法華玄論 2

English (machine translation) 2

Language: English

In the fully preserved Sanskrit text, it should be called Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra. Master Zhu Fahu translated it as 'Correct Dharma Lotus Flower' (Zhengfa lianhua), while Kumārajīva amended it to 'Sublime' (Miao), with the rest following the old scripture. Master [Hui]yuan employed both renderings and added many names, calling it the True Dharma, the Good Dharma, and so forth. Evaluation: When Master [Kumāra]jīva amended it to 'Sublime', there must surely have been a profound reason; we shall now attempt to discuss it. 'Correct' receives its designation by contrast with the 'heterodox', while 'sublime' gets its name by comparison with the 'coarse'. Taking the ninety-six heterodox paths as incorrect and the teaching of the five vehicles as correct, this designation of 'correct' is inferior. Although the five vehicles are correct, they are not yet supremely sublime; only the One Vehicle is supreme and unsurpassable, so the designation 'sublime' is superior. Therefore, the earlier translation was altered and the later rendering was adopted. A verse says: 'This vehicle is subtle and sublime, pure and foremost'—it surpasses the two vehicles; 'in all the worlds, it is unsurpassable'—it transcends the vehicles of humans and gods. Therefore, by contrast with those coarse vehicles, the Buddha-vehicle is deemed 'sublime'.

2.4

Question: How many kinds of 'sublime' are there?

2.5

Answer: Briefly, two meanings are clarified: first, the relative sublime; second, the absolute sublime. The relative sublime means explaining the sublime in contrast to the coarse. The absolute sublime means neither coarse nor sublime; not knowing how else to designate it, one forces the name 'sublime'.

2.6

Question: Why establish these two kinds of sublime?

2.7

Answer: The Perfect Person possesses skillfulness; provisionally, in contrast to the coarse, he speaks of the sublime. Those who cling to names claim that the Way is indeed not coarse, and its principle must be sublime. Therefore, it is said next that speaking of the sublime in contrast to the coarse is not yet the genuine sublime. Why is this? Although it cuts off the coarse, it has not yet cut off the sublime. If it is neither coarse nor sublime, with both coarse and sublime cut off, only then is it called 'sublime'. The designation of the absolute sublime originates from this. Master Sengguan's preface to the sūtra says: 'Using the flower to proclaim the subtle, the Way is profound and beyond images; naming it sublime, its essence transcends the fine and the coarse.' A verse says: 'This Dharma cannot be shown; the marks of words are tranquil and extinguished.' It is that by which the two vehicles cease their deliberations, and those bound to one last birth abandon hope; only Buddhas together with Buddhas can exhaust its depths. Evaluation: Master Guan's view silently coincides with our present intention. Objection: If one examines this explanation, it clarifies only the sublimity of the fruit; since the vehicle extends across cause and fruit, one should not grasp one side. Answer: Speaking from the perspective of principle, it is only the fruit that is sublime; the causal vehicle is not yet ultimate, so it is not sublime. It is only because the cause emulates the practice of the fruit that it is called sublime in accordance with its share. Those who hold only the causal vehicle to be sublime have not plumbed the source of sublimity.

2.8

Next, clarifying two kinds of sublime: first, revealing the sublime by opening the three and displaying the one; second, explaining the sublime by opening the near and displaying the distant. This is the overarching doctrine of the entire sūtra, and therefore we clarify sublimity on this basis, which interprets the second character, 'Dharma' (fa). Within these two, we first discuss the ten pairs generally, and next examine cause and fruit specifically. If this doctrine holds, then it is called 'sublime'; if it does not hold, then it is not 'sublime'.

2.9

Regarding the general discussion of the ten pairs:

2.10

Question: In calling it 'sublime' here, is it called sublime because the Buddha-fruit is permanent, or because it is not yet permanent?

2.11

Answer: Master Yun of Guangzhai said: It is still impermanent. Why is this? The teaching has five periods, and only the fifth, the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, is the teaching of permanent abidance; all the four periods are impermanent. The Lotus Sūtra is the teaching of the fourth period, and therefore the Buddha-body is still impermanent. Furthermore, this sūtra itself speaks of impermanence, as the text below says, 'again twice the above number'; although it is called long, it is ultimately limited, so we know it is impermanent. Furthermore, the Chapter on Medicinal Herbs says, 'ultimately returning to emptiness'; since 'ultimately returning to emptiness' is impermanent, it ultimately enters the [nirvāṇa] without remainder.

2.12

Question: Since it is impermanent, is it of definitive meaning or of non-definitive meaning?

