法華文句記 8

English (machine translation) 8

Language: English

8.1

Expounded by the Tiantai Śramaṇa Zhanran of the Tang

8.2

Explanation of the Chapter on Bestowal of Prophecy

The commentator says: Their karma seemed previously contrary, but their minds conformed to subsequent accord; having brushed away the difference of disparate sounds, how could they fall short of the fruit of the single flavor! Therefore prophecy is bestowed on them. Now I say: External affairs seemed previously contrary, but their mental capacities were originally in accord; yet among the bodhisattvas, could there be no one who was previously contrary and subsequently in accord? Hence we know that for the present prophecy to śrāvakas, the general explanation must be excluded. In explaining the title of this chapter: first, translation; next, critical analysis. Therein, first, in citing sūtras to ask under 'various sūtras': the first text generally raises the question's intention; next, under 'Vimalakīrti', it separately cites three sūtras. First, citing the Vimalakīrti: Maitreya having received prophecy as the successor [buddha], he would surely be born in Tuṣita as that heavenly lord; those sons of devas came in advance to pay homage, and Maitreya, taking this occasion, explained to them the reason for receiving prophecy, which is due to the stage of non-retrogression; he extensively preached to the sons of devas the practice of non-retrogression, which is the cause of non-retrogression. Then he was rebuked: 'Sentient beings and all dharmas, worthy and noble ones, are all identical with Maitreya in suchness; if their prophecies are identical, why Maitreya alone? How much more so since suchness has no arising or ceasing, how could one receive prophecy?' Next, regarding 'The Viśeṣacintī says': because prophecies are illusory and false, [the bodhisattva] wishes not to hear the name. The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā is also like this.

8.4

The answer has eight parts: first, a general answer; second, according to the two truths; third, according to the four siddhāntas; fourth, under 'If according to the general path', properly clarifying the present sūtra; fifth, under 'Other sūtras', discerning existence and non-existence in comparison to other sūtras; sixth, under 'Originally the buddhas', extensively treating it according to the four siddhāntas; seventh, under 'Bestowal of prophecy', determining the different names of agent and object; eighth, under 'Middling faculties', the purpose of its occurrence.

8.5

In the first text, regarding 'these views must be broken' and so forth: the idea is that where there are views, they must be broken, and where prophecies are aspired to, they must be given; how could one exclusively cite the Vimalakīrti and so forth? If evaluated in terms of the present sūtra, it must possess five intentions: first, to break the proximate prophecy attained through the provisional teaching; second, to break the mind of defiled attachment arising in those who first receive prophecy; third, to reveal the characteristics of prophecy and non-prophecy of the Mahāyāna gateway; fourth, to put to rest the expectant mind of those not yet fit for prophecy; fifth, for the sake of those who benefit from hearing about breaking attachment. The Mahāyāna gateway breaks the small; its meaning encompasses the characteristics of prophecy of the three teachings and four gateways, and so on.

8.6

Second, concerning the two truths: this is equally so across the four teachings; how could one use the ultimate to refute the conventional?

8.7

Third, concerning the four siddhāntas: in brief they are the same as the two truths, and explained extensively as below; how could one use one to refute three?

8.8

Fourth, directly treating the present sūtra, there are five [points]: first, general and specific; second, the three causes; third, slow and swift; fourth, master and disciple; fifth, prophetic bestowal of prophecy. One ought to say 'present and future', but the text is merely abbreviated. Yet these five points must be applied to the present sūtra to distinguish it from other sūtras: either slow, like the voice-hearers, or swift, like the dragon girl.

8.9

Fifth, distinguishing presence and absence with respect to other sūtras also has two parts: first, explaining the presence in the present [sūtra]; next, from the Yingluo [jing] onward, distinguishing absence and clarifying presence. Moreover, because other sūtras address bodhisattvas, they mostly bestow prophecies of the ultimate fruition of the dharmakāya; in the present chapter, prophecies are bestowed merely of the eight aspects, as explained before and after. As for the 'eight prophecies of the Yingluo', in the present sūtra the assembly already has none who do not know them; therefore, among the first four lines, the present sūtra has only the third line, because it is purely explicit. Therein, it need not be in the seventh stage, just as in [the chapter on Never Disparaging] a single line serves as a comprehensive prophecy; therefore, the prophecies in other sūtras are profound. Among the latter four lines, although the first line says that in a distant place one is unawakened, because the guiding path is identical, one is also not unawakened; therefore, the present sūtra possesses the third line whose meaning is identical to both the first and third lines. Thus we know that in other sūtras the real meaning was not yet fully expressed. Regarding 'not yet having attained unattached practice and the seventh stage': the words 'unattached' should be judged according to the shared teaching; in the distinct and perfect teachings, upon first entering the stages and abodes, one is already named 'unattached', or perhaps in the distinct teaching this is merely according to the instructional path. Because one is unattached only upon entering effortless activity, and based on the completion of the contemplation of emptiness, it ought only to be in the shared [teaching]. As for 'the seventh stage', it is in the shared teaching, because having surpassed the two vehicles one is competent to be bestowed a prophecy. However, in the treatise text, four kinds of voice-hearers are first listed; thus those who regress from the Great and nirmāṇakāya [voice-hearers] are bestowed prophecies, while those of arrogant presumption and determined [nature] are definitely not bestowed prophecies. Someone mounted a defense, saying: 'Those of determined [nature] are also bestowed prophecies.' This too is incorrect. Others maintain that the determined [nature] is precisely the fixed nature that will never generate the aspiration [for awakening]; one must point to the sūtra text: 'Though they give rise to the notion of extinction, in that land they will hear [the Dharma].' Their proposition collapses of itself; why seek elsewhere? They merely interpret those with the 'notion of extinction' as ordinary beings, distorting and fitting the sūtra text to construct their own position. Furthermore, the Ratnagotravibhāga merely says that voice-hearers have dull faculties when transcending the realm, but does not say their faculties are destroyed. As for 'destroyed faculties', Kāśyapa in the Vaipulya was precisely such a person. When reaching the Lotus Sūtra, destroyed faculties are restored; if they enter extinction, only upon transcending the realm are they born. Master [Dao]sheng said: 'Joining with the principle without encumbrance, how could there possibly be a land? Though it is said there is no land, there is nowhere that is not a land; without body and without name, yet body and name are ever more present. Therefore, land and name arise responsively according to living beings; to draw upon this is simply inadequate. If one grasps the present meaning, one merely speaks of the eight aspects to entice living beings.' These words obscure everything. The Fahua lun says: 'Because the two vehicles possess the buddha-nature and the dharmakāya, they are bestowed prophecies; it is not because their cultivation of practice is complete.' The Treatise's statement that they are 'not yet complete' is based merely on the ultimate fruition. How could they not cultivate pure land practices? Based on this, it is radiant and clear that they still must make offerings to buddhas. If pratyekabuddhas are counted among the voice-hearers, they are identical to voice-hearers; arising in an era without a buddha, they are identical to those of fixed nature.

