法華玄論 8.73

8.73

五百由旬義。論曰：佛法雖復深曠，而大要不出生死涅槃、迷悟二𨅊也。諸師盛引五百由旬廣證諸義，故須評其得失。此義若成，眾證皆立；斯義若壞，眾證皆謬矣。有人言：生死有四種，一流來生死、二變易生死、三中間生死、四分段生死。今但明三種生死以譬五百，不說流來。流來是有識之初，今明反原之始，故不說也。三百謂分段生死，四百是七地，中間生死五百是，八地已上變易生死也。評曰：此釋，五義為失：一者四種生死經論無據。《勝鬘》云「因五果二」，果二者，一分段、二變易。因五者，謂五住地。離二生死，別立流來生死及中間生死，應離五住外別立煩惱，離漏無漏業別更立業也。二者《法華》明五百，而不增為六百、減成四百者，經明二種生死，亦不可增減。若二生死遂有增減，則五百義亦同然。三者《釋論》云「菩薩有二種身，一肉身、二法性生身。」肉身則分段生死，法身謂變易生死。若二生死外別有生死，應離二身外別更有身也。四者論又云「阿羅漢捨三界肉身受法性生身」，故羅漢唯有二身，則但有二生死，離二之外無別生死也。五者若以四百為七地，則三百為六地。若爾，二乘斷惑便與六地齊功。若二乘斷惑齊六地者，無有是處。二乘極久唯六十劫或百劫，菩薩至六地時二十二大僧祇劫，略據一文詳之，則菩薩求佛道而迂迴，二乘望大覺為直路，而眾經呵斥二乘便成妄說。又《大智論》云「二乘去佛道迂迴，不如直往菩薩。」以經論詳之，不應作此說也。此義至有聲聞無聲聞中當廣論之。

The meaning of the five hundred yojanas. The treatise says: Although the Buddha-Dharma is profound and vast, its main essentials do not go beyond the two tracks of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa, delusion and awakening. The masters abundantly cite the five hundred yojanas to broadly prove various meanings; therefore it is necessary to appraise their merits and flaws. If this meaning is established, the numerous proofs will all stand; if this meaning collapses, the numerous proofs will all be mistaken. Someone says: There are four kinds of saṃsāra: first, flowing saṃsāra; second, transformational saṃsāra; third, intermediate saṃsāra; and fourth, portion-and-limit saṃsāra. Now we explain only three kinds of saṃsāra to illustrate the five hundred, not speaking of the flowing [saṃsāra]. The flowing is the beginning of having consciousness, but now we explain the beginning of returning to the origin, so it is not spoken of. Three hundred refers to portion-and-limit saṃsāra; four hundred is the seventh stage, intermediate saṃsāra; and five hundred is transformational saṃsāra of the eighth stage and above. Appraising this: In this explanation, five points are flaws: First, the four kinds of saṃsāra have no textual basis in the sūtras or treatises. The Śrīmālādevī-sūtra says: 'The causes are five, and the results are two.' As for the two results, one is portion-and-limit, and the second is transformational. As for the five causes, they refer to the five entrenched grounds. If apart from the two kinds of saṃsāra one separately posits flowing saṃsāra and intermediate saṃsāra, one should, apart from the five entrenchments, separately posit afflictions, and apart from contaminated and uncontaminated karma, separately posit another karma. Second, the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra explains five hundred without increasing it to six hundred or decreasing it to four hundred; the sūtras explain two kinds of saṃsāra, which also cannot be increased or decreased. If the two kinds of saṃsāra could have increase or decrease, the meaning of five hundred would be the same. Third, the Dazhidulun says: 'Bodhisattvas have two kinds of bodies: first, a physical body; second, a body born of Dharma-nature.' The physical body is portion-and-limit saṃsāra, and the dharmakāya refers to transformational saṃsāra. If apart from the two kinds of saṃsāra there were another saṃsāra, then apart from the two bodies there should separately be another body. Fourth, the treatise also says: 'Arhats abandon the physical body of the three realms and receive a body born of Dharma-nature.' Therefore arhats have only two bodies, and thus there are only two kinds of saṃsāra; apart from the two, there is no separate saṃsāra. Fifth, if four hundred is taken as the seventh stage, then three hundred is the sixth stage. If so, the two vehicles' severing of delusions would be equal in merit to the sixth stage. If the two vehicles' severing of delusions were equal to the sixth stage, there is no such possibility. For the two vehicles, the absolute longest is only sixty kalpas or one hundred kalpas, whereas when a bodhisattva reaches the sixth stage, it is twenty-two great asaṃkhyeya kalpas. Examining this briefly based on one text: the bodhisattva seeking the Buddha path would be taking a circuitous detour, while the two vehicles looking toward the Great Awakening would be taking a direct path, and the numerous sūtras rebuking the two vehicles would become false statements. Furthermore, the Dazhidulun says: 'The two vehicles taking a detour to the Buddha path are not as good as bodhisattvas who proceed directly.' Examining it through sūtras and treatises, such an explanation should not be made. This meaning will be broadly discussed under [the section on] whether there are or are not śrāvakas.