2.13

Answer: This sūtra clarifies the One Vehicle as definitive meaning, but explains impermanence as non-definitive; therefore it is both definitive and non-definitive. Evaluation: This sūtra opens the door of skillful means and reveals the true mark, opening two kinds of skillful means and revealing two kinds of reality. The two skillful means are the skillful means of the vehicle and the skillful means of the body. The two realities are the reality of the vehicle and the reality of the body. If so, previously opening the three vehicles as skillful means and the One Vehicle as real—since it is a real exposition, it is called definitive meaning; why, when later opening the skillful means of the body and the reality of the body, would it not yet be a real exposition and thus be of non-definitive meaning? If both are equally skillful means and reality, and the latter is deemed non-definitive, then the former should also be so. Furthermore, both being equally skillful means and reality, if the former is definitive and the latter non-definitive, then the latter should also be definitive and the former non-definitive. Furthermore, if both are equally skillful means and reality, and the former is definitive while the latter is non-definitive, then the former section would be the complete teaching and the latter section the half teaching, the former section would be deep and the latter section shallow, which would entail the fault of inversion. What is now clarified, relying on the spoken words of the Buddha, is that the first section clarifies the provisional and real of the vehicle, and the second section clarifies the provisional and real of the body: the provisional and real of the vehicle is called the ultimate vehicle, and the provisional and real of the body is called the ultimate body. If one says that the provisional and real of the vehicle is ultimate but the provisional and real of the body is not ultimate, such a person only believes in the first section of the sūtra and does not believe in the latter section of the sūtra, and thus their faith is incomplete. The Great Sūtra says: 'Among the twelve divisions of scripture, they believe in only six divisions and do not believe in six divisions.' This statement is verified here.

2.14

Second, clarifying the meaning of cause and fruit. The old tradition says: first, opening the three and displaying the one clarifies the cause; next, opening the near and displaying the distant explains the fruit. According to the old appraisal, the cause is both complete and half, while the fruit is only half and not complete. Because it clarifies converging the three to return to the one, the One Vehicle is ultimate and thus the cause is complete; but because it clarifies only the auxiliary cause and does not yet explain the direct cause, the cause is not complete. Because it clarifies that although the fruit has the difference of near and distant, both are impermanent, it is therefore only half and not complete. Evaluation: This interpretation has two errors. First, to say that the first section clarifies the cause and the latter chapter explains the fruit is incorrect. Formerly, three causes and three fruits were clarified; now, one cause and one fruit are explained. How could opening the three and displaying the one clarify only the cause? If what is clarified today as the 'one' were only the cause, then what was formerly clarified as the three vehicles would also be so. Furthermore, clarifying today's one Buddha-fruit vehicle as ultimate, and clarifying the former three causes and three fruits as all non-ultimate, is precisely guiding beings to the one fruit; how could it clarify only the cause? This meaning has already been explained in the text. Second, if one says that the first section clarifies the cause definitively and the latter chapter explains the fruit non-definitively, then the cause would be superior while the fruit would be inferior, and the cause would be deep while the fruit would be shallow; this meaning is incorrect. Furthermore, the cause would differ from the śrāvakas while the fruit would be identical to the arhats. Why is this? Because by converging the three to return to the one, the cause differs from the śrāvakas, but because it is still impermanent, the fruit is identical to the arhats. Furthermore, if today's one cause brings about an impermanent fruit, then the former two causes should likewise bring about a permanent reward; just as one cannot obtain a permanent fruit through the causes of the three vehicles, so one cannot obtain an impermanent fruit through the cause of the One Vehicle. Furthermore, if the cause is complete and the fruit is half, then the cause is not the cause of the fruit, and the fruit is not the fruit of the cause, so this is not the meaning of cause and fruit. What is now clarified refutes these two errors to clarify two merits. In the first section, opening the three and displaying the one, the 'one' encompasses both cause and fruit; therefore, formerly there were three causes and three fruits, while now there is one cause and one fruit. Second, this sūtra explains the ultimate cause and the consummate fruit: the cause of converging the three to return to the one is called the complete cause; the fruit of opening the near and displaying the distant is called the consummate fruit; therefore the cause is called the cause of the fruit, and the fruit is called the fruit of the cause. Furthermore, because the cause is endowed with both causes, the cause is complete: first, the direct cause, namely Buddha-nature; second, the auxiliary cause, namely the myriad good practices, as explained above. The fruit is endowed with both fruits: first, the trace-body fruit; second, the dharmakāya fruit.