8.10

Sixth, from 'originally, all buddhas' onward, extensively treating the four siddhāntas: in total there are ten layers to constitute the four siddhāntas. In the worldly [siddhānta] there are two: first, regarding the pairing of capacity and response; next, solely regarding living beings' capacity. Though in sense it is called 'sole', it ultimately constitutes capacity and response; the mutual matching of capacity and stimulus is like rejoicing. In the [siddhānta] for individual persons there are two: in the first text, changing from the small to enter the great has already generated one's own good; from 'the assembly of that time' onward, regarding the assembly's vows, there is furthermore the good of benefiting others. Four in the therapeutic [siddhānta]: first, breaking the evil of bodhisattvas regressing to the small; next, breaking the evil of wishing to generate the small mind; next, directly breaking the evil of the small; next, breaking the evil of being about to realize the small. The third is having already realized it, and the fourth is having already entered the stage of worthies, hence differing from the second. If it is confronting bodhisattvas to strike down those small persons, other sūtras also have this; here, clarifying the prophecy for the small and further guiding small persons belongs exclusively to the present sūtra. In the primary-meaning [siddhānta] there are two: first, directly explaining; next, resolving doubts. The doubtful text is apparent. The explanation from 'yet sentient beings' onward is to accomplish the meaning of the primary meaning; the previous three siddhāntas need not be unarisen. Moreover, in the primary meaning it is solely applied to one's own prophecy, whereas the previous three siddhāntas may combine self and other: as in the therapeutic, it is entirely directed toward others; in the [siddhānta] for individual persons, the first combines self and other, and the latter is solely other. In the first, the worldly, if one compares the guiding master with those who receive the prophecy, it also resides solely in others. Although there are these ten, they are also temporarily spoken in terms of bestowing prophecy on the two vehicles. The phrase of the buddha's prophecy and the bodhisattvas' prophecies, etc., are not discussed here. In the initial verses on Kāśyapa: the first four lines cultivate causes; the next half-line attains the fruit; the next six lines are the purity of the land; the next half-line is the buddha's life span; the next one line is the True and Semblance [Dharma]; the next half-line concludes generally, lacking the names of the kalpa and land. As for the statement 'The prophecies of the three men each have their cultivation of causes' down to 'the numbers and quantities are as in the text': it is only that in Kātyāyana's [section] there are no names of the kalpa and land, while the remaining text is entirely identical. Next, in Subhūti's [section], the prose is apparent; in the verses, the first line admonishes to listen; the next two lines cultivate causes; the next one line attains the fruit; the next six and a half lines are the purity of the land; the next half-line is the buddha's life span; the next one line is the True and Semblance [Dharma], lacking the names of the kalpa and land. In Kātyāyana's [section], the prose is as in the text; in the verses, the first line admonishes to listen; the next two lines cultivate causes; these three lines attain the fruit; the next three lines and one verse-quarter are the purity of the land, lacking the buddha's life span and the True and Semblance [Dharma]. Maudgalyāyana's prose is as in the text; in the verses, the first four and a half lines cultivate causes; the next one and a half lines attain the fruit along with the name of the land; the next half-line is the buddha's life span; the next two and a half lines are the purity of the land; the next one line is the True and Semblance [Dharma].

