith and understanding are simultaneous. Next, from "the text says" onward, it temporarily proves entry into the stages generally, without distinguishing faith from understanding. Regarding "recently receiving [the parable of] the burning house" and so forth: having understood upon hearing the parable, one must also understand the Dharma. How could there be delusion about what came before after having attained awakening? Therefore, one must receive and understand both the Dharma and the parable together. Regarding the two explanations of "Āyushmat" (Wise Life): the former is by cause and conditions; next, from "all kinds of wisdom" onward, it is in terms of the teachings. Contrasting the three and the one to distinguish them follows differences in practical deeds, and therefore pertains to cause and conditions. "The Buddha commanding them to turn the teachings" pertaining to the explanation in terms of the teachings has two meanings: pertaining to the semi-curd teaching is already called [an explanation] in terms of the teachings; by the time of the semi-curd, secretly becoming a person of the Distinct [Teaching] is also called [an explanation] in terms of the teachings. One should also contrast them fully with the five flavors and the four teachings, which can be known through reflection. From "the three disciples" onward resolves doubts: it is not that they did not transform at all, but rather a discussion of degree. The new translation uses "possessing life" (āyuṣmat); but "possessing" does not equal "wisdom," and how could "life span" surpass "life"? Regarding the four turns of the parable: the prose and the verses each have general and specific [parts]; or they may each have the opening of the parable and the joining of the parable. Both approaches of four turns each have opening and revealing. However, the former explanation is superior, as it corresponds to the twenty-two turns in the subsequent text. From "the mind gives rise" to "meaning": according to this, merely through hearing the parable, faith arises and one enters the stages; that is, from the first abodal stage onward, without discussing seeing and cultivation. Regarding "following the example of Śāriputra" and so forth: giving rise to a mind of rare wonder is understanding in mind; rising immediately from one's seat is understanding in body; and addressing the Buddha is understanding in speech. One should note "and so forth" so as to match them as before, fully as in Śāriputra's receiving the verses; what is absent in the text is an abbreviation.

7.12

Setting forth the three non-seekings, such as being the head of the Saṅgha, recounts past faults. The first fault: clinging to the seniority of the Small, the Great Dharma was completely missing; failing to abandon the Small was because of not yet recognizing the opening of the three; self-hardening meant that adherence to the Small had not shifted; protecting others meant being confused about the great track. The second fault: severing [afflictions] and realizing [the fruit] in a single lifetime, they therefore despised themselves for their advanced age; the ruined seeds were not yet dispelled, and the view of being unfit remained. The third fault: formerly confused about the essential purport, they vainly reckoned the efficacy of the correct position; because of this stubborn attitude, the great aspiration was difficult to arouse. From "high plateau" onward, it cites a parable to rebuke oneself: first the parable, then the application; because they already had attainment, they therefore did not seek. When the sūtra says "only contemplating" and so forth: one may also rely fully on the *Kośa*, bringing out the sixteen aspects as what was contemplated. For the sixteen aspects contrasted with the three voids, see the notes to the seventh fascicle of *Great Calming and Contemplation*. From "or pointing to" to "being the head of the Saṅgha and not seeking": because they occupied the position of the head of the Saṅgha, they had long listened at various seats of both the Small and Great [teachings]. Regarding "immeasurable precious treasures": formerly, when receiving the teachings in the Prajñā [assemblies], they thought they were for bodhisattvas; how could they have expected that now they would completely receive them bestowed equally? Regarding "and so forth" under "consulting and addressing": following worldly etiquette, when wishing to resolve something, one must first consult and address.

