法華玄論 5.70

5.70

答：舊經師云有事有理。言其理者，三乘初業已知作佛，實無始疑之與終悟，但符同凡夫，引初業之前外凡夫人，令其信於一乘、必當作佛，故示始疑終悟耳。教中為論，明二乘得果已後在遊觀心中，推理既一教不應三，教若定三理寧得一？故終日逈遑安心莫寄。故瑤法師云：「踟蹰理教之間，疑為失為不失？若以理惑教，此有得義。若以教惑理，此有失義。是故踟蹰生得失之疑。然根有三種，若上根利根智以理惑教情多、以教惑理情少，故初聞法說，符順其心則便領悟，如身子之流。以理惑教情少、以教惑理情多，雖聞法譬二說，乖其本心，故三聞方悟，如滿願之流矣。若中根人處利鈍之間，理教相惑其心正等，聞法說未悟、聞譬說便解，如善吉之流。」評曰：若理中已知同歸，教中猶有迷悟者，則《勝鬘》是實說，《法華》為權教也。若爾，《法華》明一亦未了，不應取《勝鬘》意解五百由旬也。又《大經》云「羅漢二萬劫至發心處」，亦是不了之說。所以然者，初業已知同歸，何因緣故經二萬劫始發心耶？若爾，《涅槃》應是未了。若《大經》是了，《勝鬘》便應未了。又初業已知同歸，豈應復證羅漢？夫論證者謂為究竟故證耳，既知非極豈應證耶？又依《法華論》明證性法身，與《勝鬘》不異，不應作了不了及理教釋之。有人言：三乘初業者，此是三乘人初信大乘，故名為初業。此解於《勝鬘》、《法華》兩經無妨。《勝鬘》據初信大乘，故自知作佛；《法華》約三乘未信一乘，故所以生疑。有人言：《勝鬘》云「三乘初業，不愚於法，自知」者，此據利根懸悟之，人聞三即領一、稟小即悟大也。《法華》云「羅漢猶疑」者，此據鈍根人聞三守三、稟小住小，故二經不違也。

Answer: Past scripture masters said that there is the phenomenal and there is the principle. As for the principle, at the initial undertaking of the three vehicles they already know they will become buddhas, and there is genuinely no initial doubt and final awakening; they merely conform to ordinary beings in order to guide external ordinary beings prior to the initial undertaking, causing them to believe in the one vehicle and realize they will certainly become buddhas—hence they merely display initial doubt and final awakening. Discussing it within the teaching, it is explained that after the two vehicles attain the fruit, while in the mind of discursive contemplation, they deduce the principle: since the principle is one, the teaching should not be three; if the teaching is definitively three, how could the principle be one? Therefore, throughout the day they are restless and bewildered, having nowhere to rest their minds. Thus Dharma Master Yao said: 'Hesitating between principle and teaching, they doubt whether they have suffered a loss or not. If one questions the teaching by means of the principle, there is the sense of gain; if one questions the principle by means of the teaching, there is the sense of loss. Therefore they hesitate and produce doubts about gain and loss. However, there are three types of faculties: If those of superior and sharp faculties have more sentiment of questioning the teaching by the principle and less sentiment of questioning the principle by the teaching, then upon first hearing the doctrinal explanation it accords with their minds and they immediately comprehend, as in the case of Śāriputra and his kind. Those who have less sentiment of questioning the teaching by the principle and more sentiment of questioning the principle by the teaching, though they hear both the doctrinal and parabolic explanations, it runs contrary to their original minds; therefore they only awaken upon the third hearing, as in the case of Pūrṇa and his kind. If those of middling faculties are situated between the sharp and the dull, and the mutual questioning of principle and teaching in their minds is exactly balanced, they do not awaken upon hearing the doctrinal explanation, but immediately understand upon hearing the parabolic explanation, as in the case of Subhūti and his kind.'

Evaluation: If they had already known the common destination in principle, while within the teaching there were still delusion and awakening, then the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra would be a real teaching and the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra would be an expedient teaching. If so, what the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra clarifies as the 'one' would also be not definitive, and one should not adopt the intention of the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra to interpret the five hundred yojanas. Furthermore, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra states that 'arhats reach the place of arousing the mind [for bodhi] after twenty thousand kalpas'—this too would be a non-definitive teaching. Why so? Since at the initial undertaking they already know the common destination, by what causes and conditions would it take passing through twenty thousand kalpas before they first arouse the mind? If so, the Nirvāṇa[-sūtra] must be not definitive. If the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra is definitive, then the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra must be not definitive. Furthermore, if at the initial undertaking they already know the common destination, how could they again realize the arhat fruit? Realization means realizing because one considers it ultimate; since they already know it is not the ultimate, how could they realize it? Moreover, according to the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa, clarifying the realization of the nature-dharmakāya does not differ from the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra; one should not interpret them in terms of definitive and non-definitive, nor principle and teaching.

Some say: As for 'the initial undertaking of the three vehicles', this refers to persons of the three vehicles who first generate faith in the Great Vehicle; hence it is called 'initial undertaking'. This interpretation presents no contradiction between the two scriptures, the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra and the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra: the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra is based on first generating faith in the Great Vehicle, hence they know of themselves that they will become buddhas; the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra concerns the three vehicles not yet having faith in the one vehicle, which is why they give rise to doubt. Some say: When the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra says 'the initial undertaking of the three vehicles is not foolish regarding phenomena, and knows of itself', this is based on those of sharp faculties who awaken immediately—hearing the three they immediately comprehend the one, receiving the small they immediately awaken to the great. When the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra says 'arhats still doubt', this is based on dull-rooted persons who hearing the three cling to the three, and receiving the small abide in the small. Therefore the two scriptures do not contradict each other.