8.11

Explaining the Chapter on the Parable of the Conjured City

8.12

In the explanation through causes and conditions there are four parts: first, explaining the name based on the parable; second, matching it with the Dharma; third, from 'taking a rest' onward, explaining the intention of the conjuration; fourth, from 'provisional and expedient' onward, concluding. In the first text: because great nirvāṇa is not magically conjured, it does not exclusively ward off enemies; because the nature of principle is identical, and because it is replete with all virtues. Next, in the matching: first, a general designation; from 'expedient wisdom' onward matches what is performed through spiritual power; from 'using the provisional' onward matches suddenly existing from nonexistence; from 'employing the teaching' onward matches the conjuration; from 'guarding against thoughts' onward matches the city. Because the teaching lacks ultimate reality, it is therefore termed 'sudden'. Saying that the enemies not being [present] parables views and thoughts: [views and] enemies being acute whereas thoughts are distant, views press close and thoughts are remote; because views are directly obstructing, thoughts do not hinder the fruit. Third, the intended purpose: taking a rest to bestow the small leads them in to reveal the great; hence the two curds are termed 'leading in', and only ghee is 'entering'; because this is the instructional path, from 'therefore speaking' onward turns back to explain the city. From 'provisional and expedient' onward concluding the intent is to distinguish it from the real. Establishing the four siddhāntas within these four: if established comprehensively in sense, it derives from expedient wisdom; if spoken from the capacity of living beings, wishing to see what does not exist, and rejoicing having seen it, is the worldly benefit; gaining entry to take a rest is the individual benefit; guarding against wrongs to ward off enemies is the therapeutic benefit; and speaking of extinction is the primary-meaning benefit. If established from the provisional ability to lead: this city is the worldly conjuration; generating small good is the individual conjuration; temporarily eliminating views and thoughts is the therapeutic conjuration; and ultimately leading into the great is the primary-meaning conjuration. Next, regarding the teachings: because Tripiṭaka bodhisattvas have not yet set out at all, they are therefore not discussed. Although the shared teaching bodhisattvas also reach the city, they enter and are able to emerge, not being identical to the small; because they originally transcend the realm, they have one foot entering the city, yet because of great compassion and not realizing [nirvāṇa with] remainder, they have one foot not entering. Living beings of the three realms are called 'sons', and those of long-standing aspiration are considered like 'wives'. The shared teaching regards the two vehicles as an evil path; the distinct teaching regards birth and death as a perilous obstacle, reaching nirvāṇa without entering, hence called 'passing straight through'. The statement 'not ultimate' is spoken in contrast to the small; when the perfect teaching speaks of 'conjured', in the past it merely reprimanded and took away, only saying they were 'incapable', yet never said that nirvāṇa is conjured. Therefore, coming to the present teaching, unsettling attachments and opening the provisional, it is only now said to be conjured; even up to revealing the real, the conjured then becomes the true, namely the treasure island. Thus we know that the Tripiṭaka and shared [teachings] consider the ultimate as not conjured; the distinct teaching considers it neither ultimate nor conjured; the perfect teaching considers what is not ultimate to be conjured, and also may consider what is ultimate to be conjured, and may also consider what is ultimate to be not conjured, sharing identical words with the Tripiṭaka and shared teachings but with a different meaning. 'Now it is...', etc., is also spoken temporarily as 'conjured' in order to break attachments. If once opened and revealed, there is nothing that is not true reality; 'the origin, traces, and contemplation of mind are not recorded' may be known by analogy. Therefore, one should say: in origin, residing in the city of the nirvāṇa of the three virtues; in traces, entering the conjured city; if from the perspective of the guiding master, trace manifestation speaks of conjuration.

8.13

Regarding 'Question: This chapter...', etc.: this person posed this question relying on the Zheng fahua jing. The Zheng fahua jing calls it 'Chapter on Ancient Times'; the questioner secretly changed it to 'Chapter on Past Lives', so in the answer, not contradicting the questioner accords with the primary sūtra and can resolve the present text. From 'Furthermore, superior faculties' onward, it is explained in terms of the three periods. The statement 'anticipatorily taking', etc.: although its text is in the confirmation of the Dharma explanation, the confirmation is precisely to prompt those of middling faculties; therefore, when explaining the parables of infants and so forth, all cite it. From 'If according to...' onward, treating the three periods distinctively within the present chapter itself: both sūtras possess them; the primary sūtra from the beginning does not equal the middle explanation of the present sūtra, and both do not mention the treasure cache, just as in the 'Medicinal Herbs' [chapter] earth and rain are not mentioned; whereas the titles of 'Faith and Understanding' and 'Parable' are general while their intention is distinct, the distinction lying in the real; the titles of 'Medicinal Herbs' and 'Conjured City' are distinct and their intention is distinct.

8.14

Regarding 'Question: The conjured city...', etc., it can be understood. The meaning in the answer is: the text here is compressed and no longer has the two flavors; it merely recounts that after the city they immediately head toward the treasure cache. In accordance with this textual meaning, speaking of the conjured is precisely opening the provisional; opening the provisional is precisely revealing the real; revealing the real is merely speaking of the conjured. Therefore, in the previous classification according to teachings, it is the perfect teaching; hence one should know it is the perfect teaching of opening and revealing. Furthermore, from 'comprehension' onward resolves an objection, because Kauṇḍinya comprehends only after his prophecy. If comprehending after the prophecy, he fully comprehends hearing the Dharma as well as the bestowal of prophecy; or because the text is abbreviated, etc., there are multiple senses throughout. The 'and so forth' after 'Just as now' should bring out the characteristics of gradual first and sudden later, fully as in the text where past and present are both identical.