2.15

Third, explaining the three virtues. The first section of the sūtra clarifies the two kinds of wisdom, provisional and real, which is prajñā; the latter section explains the origin and the trace, which is dharmakāya; these two are free from encumbrance, which is called liberation. Therefore, this sūtra is fully endowed with these three virtues, and is thus called permanent.

2.16

Question: The Great Sūtra may have the three virtues, but how can this sūtra also clarify the three virtues?

2.17

Answer: This sūtra clarifies the cause of the one Buddha-vehicle and the fruit of the one Buddha-vehicle. As for the cause of the one Buddha-vehicle, the cause is endowed with myriad practices; as for the fruit of the one Buddha-vehicle, the fruit is endowed with the three virtues. As for the cause of the two vehicles, the cause is not endowed with myriad practices; as for the fruit of the two vehicles, the fruit is not endowed with the three virtues. If the fruit were not endowed with the three virtues, then the fruit would not differ from the two vehicles; if the cause were not endowed with myriad practices, the cause would not differ from the two vehicles. How could that be so?

2.18

Question: How is it known that the first section clarifies prajñā and the latter section explains the dharmakāya?

2.19

Answer: Prajñā is the secret of speech, and the dharmakāya is the secret of body, as explained in the "Chapter on the Four Marks." The former section clarifies the provisional and real nature of wisdom, and so it is prajñā; the latter section discerns the original and trace natures of the body, and so it is appropriate to clarify the dharmakāya. As for liberation, when these two are free of entanglements, that is liberation.

2.20

The fourth is addressing the two kinds of recipients. First, discerning the provisional and real nature of wisdom was spoken for the sake of the śrāvakas; now, clarifying the original and trace natures of the body is spoken for the sake of the bodhisattvas. Spoken for the śrāvakas: Śāriputra represents the pinnacle among the lesser; because the lesser and greater intersect, he turns from the lesser to take refuge in the greater. Spoken for the bodhisattvas: Maitreya represents the pinnacle of causal practice, being adjacent to the dharmakāya; thus, he turns from the impermanence of the cause to cause [bodhisattvas] to realize the permanence of the fruition. If the dharmakāya were still impermanent, then cause and fruition would be of the same station, and what would a person in the cause have left to learn? Furthermore, if the cause were impermanent and the fruition were also impermanent, then a person at the station of the cause would be able to measure the virtues of the fruition, and what doubt would the Compassionate One (Maitreya) have had? What is clarified now is that previously the greater was spoken to persons of the lesser to cause the lesser to take refuge in the greater; now, the permanent is spoken to persons of impermanence to cause persons of impermanence to realize the permanent. Moreover, the lesser is inferior while the greater is superior; thus, the greater was spoken to guide the lesser, causing the lesser to aspire to the greater; impermanence is inferior while permanence is superior; thus, the permanent is spoken to guide the impermanent, causing those of impermanence to aspire to the permanent. Therefore, there are differences between the two sections of two teachings and two recipients. If the dharmakāya were impermanent, the teaching would lack the ability to guide recipients, and recipients would lack the rationale to delight in the teaching.

2.21

The fifth is clarifying the dual remedies. The first section clarifies the one vehicle, which is different from the former three vehicles; thus, the three are the illness and the one is the medicine, using the one to repudiate the three. The latter chapter clarifies present permanence, which is different from former impermanence; permanence is the medicine and impermanence is the illness, using permanence to repudiate impermanence; thus, there is mutual remedying of illness by medicine, present and former. If the latter section still clarified impermanence, there would only be the former remedy and no latter remedy; then the former illness could be dispelled, but the latter affliction could not be eliminated.

2.22

Question: Clarifying the fruition is also different from the past. Formerly it explained eighty or seven hundred asaṃkhyeyas, but now it says "double that number again"; is this not different?

2.23

Answer: Although it says "double again," it is ultimately impermanence; it differs only in being shorter or longer. If it were ultimately impermanent, there would ultimately be no latter remedy. If one claims that formerly it was short impermanence and now it is long impermanence, yet ultimately it is impermanence, then formerly it would have been the crude three and now the subtle three, yet ultimately there would still be three! If the three and the one correspond to each other, the former three must unite to become not-three; correspondingly, permanence and impermanence correspond to each other, and former impermanence now becomes not-impermanence.

