法華玄論 2.85

2.85

次引關河舊說以證常無常義。昔竺法護翻舊《法華》，猶未見判其宗旨。自羅什所譯新本，長安僧叡法師親對翻之。其《法華．序》云「以壽無量，永劫未足以明其久；分身無數，萬形不足以異其體。然則壽量定其非數，分身明其不實，普賢顯其無來，多寶證其不滅。」評曰：叡公親承羅什製斯序者，即明常其明證。蓋是法華宗本，不得不依之矣。次河西道朗對翻《涅槃》，其人亦著《法華統略》，明說《法華經》凡有五意。第四意云「為明法身真化不異、存沒理一，如〈多寶品〉說。而群生不解，為顯此義，故說斯經。」又云「多寶塔現，明法身常存。〈壽量品〉明與大虛齊量。」評曰：道朗著《涅槃疏》世盛行之，其所解法華，理非謬說，明常之旨還符叡公。道場慧觀云：「同往之三會便歸一，乘之始也；滅影澄神，乘之終也。滅影謂息迹，澄神則明本，故迹無常而本常。」評曰：還同叡公義也。次注《法華》云「非存亡之數曰壽，出脩夭之限稱量。明法身非形年所攝，使大士修踐極之照，不以伽耶而成佛、百年為期頤也。」評曰：注釋猶是明常，而意極清玄也。何者？既云非存非亡，即是不生不滅、不修不夭、非常無常，與《涅槃經》明法身絕百非不異也。次竺道生云：「夫色身佛者，應現而有，無有實形也。形既不實，豈有壽哉？然則萬形同致、古今為一，古亦今也、今亦古也，無時不有、無處不在。若有時不有、有處不在者，於眾生然耳，佛不爾也。是以極決長壽云伽耶是也。伽耶是者非復伽耶，伽耶既非彼長，何獨是乎長短斯亡、長短斯存焉？」評曰：道朗、僧叡但明常義耳。生公注經明非常非無常義也。常無常皆是斥病，對治悉檀耳。第一義悉檀即是法身，法身豈常無常等五句可取耶？

Next, I cite the traditional accounts of the Guanzhong and Hedong regions to substantiate the doctrine of permanence and impermanence. Formerly, when Dharmarakṣa translated the old *Lotus Sūtra*, one could not yet see its central tenet clearly determined. When Kumārajīva translated the new edition, Dharma Master Sengrui of Chang'an personally assisted in the translation. His "Preface to the *Lotus Sūtra*" states: "With a lifespan that is measureless, eternal kalpas are insufficient to make clear its duration; with countless emanations, myriad forms are insufficient to differentiate its body. Thus, the lifespan measure establishes that it is not countable, the emanations make clear that they are not substantial, Samantabhadra reveals that it has no coming, and Prabhūtaratna confirms that it has no extinction." I comment: Master Rui received this personally from Kumārajīva and composed this preface, which is precisely a clear proof that reveals permanence. As this is the fundamental tenet of the *Lotus Sūtra*, one cannot but rely on it. Next, Daolang of Hexi assisted in the translation of the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra*; he also composed the *Summary Outline of the Lotus Sūtra*, clearly stating that the *Lotus Sūtra* has five purports in all. The fourth purport says: "To make clear that the dharmakāya and true transformation are not different, and that existing and perishing share the same principle, as explained in the chapter 'Prabhūtaratna.' Since living beings do not understand, this scripture was spoken to reveal this meaning." It also says: "The appearance of the stupa of Prabhūtaratna makes clear that the dharmakāya constantly abides. The chapter 'Lifespan' makes clear that it is coextensive with the great void." I comment: Daolang's *Commentary on the Nirvāṇa-sūtra* circulated widely in the world; his interpretation of the *Lotus Sūtra* was by principle no erroneous account, and its purport of making permanence clear indeed accords with Master Rui. Huiguan of Daochang says: "The convergence of the three [vehicles] who formerly went along to return into the one is the beginning of the vehicle; extinguishing the shadow and clarifying the spirit is the culmination of the vehicle. Extinguishing the shadow refers to bringing traces to rest, while clarifying the spirit makes clear the origin; therefore the traces are impermanent while the origin is permanent." I comment: This again agrees with the doctrine of Master Rui. Next, a commentary on the *Lotus Sūtra* states: "That which is beyond the calculations of existing and perishing is called 'life'; that which transcends the limits of longevity and premature death is termed 'measure'. This makes clear that the dharmakāya is not contained within bodily form or years, causing great beings to cultivate the illumination that treads the ultimate, not taking enlightenment at Gayā and a hundred years as the full span of life." I comment: This commentary still makes clear permanence, and its meaning is exceedingly clear and profound. Why is this? Since it says 'neither existing nor perishing', this is precisely non-arising and non-ceasing, neither long-lived nor premature, neither permanent nor impermanent, which is not different from the *Nirvāṇa-sūtra*'s revelation that the dharmakāya transcends the hundred negations. Next, Zhu Daosheng states: "As for the physical-body Buddha, he appears responsively and exists without a substantial form. Since the form is not substantial, how could there be a lifespan? Thus, myriad forms share the same culmination, and the past and present are one; the past is also the present, and the present is also the past; there is no time when he does not exist, and no place where he is not present. If there is a time when he does not exist or a place where he is not present, this is so only for living beings, but not for the Buddha. Therefore, in the definitive resolution regarding long lifespan, it states that Gayā is it. If Gayā is it, then it is no longer Gayā; since Gayā is not that long [lifespan], how could it alone be it? Both long and short perish here, and both long and short exist here!" I comment: Daolang and Sengrui only clarified the meaning of permanence. Master Sheng's commentary on the sūtra clarifies the meaning of neither permanent nor impermanent. Permanence and impermanence are both meant to counter sicknesses; they are merely the antidotal siddhānta. The ultimate truth siddhānta is precisely the dharmakāya; how could the dharmakāya be grasped by the five propositions such as permanence and impermanence?