7.13

The text of the parable has five parts: beginning from losing each other—that is, after the forging of the karmic bond—and ending with the equal bestowal—that is, at the time of hearing the parable. If one merges the fourth and fifth, there are only four sections. Therefore, Guāngzhái's ten parables do not correspond to the present text. Hence, the previous text states: "diverging from the four men"; "diverging" refutes Guāngzhái, and "discordant" criticizes the other masters. Although the other masters did not divide it into ten parables, their correspondences to the textual passages were also discordant, fully as criticized before. Regarding "the Western" and so forth: since the two Buddhas, Amitābha and Śākyamuni, are distinct, how could one make Amitābha conceal his precious robes and ornaments, and make Śākyamuni wear soiled and defiled garments? The appearance would imply that Śākyamuni had no precious robes to conceal, while Amitābha had only an exceedingly wondrous form. Moreover, their past karmic conditions are distinct and their ways of converting are different: forging the bond is like giving birth, and maturing is like nurturing. When the conditions for birth and nurturing differ, the relation of father and son is not established. The precious and the defiled take different paths, and wearing and shedding them are completely separated. This would lack textual support in interpreting the sūtra and contradict the meaning of seasoning and maturing; the text of this work never has such an intention. Regarding "Vairocana wearing and shedding" and so forth: being confused about Vairocana going without moving, and Amitābha wearing soiled garments, has no textual basis in any teaching. If one discusses the intention of equality, how could one or the other ever pride itself? Even if another becomes my body, it still constitutes my transformation; when I establish another's image, it assists another's conditions. If people do not see this, the conditions for transformation become confused. Therefore, we know that forging the bond is entirely in terms of the nirmāṇakāya, as in saying, "In the past, under twenty thousand koṭis [of buddhas]..." Furthermore, from the beginning until now, the sixteen princes and their faculties and stimuli have mutually formed each other, naturally distinguishing and understanding. Therefore, one must not take that Amitābha to transform into this one. Regarding "not the realm where the bond was forged" and so forth: originally, when forging the great bond, the Land of Eternally Quiescent Light was the land, and the Dharma realm aimed for in mind was the capacity. Since retreating from the Great, capacity and land have both been lost. Now drifting in the five destinies, looking back at the origin, it is other. Even the land of provisional remainder is still not one's own realm, so how much less so wandering in the five destinies?

7.14

Now, the dwelling of the impoverished son is presently situated within the five defilements; for the time being, looking from his dwelling toward the origin, it is other. From then on, he has constantly remained in the three realms; hence it says "dwelling for a long time." From "this condition" to "growing up": among the capacities, it becomes somewhat thicker, and is tentatively given a prominent name; still not having returned to the origin, it merely says "thirty." From "since the conditions" onward, it takes suffering as the capacity; hence we know this is still before the small transformation. Arriving without recognizing is called "encountering"; because it was seen in the past, it is called "original." Regarding "taking suffering as the capacity": having lost both Great and Small, there is only birth and death; within birth and death there is a capacity that can be aroused, secretly knocking at the city of great compassion of the wondrous response. The great response is still distant, so the capacity provisionally faces suffering. Regarding "in a single thought, the suffering of losing his son" and so forth: through thinking of the suffering of the son, he contemplates various gateways; thinking of causing him to obtain joy, he again contemplates a single gateway. Although he contemplates both, neither has yet been achieved. Now, suddenly obtaining it, speaking from the original intention, when he is to proclaim the Buddha path, it tentatively says "a single gateway." From "since the son" onward explains the above two meanings. First, discarding the great goodness and entering birth and death; hence it says "improper." The previous explanation of the parable where the gateway has the sense of entering is truly due to this. Therefore, stirring the father's grief explains the first meaning. Departing from various enticements, the father's mind originally intended to connect him through the Perfect gateway; there will be the sense of attainment, which beforehand stirs the father's joy, explaining the second meaning. From "first, as a parable" to "simply receiving": at the beginning of the third scroll, setting forth that the reception was inadequate, the meaning lies here. Among the progression and regression of the seven goodnesses of the ten realms, the bodhisattva is the most difficult; because it combines three, it is spoken of separately. If it is so even for bodhisattvas, the Buddha realm is permanently cut off. From "the mind of understanding lacked power" to "growing up": formerly cultivating the practice of contemplation, although contemplating the identity in principle, he had not yet entered the identity in resemblance and could not eliminate defilement; hence it says "lacked power," which in meaning is like infancy. After retreating from the Great, he was completely confused about the identity in names; its meaning is like being heavy. Inner perfuming is like an addition; hence it is called "being covered." The Great was still not achieved, and he could only take up the Small first. When the great goodness is about to be achieved, it is called "gradually wishing to wear"; this anticipates later explanations. Regarding "fleeing" and so forth: how could the Buddha abandon beings? Because of being separated, he does not see him; its meaning corresponds to fleeing.