8.15

Next, seven lines of verse summarize the previous three meanings: the first line summarizes what was seen; the next four lines summarize the parable of the distant past; the third, two lines, concludes present and past. The sūtra says: 'That buddha...', etc.: in all places where the eight aspects leave their traces, they all first vanquish Māra; conforming to the Lotus Sūtra, it should also be gradual first. Again saying that vanquishing Māra seems identical to an impure land: yet conforming to the length of life span, it is again not an impure land; thus we know that in the realm of shared abode, pure and impure have indeed many aspects; therefore, attaining awakening and so forth cannot be wholly identical to the Tripiṭaka of this land; thus we know one cannot simply cite the small teaching of this land to explain that text.

8.16

Question: At that time the Brahmā heavenly kings rained down numerous heavenly flowers; the flowers were like mountains, yet the tree and seat were still below them. What are their characteristics?

8.17

Answer:

8.18

Inconceivable matters do not obstruct one another. Listing the Brahmās of the ten directions in the text: in the Dharmarakṣa version, first the four cardinal directions, next the four intermediate directions, next above and below; these are entirely according to the translator's intention, and it is unknown what the order was in the Sanskrit manuscript. Yet the numbers listed in the Dharmarakṣa version differ greatly from this.

8.19

The 'and so forth' after 'Corresponding' is entirely based on the verses of the various Brahmās requesting the Dharma, and is also identical in meaning to the small and great, half and full; yet that buddha's preaching of the Dharma is also according to the five flavors, hence relying on the ancient refutation it must refer to indicating, exhorting, and certifying.

8.20

As for "and so forth", one should briefly distinguish the marks of the three turnings. Demonstrating means: "This is suffering," up to "This is the path." Exhorting means: "Suffering should be known; the cause of suffering should be eradicated; cessation should be realized; the path should be cultivated." Confirming means: "Suffering has already been known by me, and need not be known again," up to "the path has already been cultivated by me, and need not be cultivated again." "Demonstrating" means showing their marks; "exhorting" means urging them to cultivate; "confirming" means citing oneself to attest to it for them. The texts of the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* and the *Abhidharmakośa* explain these in detail. If one were to set forth fully here all the points of convergence and divergence in the meaning of the turning of the wheel of the Dharma across the Hinayāna and Mahāyāna sūtras and treatises, more than a hundred sheets of paper would not exhaust them. The intention is simply to let it be known that in that [other] land they also started with the small and later proceeded to the great just as in this land, so they are not related extensively. Now distinguishing the various approaches, I briefly show their convergence and divergence, within which there are four parts: first, in terms of what is matched; next, from "for śrāvakas" down, in terms of those for whom it is performed; third, from "for what reason" down, clarifying the intent of the three turnings; fourth, from "Question" down, providing an analysis. The first text has two parts: first, matching with four dharmas; second, matching with the three paths, because within the four dharmas the categories of meaning are identical. In the third part regarding the intent, it states: "Because sentient beings have three kinds of faculties": śrāvakas themselves have these three in their vehicle, and thus in the Deer Park their attainment of awakening was not uniform. The *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa* and the *Mahāvibhāṣā* also state there are three kinds of faculties: those of superior faculties hear the first turning, and those of medium and lower faculties may be inferred accordingly. As for "Question: initially for..." and so forth: since it is said that śrāvakas themselves possess three faculties, and all five persons are of the disposition of śrāvakas, since they possess the three faculties and there are also the various devas, for what reason were there not three [turnings for all]? The reply beginning with "For the sake of generating..." indicates it is because both humans and devas share all three meanings. That is to say, differences in the path of the faculty of wisdom, hearing, and so forth are the three wisdoms; awakening occurring earlier or later constitutes the three faculties; the path of seeing, the path of cultivation, and the path of the non-learner constitute the three paths; by analogy, entering nirvāṇa in the form and formless realms also exists in principle, but they are simply not attained by reason of the turning of the wheel of the Dharma.

8.21

Next, in explaining the twelve modes of practice, there are two parts: first, presenting both the teachings and the practices together, [stating that] there are ten; from "the second" down, explaining them. In the explanation, there are again six parts: first, a brief explanation; next, from "furthermore, the teaching..." down, determining the active and the passive; third, from "twelve..." down, determining what is a wheel and what is not a wheel; fourth, from "if one makes..." down, determining teaching and practice; fifth, from "the wheel of teaching..." down, determining the breadth and narrowness of name and essence; sixth, from "or general..." down, determining the general and the specific. In the first text, "twelve modes of practice" means that the four truths each employ demonstrating and the others as the teaching, and each single turning gives rise respectively to the eye and the others as the practice. As for "active and passive", because all four are spoken by the Buddha, they are called "active"; because they cross over and enter their minds, they are called "passive". As for "being a wheel or not a wheel", "wheel" has the meaning of crushing and grinding; if there is only teaching without practice, how could it crush delusion? If it does not crush delusion, it also does not have the name "wheel". When the Buddha knows the capacity and the time, he also does not turn it in vain without practice. Now stating that it is not [a wheel] means: teaching arises from the transformer, while practice arises from the recipient; therefore the wheel of practice is attained from the recipient, while its merit redounds to the master of transformation and is thus attained from the Buddha; because this did not exhaust the principle, it is explained again. If one takes them as two wheels, teaching and practice alternate and jointly are able to crush delusion; all the more so since teaching and practice are both turned by the Buddha, therefore teaching and practice both obtain the name "wheel". But because the eye, knowledge, and so forth have no separate essence, they refer back to acceptance and the others; therefore the practices of the eye and so forth are established as sixteen in relation to the teaching of the truths. Thus, when people of the three faculties hear the teaching of the three turnings, each generates the eye and so forth, making forty-eight. In the section on breadth and narrowness, what is said concerning "the wheel of teaching" and so on means: it is the wisdom for transforming others, yet it belongs to a single provisionality; then the active turner is only one, while what is turned is twelve; thus the active turner is narrow in name and broad in essence, while what is turned is broad in name and narrow in essence. As for "the wheel of practice of the Dharma": teaching is that which expresses, and practice is that which is expressed; therefore practice follows the teaching and both have twelve; although both have twelve, their breadth and narrowness differ. The teaching is fixed at twelve, while the practice generates the eye and so forth; if one uses demonstrating and the others to generate the eye and so forth, the numbers are the same while the names differ. Next, in distinguishing the general and the specific, the word "or" is an indefinite term. Or, three persons each hear the three turnings; or, one person hears the three successively. Although the first makes a distinct elimination, the passage from "Now regarding..." down gives the correct explanation. In the first turning of the wheel of the Dharma, one attains the understanding of seeing the truths; only then do persons of the three vehicles have twelve.

