法華文句記 7.9

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.