7.15

Regarding "taking the five desires of birth and death as other": since only Great Nirvāṇa constitutes one's own country, wandering in the five destinies is tentatively taken as other. Regarding "perhaps ten up to fifty": since retreating from the Great, rising and falling have been uncertain; hence the word "perhaps" is used. From "infancy has two meanings" to "indulging in delusion without returning": first it marks the two meanings; from "then not" onward concludes them. Next, in the application of the parable under "parable," the single phrase "after the karmic bond was forged" applies generally, running through the two below. Next, from "great understanding" onward applies the first meaning; from "still having" onward applies the next meaning. Because since arousing the Great, the three delusions remained entirely, in meaning it is like foolishness. Although the mind of understanding was weak, secretly assisting and distantly soaking, its hidden benefit was not slight; because conditions were slight, setbacks are called remaining blessings. Since then, not having fallen into the three evil destinies is called not yet encountering suffering; merely preserving worldly pleasures, he has therefore not yet returned to the origin. Next, from "now practicing" onward reverses the above two meanings: the first text reverses the former first meaning; since slightly turning toward the Path, there is the sense of severing delusions, which in meaning resembles escaping foolishness. Under "encountering suffering" reverses the former next meaning: taking the seeds within, it is therefore called "secretly perfuming." Being struck again by external conditions in the interim, it slightly arose of itself; furthermore, because of encountering suffering serving as an auxiliary condition for arising, the two paths of good and evil secretly and overtly perfumed and affected him. Regarding "these two serve as the capacity": if in the past there were no great bond and intermediate small maturation, even if suffering were encountered, the stimulus and response of the capacity would not be established. Merely because the two karmas, Great and Small, secretly perfumed and formed the capacity, they stimulated the Buddha. The Buddha dwelling in his original land corresponds in meaning to heading toward the land. Regarding "if with humans and devas" and so forth: without the great seed, mere good of humans and devas has no sense of stimulating the Buddha, for he does not manifest the eight phases solely for humans and devas. If there is a condition and capacity for world-transcendence, buddhas and bodhisattvas even enter the evil destinies, so how much more so humans and devas? From "in the three realms" onward clarifies that the great goodness of the sons had not matured; even if born among humans and devas, they still did not stimulate the Buddha.

7.16

From "the present Buddha" onward, using existence to refute non-existence, it fully points to the four views, clarifying that when the capacity is formed it stimulates the Buddha, and that when the Buddha appears the capacity is formed. If discussed generally, although capacity pervades the ten realms, ultimately from among the ten realms it takes the capacity for world-transcendence. Now, setting aside the general and adopting the specific to explain this chapter, therefore the subsequent text says that the Brahmā of the southeast said, "For one hundred and eighty kalpas, it has passed in vain without a buddha," and even the zenith said, "For immeasurable koṭis of kalpas, it has passed in vain without a buddha." When Mahābhijñājñānābhibhū appeared in the world, they came riding the light; one should know that in the interim they all received secret influence. Regarding "seeking the correct path therein" and so forth: taking reckoning permanence and the like as the correct path, and various ascetic practices as auxiliary paths, although thinking upon perverse principles, they were capable of becoming the correct capacity; nevertheless, this was due to the perfuming and influence of the great seed from the distant past. Regarding "The *Great Sūtra* says: carefully contemplating the four directions": fascicle thirty of the *Great Sūtra* states, "Just as there are seven kinds of sentient beings in the Ganges River: the first person, entering the water, immediately sinks, which is compared to an icchantika. The second person emerges and then sinks again: because he has faith, he emerges; because he does not cultivate, he sinks. The third person emerges and does not sink, who is the internal ordinary person. The fourth person enters and sinks, sinks and emerges, emerges and stays, and looks all around the four directions: because his body is heavy, he sinks; because he has strength, he emerges; because he practices floating, he stays; not knowing the location of emergence, he looks all around the four directions—this is compared to contemplating the four noble truths in the four fruits. The fifth person enters and sinks, sinks and emerges, emerges and stays, stays and contemplates the directions, and having contemplated the directions, moves; because of fear, he immediately leaves, which is compared to a pratyekabuddha. The sixth person enters and immediately leaves, staying in a shallow place. Why? Because he observes whether the thieves are near or far; this is compared to a bodhisattva, who does not dwell in birth and death and therefore leaves, and sets his mind at peace and therefore stays in a shallow place. The seventh person reaches the other shore immediately." The non-Buddhists obtaining deliverance is entirely through contemplating the truths, which is identical in meaning to contemplating the directions; therefore, it is temporarily cited.