8.22

From "those who cannot..." down, eliminating those who are unable to turn it also has two parts: first, briefly indicating the persons; next, from "there is an explanation..." down, taking this occasion to distinguish generally the Great and Small [Vehicles] and the general and specific. The first text has two parts: first, directly indicating the persons; next, from "now as for turning..." down, clarifying why they cannot turn it. In the first text, "śramaṇas" refers to those who have left the household life in the Buddha's Dharma; not relying on the Buddha's preaching, they would not even know its name—how could they turn it? Therefore the name "wheel of the Dharma" is derived solely from the Buddha. If śramaṇas are even like this, how much more so for other beings? Some say: those among non-Buddhists who have left the household life are called śramaṇas. If so, why is it said that "they still cannot know it"? One should know that the orthodox is used to highlight the heterodox. As for "there is an explanation" down to "the intent of": our master on occasion gave this explanation, using this occasion to distinguish generally that it is not the first turning. Within this there are four parts: first, clarifying the rolling up and unrolling throughout [the Buddha's] lifetime; next, from "the Hinayāna..." down, distinguishing the essence throughout [the Buddha's] lifetime; third, from "the twelve..." down, distinguishing the sameness and difference of name and essence; fourth, from "furthermore, the three persons..." down, distinguishing the general and the specific. The first text tentatively discusses rolling up and unrolling in terms of the essence of the truths: unrolling four from nothingness, and rolling up the four into nothingness; rolling up and unrolling are simply the ideas of opening and combining. It is fully as explained in the text of the *Profound Meaning* under the sevenfold two truths. As for "Great and Small", it is just tentatively explaining and bringing out the essence in terms of the Hinayāna and Mahāyāna. Fully detailed, it should be clarified in terms of opening and revealing according to the five flavors and four teachings, fully as explained in the text of the *Profound Meaning* and in the discussion of essence in *Great Calming and Insight*. In the third part clarifying name and essence, stating that "the twelve links of dependent origination are distinct marks": first, generally divided into the three periods of time; second, specifically divided into two causes and five results, and three causes and two results, fully as explained in the text of the *Profound Meaning*, the *Abhidharmakośa*, and so on. In the fourth part, clarifying the general and specific has three divisions: first, in terms of causes and conditions; next, in terms of the four truths; third, in terms of the six perfections. The first text again has two: first, matching with three persons; next, from "unborn..." down, clarifying rolling up and unrolling. From the initial "three persons" down, the general and specific are apparent. "Mutually giving rise to and successively extinguishing": unrolling means successively giving rise to, while rolling up means successively extinguishing, fully as explained in the text of the *Profound Meaning* to distinguish flourishing and declining. Next, in terms of the four truths, merely matching the two vehicles with bodhisattvas is simply an abbreviation of the text; one should also first clarify separation and combination, next match them with the three vehicles and four teachings, and later clarify rolling up and unrolling. In the third part, regarding the six perfections, there are four divisions: first, clarifying their applicability to the Small; next, clarifying their applicability to ordinary beings; third, from "if so..." down, resolving doubts—in the resolution, it only speaks of the two vehicles and does not speak of ordinary beings, because the two vehicles still have a partial attainment; fourth, from "the Abhidharma..." down, citing the Small to prove the general applicability. "The vinaya of the three vehicles in the *Ratnamegha Sūtra*" cites an event to prove general applicability. As for "and so forth", one should fully clarify the reason. "Liberation from the two bonds of defilement and result" narrates the initial to reveal the subsequent. As for "both liberations, and so forth", one should explain the three liberations in correspondence to the three stations of mindfulness, fully as in the tenth fascicle of *Great Calming and Insight*. This reveals that one who is liberated both ways is replete with phenomenal concentration, which is called profound and wondrous.

