法華文句記 9.217

9.217

Regarding the six phrases: the first begins with “the Tathāgata”; the second begins with “nor is there being in the world”; the third is “neither real nor unreal”; the fourth is “neither thus nor different”; the fifth begins with “not like the triple world”; and the sixth begins with “in this manner”. In explaining the meaning of the phrases, first: regarding the Tathāgata’s clear seeing, it should properly be said to be the “dharma-realm”; why does it merely say “the characteristics of the triple world”? It is to cause sentient beings to know that wherever traces are manifested, there is nothing that is not the dharma-realm, and because the dharmakāya is eternally abiding, it says “in accordance with reality”. Regarding “stimulating the dharmakāya”: the capacities [of beings] strike the dharmakāya, causing the two nirmāṇakāyas to arise, hence it is called “stimulation”; one cannot simply take the dharmakāya itself to be the response. Below “in accordance with reality” is the main explanation. Within the explanation, regarding the first phrase: below “if according to”, the text says “there are no two kinds of death”; this should mean that there are no causal characteristics of the two kinds of triple world. Merely saying “triple world” means that the one who knows and sees is called wisdom, and the thusness known and seen is the middle object, because the middle object does not lie outside the triple world. Because what is seen is common to both ordinary people and sages, here, because the Tathāgata’s knowing and seeing are entirely real, while the knowing and seeing of all others are unreal when viewed in relation to the Buddha and still possess causes, the Buddha’s seeing in accordance with reality is called “having no cause”, for once one has left the triple world there is no separate principle. From “there is no birth or death” onward refers to having no results of the two kinds of death. Below “arising and origination”, it concludes the causes and results belonging to the above lack of the two kinds of death. Thus having the origination of the five abodes is called “retrogression”, and having the results of the two kinds of death is called “emergence”; and regarding the statement “the results of impermanence appear”, when the two kinds of death are viewed in relation to the middle, both are impermanent, specifically designating the two lands as the two kinds of death, and generally speaking, everything prior to the adamantine [concentration] is still termed impermanent. Regarding “nor is there being in the world or passing into extinction”: this also doubly negates the causes and results of the two extremes. These two phrases and the two double negations are why it says “these four”. Therefore, from “in accordance with reality knowing those who pass into extinction” above, it is explained in terms of what is separated from in accordance with principle; the next two phrases together reveal the substance of the middle; the final two phrases are explained in terms of the ability to see. Regarding “if doubly negating” and so forth: these four phrases all constitute double negations; if these words of double negation are concluded according to those [other interpretations], they become one-sided phrases. Although the words are evident, fearing that they might be confused with the double negations of the provisional teachings, the concluding phrases of double negation are re-explained; if they belong to one extreme, they all belong to the provisional teachings. Below “for example”, the characteristics of concluding phrases are presented: using other concluding phrases to conclude the present double negations causes them to become one-sided phrases, which would not be the perfect and real, so he goes through the phrases and concludes them in sequence. In concluding the first phrase, saying “neither birth nor death” and so forth: taking birth as the extreme of samsāra and taking death as the extreme of nirvāṇa, “being birth and being death” is then double illumination. If concluded as birth, it becomes the extreme of samsāra, and “neither birth nor death” is then double negation; if concluded as death, it merely becomes nirvāṇa; the same applies to retrogressing and emerging. The two below are modeled on this. If, having concluded both, one further doubly negates them, only then is the middle way revealed; hence it says, “now all are negated”. In the present sūtra, it directly doubly negates in order to reveal the middle, without concluding one-sided phrases, and therefore it is exclusively the perfect and ultimate. Regarding “such types as these”: examples of this are still numerous, namely the text from “and so on” downward. As in simple, compound, and complete, although words of double negation exist everywhere, when concluded by phrases they each have their affiliation; thus all [wrong] views only conclude as existence, while the phrases of the two vehicles only conclude as non-existence; this existence and this non-existence merely constitute the conventional of the separate [teaching], and neither this existence nor non-existence merely constitutes the middle of the separate [teaching]; now, in revealing the perfect principle, a subtle differentiation is necessary. The sūtra says: “The Tathāgata knows and sees in accordance with reality”; if one were to explain it using the two vehicles, there would be the fault of slandering the Buddha. Yet these concluding phrases belong solely to our school, evaluating all phrasing methods in the sūtras and treatises in order to distinguish the differences in textual meaning, central theme, and orientation. In the commentary on the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra, in explaining the chapter on Kātyāyana, where Kātyāyana merely speaks of “the meaning of suffering, the meaning of emptiness, the meaning of non-self, and so forth”, the meaning resides in the Tripiṭaka [teaching], but Vimalakīrti concludes it into the meaning of the shared [teaching]. He rebukes him, saying: “Emptiness without anything arising is the meaning of suffering,” and so forth. One should know that “emptiness without anything arising” is neither suffering nor bliss, yet it is concluded by returning to suffering; having said “without arising” and further said “it is suffering”, it therefore merely constitutes the shared [teaching]. If one says that “emptiness without anything arising” doubly negates both emptiness and existence and is concluded as the meaning of bliss, it then becomes the intention of the separate [teaching], because the separate [teaching] takes emerging into provisionality as bliss. If one further doubly negates the suffering and bliss of the separate teaching, only then does it become the real middle. Expounding extensively like this, how much more so with the simple, compound, and complete that also pervade all teachings, such as the four gates of the four teachings, where each gate has four gates, each gate has four siddhāntas, and within each and every siddhānta there are again four siddhāntas, which then becomes gates and siddhāntas each having completeness; hence the completeness of the separate [teaching] must be further negated. When views arise in the perfect gate, one still falls into the phrase of existence; how could it further constitute compound completeness, and so forth? Therefore, we know that whether views or non-views, whether gates or siddhāntas, all must rely on the dharma to determine the phrase; never can a phrase determine the substance of the dharma. Therefore, an interpreter who does not observe where the substance of the dharma beneath the phrase ultimately returns—how could he distinguish the depth or shallowness of the dharma-phrases? How could he properly interpret the double negation of the present sūtra? If determined by the dharma, any single phrase that is raised immediately constitutes the real principle.