7.17

Regarding "the native country is as explained above": above, the Buddha's own realm was taken as the native [country], and all others pertained to "other [lands]." From "lower text" onward, it asks what difference there is between the cities and houses below and the country above. From "all" onward, wishing to distinguish sameness and difference, it explains "country" again: "all buddha-dharmas" differs in words from the "buddha-realm" above, but the meaning is the same; city and house are also like this. The virtue of severance still must be complete with buddha-dharmas, and great compassion is also accomplished from the virtue of severance; both of these encompass all buddha-dharmas. However, in terms of taking beings' capacities, looking toward the city from the country and comparing the house to the city, loose and dense [relationships] are conceptually established, solely because the meaning of all buddha-dharmas is broad. The virtue of severance wards off evil and seems narrow; great compassion faces the son and is closer. Both are that upon which the elder's real wisdom relies; both are that which the provisional wisdom of the nirmāṇakāya depends upon. Before giving rise to the response, the capacity first taps into this; hence it says "arrived at a state and city," "resided in a state and city," and so on. Regarding "dwelling midway in a single city": for now, taking beings of one region and one category as a single son, it next aligns [the metaphor] by saying "not restricted to a single place." The place must reside in persons, which is simply co-dwelling [in the land where commoners and sages co-dwell]. Because the human kind is not yet mature, he temporarily stops in [the land of] expedient means without discarding the ritual of transformation. The sahā [world] points to that [realm] as an "other region." If one accords with the statement "other regions," one should point to the lands of the ten directions and set up transformations in the ten realms, fully as in [the chapter on] Gadgadasvara. Since the sahā world is like this, other regions follow suit. Here, still preserving contemplation of this co-dwelling [land] is because it facilitates gaining the son; hence it temporarily speaks of [the land with] remainder. If it were said that he manifests forms in the six destinies, matters would be inconvenient; yet after transmigrating, how could it not be so? Since the present capacity is close, one must speak from the superior [standpoint].

7.18

If so, why does it not say that he is in the Land of Real Reward?

7.19

Answer:

7.20

In principle it is not that this is not so; the meaning of "real reward" corresponds to the time of generating the great aspiration. Therefore, after backsliding from the Great [Vehicle], he contemplates the capacity of co-dwelling and also explains the word "midway," because the meaning is convenient.

7.21

From "in the past it was said" onward, the old [explanation] is recounted; from "now it is considered" onward, it is refuted; from "now it is taken" onward, the correct explanation is given. Nirvāṇa within the land of remainder is called the "city within the country"; abiding within this nirvāṇa is called "dwelling." Furthermore, relying on this nirvāṇa as one's residence, it is called a "home."

7.22

Question:

7.23

Earlier, in answering the question, it was said that this city is the virtue of severance and the lower house is loving-kindness and compassion. Why does it arrive here at saying that the city is remainder and the home also relies on this nirvāṇa?

7.24

Answer:

7.25

Although country, city, home, and house differ in breadth and narrowness, all are what is relied upon; remainder does not exceed the virtue of severance. Here, the home corresponds to the rare treasures and is thus called the real sphere; the house below corresponds to the son's capacity and is thus called loving-kindness and compassion. Therefore, know that what is called conditionless loving-kindness and compassion must be equal to true character; hence the meaning of the two houses is one, varying only according to what they correspond to.