8.23

As for "the various faculties" and so on, the text has two explanations of the meaning: the first explanation refers to the stage of semblance [awakening]. The next explanation says, "entering the Buddha's realm", which refers to the stage of the first abode. It is fully as in the ten kinds of six faculties in the *Avataṃsaka Sūtra*. In the verses below, it says "distinguishing the real dharma": because of distinguishing, from form and mind at the beginning to the all-seed wisdom at the end, none depart from the true character; therefore it is said to be "real". As for "eighty-four thousand kalpas" down to "and so forth", one must fully clarify the meaning of the duration: how could the buddhas ever not be in concentration? It is simply because the capacities of living beings had their limit of forming affinities with the sixteen princes, so that it was for that length of time, fully as described in the subsequent text. The *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka Sūtra* translated by Dharmarakṣa says, "entering concentration for thirty myriads of kalpas"; it is unknown why the number translated by Dharmarakṣa deviates so abruptly. As for "there are three kinds of encountering": the first two can be known. Since the third simply discusses encountering the Small, the phrase "in the interim" refers naturally to those who originally formed an affinity with the Small. The third kind of person, never having heard the Great, immediately drifted in transmigration; this person took the time of first hearing the Small as their initial formation of affinity, and further in the interim practiced only the Small, and now encountering the princes they first hear the Small for the time being. Seeing the portion of śrāvakas in the teaching of Śākyamuni's lifetime who had not yet generated the aspiration, people immediately judge that they are forever extinguished without generating it; this is not knowing the Tathāgata's long and far-reaching transformation.

8.24

Next are the question and answer; in the answer, it is explained in terms of the four siddhāntas. The text is slightly out of sequence: first the counteractive, next the individual, next the worldly, and next the supreme truth.

8.25

Question:

8.26

Which passage in this sūtra accords with their preference for brevity?

8.27

Answer:

8.28

The dragon girl is the one. Although no duration of time is mentioned in the "Dharma Master" chapter, by calculation it should not be distant. Even in the Hinayāna teaching it is merely said that one leaves the realm [of saṃsāra] in sixty to a hundred kalpas, and merely passing through eight, six, four, or two [lifetimes]—though there is a difference between the Great and Small, these are still within the provisional teaching. Therefore, in the real teaching, the six faculties and the five grades can be expected within a single lifetime, up to the *Suvarṇaprabhāsa Sūtra* where the ten stages are traversed in a single lifetime. Therefore Nányuè, utilizing the intent of the *Sūtra on the Contemplation of Samantabhadra*, said that the six faculties take at the slowest no more than three lifetimes. Although the four siddhāntas accord with capacities and follow preferences for long or short, when discussing one's own practice, one ultimately never folds one's arms and does nothing. According to the treatise, this is precisely the aspiration of sentient beings; inclination and aspiration correspond precisely to the first of the four siddhāntas, yet it still lacks the remaining three. If one points to other buddhas as being equal, that ultimately falls short of the meaning of the four siddhāntas.

8.29

Question:

8.30

Since the real teaching of the Lotus Sūtra should only preach the real, why is a short number of kalpas still spoken of as long?

8.31

Answer:

8.32

When speaking of provisional and real, this concerns the dharmas practiced; the duration of time is merely to entice and advance weary persons. One should know that the provisional teaching exclusively preaches length, as in the three asaṃkhyeya kalpas of the *Mahāvibhāṣā* and the immeasurable kalpas of the various Mahāyāna sūtras; this definitely cannot be shortened. Although in the real teaching there are both long and short, if one relies on the real path, shortness is definitely the correct [standard], as with the assembly that disparaged Never Disparaging, who merely passed through four hundred billion buddhas and all attained deliverance; how could they necessarily have had to pass through kalpas numerous as dust motes? Even so, length and shortness depend on the capacity; how could the principle be so? Since length and shortness depend on the person, if one is simply diligent oneself, what need is there to discuss the length or shortness of another's time?

8.33

Regarding “the land with remainder of the shared teaching of the three vehicles”: our school clarifies the principle by correlating lands with teachings, fully as in the Mohe zhiguan and the Jingming shu. They also correlate teachings horizontally and vertically: horizontally discussing whether the land's substance corresponds to the teaching, and vertically discussing the extent to which the teachings are employed with respect to the land. Thus, persons of the two vehicles have already become people of the shared [teaching] in that [land] with remainder; therefore it is said to be “the land with remainder of the shared teaching.” There are also those who have already become people of the shared [teaching] here, meaning that from the Deer Park to the Vaipulya section, they re-enter the shared teaching and become people of non-arising, and they do not further employ this teaching to sever defilements. “The path of teaching” means the path of conversion; because the teaching constitutes the path of conversion, it is called “the path of teaching.” From “the assembly is also pure” to “established”: the path of conversion is about to conclude because the capacities of the assembly are ripe; “ripe” means that the two virtues of wisdom and severance are complete. Hence the word “pure” expresses the exhaustion of afflictions, which is called the virtue of severance. Correct understanding pertains to wisdom; wisdom must illuminate the truths, and thus it is called “thorough comprehension.” The mention of the various dhyānas applies in sense to both wisdom and severance, meaning the defilements within the realm are exhausted. Regarding the “four unshakeable confidences”: the Kośa, fascicle 25, says: “There are four kinds of verified purities, namely, Buddha, Dharma, Saṅgha, and precepts. Seeing three [truths] one obtains Dharma and precepts; the path of seeing additionally [obtains] Buddha and Saṅgha. ‘Dharma’ means all of the three truths, the path of bodhisattvas and pratyekabuddhas; confidence and precepts serve as their substance, and all four are purely uncontaminated.” The Treatise says: “The sūtra speaks of four verified purities, namely the four [objects] such as the Buddha; these four are what is verified. When seeing the three truths, one obtains the two, Dharma and precepts; when seeing the truth of the path, one additionally obtains the Buddha and Saṅgha.” This is explained in detail in the Treatise's text. This is entirely an interpretation according to the Hinayana, correlating the Deer Park with the Nirvāṇa period. In the subsequent interpretation, from “only the single phrase ‘pure’ resides in Hinayana faith and understanding” onward, it fully presents the teachings of the two flavors within the gradual [tradition]. The former interpretation corresponds to the intent of the “Skillful Means” and “Simile” chapters; the subsequent interpretation corresponds to the intent of the “Faith and Understanding” chapter. Regarding “if there were no two vehicles in the world,” etc.: the questioner's intent is that according to principle, no one in the world ought to enter extinction permanently; all assemblies must ultimately return to the Great [Vehicle], so why employ the three? The respondent's intent is obvious: when the world speaks of “entering,” they merely assert it themselves. Since the sūtra text says that there are no two vehicles that attain extinction, how could it be necessary to establish those of determinate nature? From “if in the interval” to “the second simile”: these two intervals each have two senses. If for bodhi, they must have already entered the stage of non-retrogression, or being at initial aspiration they do not necessarily all retrogress; if abiding as śrāvakas, they are either initially Hinayana or mid-course—both classes require the provision of the simile of the conjured city.

