法華玄論 1.75

1.75

答：教異釋不同。若如南方五時之說、北方四宗之論，皆云《華嚴》為圓滿之教，《法華》為未了之說。今總難之，明初成道一乘化眾生不得，今說《法華》即是一乘化眾生得。若言今說《法華》義猶未了者，則佛初成道欲以一乘化物不得者，此應發始即用不了義化物也。若佛初成道即欲以不了義化物者，此即乖父子恩情、傷諸佛本意。若言初成道是了義化物，今說《法華》亦是不了義者，初成道可是一乘化物不得，今說《法華》應非一乘化物得也。又問：以何義故而《法華經》義未了耶？救曰：凡論滿教，謂因圓果極；此經未明常住，故果未滿。滿字具明緣正二因，此經但明緣因成佛、未明正因，故因未滿。答：此經明眾生有佛性即是正因，假萬行為一乘即是緣因，故因義具足；開近迹是無常，顯妙本為常住，故果義究竟。此義後當說之。故不應言此經明義猶未了也。又佛種種因緣稱歎《法華》令人信受，若言教稱半字理猶未圓者，則使聞經之徒不生崇仰，便於《法華》起輕劣心，上失光闡之福、下招誤物之罪，〈譬喻品〉未為之寄心也。今所釋者，《華嚴》之與《法華》同明一因一果，教滿理圓無餘究竟，但善巧方便起緣不同。領其大要凡十四種：一者《華嚴》謂始說一乘，《法華》終明一乘，始終乃異，一乘無別。二者《華嚴》直說一乘，始無所會，終無所開；《法華》對三明一，始辨開一為三，終明會三歸一。三者《華嚴》為發始學大緣說；《法華》為二種緣說：一者為前小後大緣說、二者為發始學大緣說也。四者《華嚴》為福德大利根人說；《法華》為薄福鈍根人說，如初本學大，中途棄大留小，後還捨小從大，故名鈍根也。五者《華嚴》謂平道教；《法華》初則斥奪迷執，然後方平道說也。

Answer: The teachings are different, and explanations disagree. According to the five-period theory of the South and the four-lineage treatises of the North, they all state that the Avataṃsaka is the complete teaching, while the Lotus Sūtra is an incomplete exposition. Now I critique them generally: When [the Buddha] first attained the Way, transforming sentient beings with the one vehicle could not be accomplished; now, the preaching of the Lotus Sūtra is precisely that transforming sentient beings with the one vehicle has been accomplished. If one were to claim that the doctrine now preached in the Lotus Sūtra is still not definitive, then when the Buddha first attained the Way and could not transform beings through the one vehicle, he should have used the non-definitive doctrine to transform beings from the very outset. If the Buddha from his first attainment of the Way had wished to transform beings with the non-definitive doctrine, this would contradict the affection between father and son and injure the original intent of all buddhas. If one claims that upon first attaining the Way he [intended to] transform beings with the definitive doctrine, but now preaching the Lotus Sūtra is also non-definitive, then while upon first attaining the Way transforming beings through the one vehicle could not [succeed], now preaching the Lotus Sūtra should not be the [successful] transformation of beings through the one vehicle either. Furthermore, it may be asked: On what grounds is the doctrine of the Lotus Sūtra considered incomplete? They defend their view saying: 'Whenever a complete teaching is discussed, it means the cause is perfect and the fruit is ultimate; this sūtra does not yet clarify permanence, so its fruit is not complete. The character of completeness fully clarifies both the conditioning and primary causes; this sūtra only clarifies attaining buddhahood through conditioning causes and has not yet clarified the primary cause, so its cause is not complete.' I answer: This sūtra clarifies that sentient beings have the buddha-nature, which is precisely the primary cause; provisionally relying on the myriad practices as the one vehicle is precisely the conditioning cause; therefore, the meaning of the cause is complete. Opening up the proximate traces is impermanence; revealing the subtle origin is permanence; therefore, the meaning of the fruit is ultimate. This doctrine will be discussed later. Thus, one should not say that the doctrine clarified in this sūtra is still incomplete. Furthermore, the Buddha praised the Lotus Sūtra through various causes and conditions to cause people to have faith and accept it. If one says that the teaching is termed 'half-word' and the principle is still not perfect, it would cause those who hear the sūtra not to give rise to reverence and instead produce a mind of contempt toward the Lotus Sūtra, losing the merit of illumination above and incurring the sin of misleading beings below—the 'Parable Chapter' certainly does not intend this. Now, what is explained here is that both the Avataṃsaka and the Lotus Sūtra equally clarify the single cause and single fruit; the teaching is complete and the principle is perfect, ultimate without remainder; it is only that the skillful means arise from different conditions. Grasping their main essentials, there are fourteen points: First, the Avataṃsaka expounds the one vehicle at the beginning, while the Lotus Sūtra clarifies the one vehicle at the end; though beginning and end differ, there is no distinction in the one vehicle. Second, the Avataṃsaka directly expounds the one vehicle, having nothing to converge at the beginning and nothing to unfold at the end; the Lotus Sūtra clarifies the one in contrast to the three, first opening the one into the three, and ultimately converging the three to return to the one. Third, the Avataṃsaka is preached for those who from the outset learn the Mahāyāna conditions; the Lotus Sūtra is preached for two kinds of conditions: first, for those with conditions of Hinayāna first and Mahāyāna later, and second, for those with conditions of learning the Mahāyāna from the outset. Fourth, the Avataṃsaka is preached for people of merit and sharp faculties; the Lotus Sūtra is preached for people of meager merit and dull faculties—like those who originally studied the Mahāyāna, midway abandoned the Mahāyāna and stayed with the Hinayāna, and later returned to abandon the Hinayāna and follow the Mahāyāna; hence they are called dull faculties. Fifth, the Avataṃsaka is called the teaching of the level path; the Lotus Sūtra first refutes and strips away deluded attachments, and only then speaks of the level path.