7.26

Since the preceding line states that he sought his son without finding him, this means that relying on the one real loving-kindness and compassion of the Land of Self-Enjoyment, he sought his son without finding him. Therefore, he now halts midway between self and other, abides in expedient means, and still using his fundamentally relied-upon loving-kindness and compassion, thinks of his son. Thus, the country is for dwelling the people; the city originally secures the lord; the home fundamentally nurtures the nature. For those who have not entered the perfect [teaching]—that is, the people of the seven expedient means—he manifests forms in expedient means, abides in that [land with] remainder, and contemplates and seeks the perfect capacity. Therefore, dwelling there, the work of transformation is not abandoned, and the meaning of contemplating the capacity of co-dwelling is accomplished in the text. Since "home" is "house," exercising conditionless loving-kindness in that [land of] remainder is called "dwelling here." Therefore, halting in the home of conditionless loving-kindness gives rise to the two responses of superior and inferior, one-sided and perfect. However, there he should only use the superior response. Regarding "superior and inferior": the superior encompasses two places, while the inferior is solely the Deer Park. If a lesser capacity arises, in principle he should respond to it; explaining both beginning and end together is why it says "superior and inferior." Since it is said that the five kinds of persons born in that land are all bodhisattvas, when the eight, the six, and so forth arrive in that land, there is no need for lesser transformation. As they gradually advance toward the perfect and real, how could they still linger in the one-sided? Those who practice expedient means mostly go astray regarding its teaching. Fascicle 7 of the *Zhǐguān* determines that the instructional paths of the eight, the six, and so forth must be abandoned, and only with the opening and revealing of the *Lotus Sūtra* are they capable of hearing this. When a bodhisattva's capacity matures, how could what is responded to differ? The "five kinds of persons" are the four fruits and the pratyekabuddha; establishing names according to the origin, it says from the srotāpanna up to the pratyekabuddha. As for severing completely, it means severing common afflictions; or taking the two vehicles of the Tripiṭaka and the three vehicles of the common [teaching] as those who sever common afflictions, this is also permissible. The five persons of the Tripiṭaka naturally subsume the five of the common [teaching]. Bodhisattvas of the common teaching were already named bodhisattvas, so one cannot further say that upon arriving there they are all bodhisattvas; know that this refers entirely to the two vehicles of both teachings together with the bodhisattvas of the common [teaching]. If, by analogy with the four persons, the common bodhisattvas are also called bodhisattvas, what is improper about that? It is only that their corresponding to the superior response does not hold in meaning. Yet, if even the two vehicles of both teachings turn their minds there, how could the bodhisattvas of the common teaching cling to the old? If one accords with changing contemplation, bodhisattvas of both the common and separate teachings must generate the aspiration; hence it says "instructed them to cultivate and learn." It does not mention the separate [teaching] because these five persons are identical in realization. If one discusses the number of persons of expedient means comprehensively, then one should say nine: two for the Tripiṭaka, three for the common, three for the separate, and one for the perfect; one cannot say five. Here, for now, facing the lesser, it says five.

7.27

Regarding "greatly wealthy" up to "immeasurable": although the land is of remainder, the home directly relied upon does not run contrary to true character. "Immeasurable" means being fully endowed with the six perfections. "Greatly wealthy" is a general designation, while wealth and treasures are specific; although wealth and treasures are distinguished, prajñā guides the [other] five so that nothing fails to become real, not to mention that all practices become precious, hence it says "immeasurable." Regarding "gold, silver," and so forth: "and so forth" reaches other treasures, which are the other auxiliary practices and the factors of the path. The treasures do not exceed seven, which can allegorize the seven categories; therefore, the seven categories and the six perfections exhaustively encompass them. Thus, in the *Mahāsaṃnipāta*, the thirty-seven factors are taken as the bodhisattva's jewel torch dhāraṇī: their preciousness is like a jewel, their brightness is like a torch foremost in destroying darkness, and being endowed with all dharmas is named dhāraṇī. Regarding "Great Vehicle": it should say "perfect vehicle"; the text merely follows convenience. Regarding "dhyāna generating the one hundred and eight": this is because of penetrating the true character of dhyāna. Regarding "self-nourishing" and so forth: wisdom and concentration each have self and other, fully as explained before. Regarding "servants" and so forth: the perfection of skillful means refers to the perfection of the provisional in self-cultivation; the intricate manifestations are the provisional functions of benefiting others, all of which are the work of servants. Just as a commoner being employed together ascends to an exalted station, they together accomplish the provisional within the essence. Because phenomena and principle are not two, both are said to "match." Regarding "according to stage" and so forth: earlier, generally according to expedient means, it only said "servants"; judging distinctly according to stage, it subsumes the Tripiṭaka, common, and separate teachings, which, looking toward the real and the correct, correspond in meaning to menial servitude. Discussed generally, it can also encompass humans and devas; taking "different expedient means" is precisely this idea. Regarding "the ten stages of the separate and perfect teachings": still preserving the instructional path, the name of "separate" is established, because there are not two duplicate [sets of] ten stages. Among the servants earlier there were already the thirty minds of the separate [teaching]; now the ranks of ministers and assistants are the forty-one minds of the perfect [teaching], merely encompassing the ten stages of the separate teaching alongside them. From "throughout the land" downward, it explains the meaning of depth and shallowness in the ranks of ministers and so forth: because what is encompassed is vast, it is called "throughout the land." Although together in the Buddha's household, it is not without grades; because from the beginning throughout, all are sages. From "although obtaining" downward: this refers to the ten abidings obtaining entry into the stage of sages, dwelling together with the king in the sphere of the Land of True Reality, yet being the lowest in stage. Beginning from the ten practices and ending with being like ministers, all are the gradual of the perfect, so they must be explained via the perfect.