8.34

Regarding “Question: herein,” etc.: the questioner asks why the “Conjured City” chapter merely says “following and pursuing from beginning to end,” but lacks losing each other as in “Faith and Understanding,” or being terrified and entering as in the “Simile” chapter? If they are lacking, then there would be no following and pursuing there. Moreover, it would also permanently diverge from the intermediate and superior [capacities]; how could one use this to analogize that? The intent in the reply is that the methods of employing similes differ. That the text does not happen to use them does not mean the underlying intention is lacking; hence it says, “yet its meaning pervades.” What is meant by “pervades” is that losing and seeing each other is something that intermediate faculties, after gaining awakening, receive and understand today: before there were great or small conversions, it is called turning one's back on the father, as well as clarifying the fault of clearly seeing the father and not recognizing him. In the simile it says “terrified and entered”: although I turned my back on the father, the father does not abandon me and constantly contemplates my capacity; at the inception of that capacity's emergence, there is the sense of being terrified and entering. If we discuss the stimulus and response after forming affinity, when did he ever not follow, just as in the present text? Since it speaks here of meeting in the interval and up to today seeing each other and attaining deliverance, we know that in the interval there was not an absence of losing each other, or being terrified and entering. One should know that following and pursuing is due to being terrified and entering; being terrified and entering brings about seeing each other; seeing each other is due to losing each other. Each brings up one side, but the overarching purport is no different.

8.35

Next, regarding the “Question”: since it speaks of following and pursuing and does not speak of losing, etc., now that the benefit has been attained, why is it not devoid of falsehood? The intent in the reply is that because opening and revealing has already been done extensively, gaining faith is easy; hence there is no need to employ the simile of not being false. Furthermore, the above was for the intermediate and lower [capacities] who were not yet awakened; now here the provisional trace-affair is already complete. Regarding the “twenty-two turns”: following the commentary below, it asks how the opening of the provisional in five places differs. In the reply it fully enumerates the locations of the five texts, so we know that before this there were only four places; in the four places there are twenty-two turns. The section on the five buddhas is one place, with prose and verse each having five, which makes ten turns. In the “Simile [Chapter],” the opening of the simile and the joining of the simile each have prose and verse, hence four turns. In “Faith and Understanding,” receiving and understanding the opening and joining above each has prose and verse, again four turns. In the “Medicinal Herbs Simile,” there are also opening and joining, each having prose and verse, again four turns. Three times four plus ten equals twenty-two. The brief opening merely stirs attachment and produces doubt; it is not the formal opening and revealing. Although the verses contain passages such as the brief verses, they merely belong to the Śākyamuni section and share a single meaning. Although the doctrinal exposition contains received understanding and endorsement, it is not the formal opening and revealing. Although the commentary on the Medicinal Herbs says that wisdom first and teaching next are collectively taken as opening and joining, if they were established individually, they would become many turns—what objection would there be? Therefore, we tentatively abide by the commentary's text as definitive.

8.36

In explaining the five hundred yojanas, other interpretations are first brought forth. Under “Master Ji,” it is first recounted, and next refuted, saying: “We now state that it is neither specific nor shared”: that the seventh ground severs habitual propensities is not the proper sense of the specific [teaching], and that the eighth ground severs ignorance is again not the sense of the shared [teaching]; it exactly resembles the specific connecting to the shared. The Treatise says: “The first ground is the path of seeing, and from the second ground onward one enters the path of cultivation.” One should know that prior to the grounds one suppresses specific defilements, and ascending the grounds one severs the views and thoughts of identical substance. If this were not so, how could the dedication of the Great Vehicle be equated with the superior acceptance of the Hinayana? The ten abodes have already severed the defilements within the realm completely; hence the Yingluo [jing] says: “Seven minds do not retrogress; at what stage of heat is it named non-retrogression? The ten practices enter the worlds of the ten directions everywhere; if the summit stage still retrogresses, how could one roam everywhere? Acceptance has no text of emerging from contemplation, so how could there be dedication of the dharmadhātu?” In the Yingluo [jing], the three contemplations manifest before the first ground; how could the first ground only begin to enter the path of seeing? Please take the ranks of the forty minds and resolve ordinary texts one by one: the senses of suppression and severance are distinct, and their efficacy is as far apart as heaven and earth. The refutations of non-Buddhists and the Hinayana in the treatise originally aimed to lead them to enter the correct and enter the great; why maintain a determinate nature and cause them to enter extinction permanently? The Hinayana claims to abide in the fruit, but the Great [Vehicle] determines that there are none who are not reborn; hence we know that after extinction they hear [the Dharma] in that land, and one must not again rely on treatises asserting they do not hear it. Since the treatise school lacks the exposition of opening the provisional, permanent extinction is merely a text that obscures the real. The determinate and indeterminate can only be used to express the sūtras of rebuke and deprivation; if the provisional and real are permanently separated by abolishing the one-sided and abolishing the Hinayana, [then error arises]; fully clarifying this meaning, the various teachings will naturally become apparent.

8.37

Regarding “A certain master says flowing down,” etc.: according to the Masters of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, seven kinds of saṃsāra are established, yet they lack ‘having an end’ and ‘having no end’, and they combine ‘reversing out’ and ‘flowing down’, so they only speak of four. This is fully as in the seventh fascicle of the Zhiguan and its commentary. That text refutes them, saying that they relegate the two kinds of birth and death to the wilderness beyond, etc. The present text then results in relegating four kinds; hence one must ask further why they use birth and death as a simile, and why combine ‘reversing out’ and ‘flowing down’? Furthermore, lacking the remaining two, the intermediate is precisely the birth and death of skillful means. “Someone objects”: this objects to the aforementioned master of the Saṃgraha. Causes and effects must correspond, and the names of causes and effects are established in accordance with teachings, fully as in the Śrīmālā[devī-sūtra]. It correlates five causes with two fruits: the four entrenchments are the causes of fragmented [birth and death], and ignorance is the cause of inconceivable transformation. Since you further establish ‘flowing down’ upon the fruit of fragmented [birth and death], and further open an ‘intermediate’ within the fruit of inconceivable transformation, you should also establish the four entrenchments and ignorance separately each. This is fully as refuted in the Zhiguan.

8.38

Next, citing the two passages from the Dàzhìdù lù: these prove that birth and death are only two. “Physical body” generally designates [the state] where the four entrenchments are not yet exhausted. “Dharma body” provisionally applies to both lands beyond the realm; both being designated as inconceivable transformation and the dharmatā-body is precisely this. This proves the two kinds of birth and death, not discussing the eternal body; this is the direct text of the Dàzhìdù lù. Among the Great Vehicle masters of our era, who surpasses Nāgārjuna? He says an arhat must abandon fragmented [birth and death] before entering inconceivable transformation. Below, “someone says”: what this master posits resembles the meaning of the shared teaching, hence he says “the interval between the two lands is hard to cross,” because the sixth ground is equal to the two vehicles, and upon reaching this point, many fall into the stage of the two vehicles. Below, “the objector”: this is another person objecting to the position just established. You use four hundred to symbolize the seventh ground, so the sixth ground must correspond to three hundred; three hundred again has equal efficacy with the two vehicles. Since they practice together with the two vehicles up to three hundred, and upon reaching here their departing and staying differ, how can it be called practicing together? Thus the objection below says “they should not be equal.” Regarding “sixty kalpas,” etc.: for a śrāvaka the maximum duration is sixty kalpas; for a pratyekabuddha the maximum duration is a hundred kalpas. “The two vehicles are circuitous toward the buddha-path”: this clarifies that persons of the two vehicles differ from those practicing the bodhisattva path, in that they provisionally grasp realization. Below, “We now state,” refuting: “It is neither shared nor specific”: refuting that objector, because of twenty-two great asaṃkhyeyas it is not shared, and because the sixth ground is equal to the two vehicles it is not specific. For the twenty-two asaṃkhyeyas, please consult the Dàzhìdù lù; this also resembles the specific connecting to the shared. Below, “someone says”: the specific meaning is not established; one should not take from the seventh abode onward as the five hundred, as in the Great Sūtra where eighty thousand kalpas reach it, etc., fully as in the commentary on the seventh fascicle of the Zhiguan. It fully cites three passages from the Great Sūtra; this master’s intent is that the place where the bodhi-mind is generated is from the seventh abode onward. Regarding “as with the three faculties,” etc.: this master’s intent is that receiving predictions in the three rounds refers to persons of the three faculties, because they collectively reach the place where the bodhi-mind is generated in the Great Sūtra. “The five kinds of people”: this points to the aforementioned four fruitions and pratyekabuddhas in the Great Sūtra; these five kinds of people generate the mind together with the people of the three rounds and cross the five hundred. Below, “this adopts,” refuting what was cited previously: clarifying that eighty thousand is different from the three rounds, one should know that this master is completely deluded about stages, completely ignorant of the words “eighty thousand,” does not understand the stage where the two vehicles receive prediction, and is also oblivious to the teachings inside and outside the realms; their intents in suppressing or drawing forward are each distinct, so one must recognize them properly.

First 38 of 187 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

法華文句記 — Classical Chinese