7.28

Next, from "three contemplations in one mind" to "dharma of the two vehicles": next, it clarifies what the servants, ministers, assistants, officials, and commoners ride upon, as what is ridden upon does not go beyond the various contemplations. Practicing contemplation in accordance with each teaching corresponds to what is ridden upon. However, although this sphere and wisdom follow the teachings, they are equally employed and driven by persons of the perfect [teaching]; although spanning cause and effect and differently passing through stages, each individually fulfilling its portion, therefore both this cause and effect are employed by the family of the perfect [teaching]. Regarding "countless": this is because these various dharmas do not exceed the provisional and real—what is used by ministers, assistants, officials, and commoners is the real, while what is used by servants and so forth is the provisional. This is also the provisional and real of a single essence, because all are the possessions of the elder. From "not only" downward, it concludes and subsumes the preceding explanations as not exceeding teaching and contemplation. Because teaching and contemplation are manifold, each teaching has four gates and each gate has contemplation; though immeasurable, they cover beings without remainder. For the two words "entering and exiting," there are four explanations in the text: the first three are for self-cultivation, and the last one is for self and other. Among the three for self, the first takes dual negation as entering and dual illumination as exiting. In the second turn, because exiting and entering face each other and fundamentally are mutually identical, the names of exiting and entering can also be reciprocally applied; thus the essence of this wisdom reciprocally illuminates exiting and entering. These two explanations are spoken in terms of the three truths.

7.29

Next, from "immeasurable" onward, it speaks in terms of the two truths; the opening and combining of two and three are fully as in the text of the *Xuán[yì]*. The fourth still uses the preceding three and two for self-benefit and transforming others. Therefore, know that these are all sages' stages, containing both self and other with rich meanings, which is why numerous explanations are needed. This is contemplation of the truths and is furthermore solely in the real; what could be improper about establishing it in contrast to the provisional? It is only that by contrasting two with non-dual, the two already subsumes the provisional, so it is unnecessary. Regarding "walking on non-paths": in principle this pervades the three lands; outside the dharma-nature, all are called non-paths. Emerging from the dharma-nature benefits beings of the three lands, and the merit returns to the Buddha, hence it says "returns to oneself." This simply means the merit returns to the buddha-path of dharma-nature. Regarding "merchants and traders": it should be written with the character *gǔ* (賈), meaning that one who resides and sells is called *gǔ*, while one who transports goods is called *shāng*; if written with the character *jià* (價, price), it is not the correct meaning of the text. Not only does the Buddha himself transform beings boundlessly, but he also causes bodhisattvas to make their realm of transformation all-pervasive. Bodhisattvas' transformation and benefit still rely on the Buddha's origin; their coming and going among various lands is fully as in the various sūtras—bodhisattvas of the ten directions coming and going to receive benefit, the *Avataṃsaka* and *Mahāsaṃnipāta* being examples of this.

7.30

From "as in the world" downward, it allegorizes the preceding two explanations: causing others [to benefit] is like the bodhisattvas, and it is also himself like the two bodies. First, regarding "internally aligning" and so forth: first, it generally discusses the overall meaning. Next, from "contemplate" downward, it clarifies what is contemplated by mistaken wisdom. Saying "contemplating the five aggregates" and so forth means still using mistaken contemplation to observe the aggregates as severed or permanent; using this mistaken wisdom secretly aids the correct, becoming the cause for seeing the Buddha. Regarding "the sphere of suffering acting as the capacity": this restates the preceding mistaken wisdom aiding the correct to form a capacity; however, the non-Buddhists' causes of suffering ought to invite results of suffering, hence it says "the sphere of suffering." Because they carry the correct seed that perfumes the mind of mistaken wisdom, it can become a capacity that stimulates the Buddha's correct wisdom. Regarding "nirvāṇa extends to both the half and the full": the names are identical but the essences differ, and both manifest what is resided in; the names for transforming beings are distinct, but the Buddha's sphere is without distinction. Therefore, with regard to where the son arrives, both meanings are accomplished together: when the capacity matures, if he realizes, he realizes what the father has realized, which is called arriving at the father's city; this is the lesser capacity first tapping into the great response, so it conceptually establishes that the impoverished son has already arrived at the father's city, thus causing the city to be named nirvāṇa. Because both the great and the small obtain it, it takes both the half and the full to encompass the capacities of beings; since the capacities are not identical, their gathering in is also earlier and later. Regarding "the father constantly thought of his son" and so forth: although previously the capacity gradually tapped into the sage, here it clarifies the sage gradually gathering in the capacity; as the ritual of the path of transformation, it temporarily speaks of "anxiously thinking."

7.31

"Never yet having spoken to anyone," and so forth: the text relies on two meanings to explain this idea: first, skillful means; next, this land. First, as for skillful means: within those skillful means, there are not only those prior to the stages and prior to the abodes, but also those who have manifested traces and ascended to the stages and ascended to the abodes—that is, the ministers and assistants. How could they be completely ignorant of the impoverished son's capacity and nature? It is only that, as far as the impoverished son was concerned, the time had not yet arrived; host and retinue interacting together, to conceal the real was not yet appropriate, and skillfully adapting to the capacities of living beings, it is therefore said not to have been spoken. Because those of the five persons within the realm who had severed common delusions were not yet capable of bearing hearing such words clearly and openly, it is therefore said not to have been spoken to the ministers and assistants, taking the ministers and assistants as intending the servants. Therein, pointing to the Hinayāna, it is therefore said "did not speak to." Therefore, in the mind of the elder, none was not his own son; because of differences in capacity, he established them with Hinayāna names, gradually enticing them, and only then made them ministers and assistants. Thus we know that the dharmakāya originally possessed suspended foreknowledge. Under "Furthermore, since appearing in the world," the second meaning further clarifies that in the former teachings of this land, it had not been overtly spoken; contrasting this with that which was concealed, it is therefore said not to have been spoken. Thus, while the previously established meaning of the superior nirmāṇakāya extended to both places, the words of the inferior nirmāṇakāya adapted to those one-sided capacities. Therefore, the statement of not speaking extends throughout the four flavors, and within the four flavors, ministers, assistants, servants, and so forth are fully present. Under "Since they were not," it explains the persons of the Hinayāna in the second meaning. "Like the deaf and dumb" and so forth refers to the assembly of the Avataṃsaka; "or flowers adhering" and so forth refers to the Vaipulya. The words regarding not keeping up also encompass the Prajñā; and having no desire to seek it is precisely that affair. The adhering flowers were Śāriputra, and abandoning the bowl was Subhūti; thus we know: how could the words of not speaking pertain to the bodhisattvas of the dharmakāya? Under "bearing in mind," it turns back to explain the distant cause; the distant cause is precisely the conditions for not speaking. Truly, because when forming the Mahāyāna bond in the past they had not yet entered the stage of resemblance, reflecting on oneself and reprimanding the other, it therefore says "not diligent." Thereby retrogressing from the Mahāyāna, they lost the seasoning and maturing along the way, hence it says "without instruction." Turning one's back on oneself and going toward others, it therefore says "ran away." Running away has three meanings: first, the capacity ceases and the response dissolves; second, turning one's back on oneself and going toward others; third, abiding where one ought not, which is the five paths. Thus it caused the Tathāgata to remember without any prior condition. Under "regretting the son," it exclusively reprimands the son: not only did he regret that the response ceased early, but he also deplored that the son's capacity arose, resulting in estrangement from my true Dharma and intimacy with the six dusts of others. Under "internal match" and so forth: to discuss escaping difficulties, one must purify the six sense faculties. Accords with principle, those who retrogress are mostly prior to the rank of the five grades; by contrast with the non-retrogressing rank, the five grades are tentatively taken as the rank of retrogression. The text's explanation of regret and deploring divides them between self and other; following the intended sense, they can also both pertain to both sides. Under "period of transformation" and so forth, it is explained in terms of the latter meaning—namely, from appearing in the world down to before the Lotus [Sūtra]; hence it says "old and decrepit." Under "Nor does this rely on," and so forth: it is because it does not rely on the manifested śrāvakas.

First 31 of 216 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

法華文句記 — Classical Chinese