2.24

The sixth is adducing the two stages to correspond to the two saṃsāras. Previously, converging the three into the one allowed escape from the two stages: because the human and heavenly vehicles enter the one vehicle, they leave the stage of ordinary beings; because the śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas enter the one vehicle, they leave the stage of the two vehicles. Having left both the ordinary and noble stages, they arouse the bodhicitta and gradually cultivate, entering the ten faiths, the ten abodes, the ten practices, the ten dedications, the ten stages, and up to equal enlightenment; in this way, the meaning of the cause is complete. If the fruition were still impermanent, then one would not yet have escaped the two deaths; if one has not escaped the two deaths, one has not yet crossed the five hundred yojanas; if one has crossed the five hundred, one has already escaped impermanence. Furthermore, if the fruition has not yet escaped the two deaths, the fruition is not yet complete; if the fruition is not yet complete, the cause of the ten stages is also not fulfilled, and the rationale of explaining the cause would not hold either. What is clarified now is that the first section causes all sentient beings to leave the stages of ordinary beings and the two vehicles, to arouse the bodhicitta, and to cultivate bodhisattva practices up to equal enlightenment. The latter chapter clarifies that the fruition eternally eradicates the five entrenchments and completely overturns the two deaths, so the meaning of the fruition is complete. Because the cause is fulfilled and the fruition is complete, this sūtra is ultimate.

2.25

The seventh is clarifying the two subtleties. The first section clarifies the subtlety of the one; the latter section clarifies the subtlety of the permanent. Clarifying the subtlety of the one in the first section: because the Path has no dual, it is named "one." As the Avataṃsaka says, "All fearless persons emerge from saṃsāra by one path." But the one path has two kinds: first, having no divergence of the ninety-six kinds [of non-Buddhist paths], it is called one; second, having no divergence of the five vehicles, it is called one; lacking these two kinds [of divergence], it is called one path. Because of not being one, it deviates from the Path and is named crude; because the Path has no dual, it is termed subtle. Therefore, the first section directly shows the purity of the one path for all sentient beings. The second section shows that the one path is permanent: although knowing that the one path is pure, one does not yet know whether the one path is permanent or impermanent; hence it next clarifies that the one path is permanent. Because the Path is permanent, it is subtle. The tathāgata is the person who realizes the one path; because the Path is permanent, all buddhas are also permanent; because the Path is subtle, the person who embodies the Path is also subtle; because the Path is one, the person who embodies the Path is also one; therefore, all buddhas of the ten directions share the same dharmakāya. Why is this so? If the non-path is already impermanent, and the Path were also impermanent, what difference would there ultimately be between the Path and the non-path? If it were as traditionally stated, there would only be the subtlety of the one, and no subtlety of the permanent; the meaning of subtlety would be deficient, and hence it could not be called the Subtle Lotus. Furthermore, because the one path is permanent, the one can be termed subtle; since the tradition explained the one as still impermanent, the one would also not be subtle. If so, there would not only be no subtlety of the permanent, but also no subtlety of the one; since there would be neither of the two subtleties, there would only be the two crudes. What is clarified now is that there is solely the one correct Path, spoken according to its meaning: because the ultimate has no dual, it is named "one"; its essence is not arising and ceasing, and so it is permanent.

2.26

The eighth is clarifying the three guidings. Throughout Śākyamuni's single dispensation, from beginning to end, there are three guidings: before the Lotus Sūtra, it is called guiding the heterodox to return to the orthodox. Before the Buddha appeared in the world, there were two kinds of heterodox teachings: first, the ninety-six arts of the renunciant non-Buddhists; second, all worldly householder sentient beings. Although these two kinds differ, neither is the Buddha Dharma, and so they are named heterodox. The Tathāgata appeared in the world to guide these two heterodoxies to return to the orthodox teachings of the five vehicles: among these two kinds of people, for those who had heard nothing and followed wrongful ways, he matured them through the roots of goodness of humans and devas; for those with the capacities of the three vehicles, he transformed and delivered them through the Dharma of the three vehicles; thus he guided these two heterodoxies to return to the orthodoxy of the five vehicles. Second, guiding the divergent to return to the identical: although they were freed from the two heterodoxies before the Lotus Sūtra, they still clung to the five divergences; therefore, he guided the five divergences to return to the one vehicle, which is the meaning of the first section. Third, guiding the cause to return to the fruition: although the five vehicles entered the one vehicle, they were still at the causal stage; therefore, he guided the cause to return to the fruition, causing them to realize the dharmakāya. Just as the śrāvakas' reception and understanding clarifies the beginning of the ten faiths, Maitreya's dispelling of doubt discerns the culmination of the ten stages. Guiding these two causes, beginning and end, to return to the fruition of the Tathāgata's ultimate dharmakāya. These three guidings leave out no teaching and exhaust no meaning; they are not limited to Śākyamuni, but pervade all buddhas. Having reached ultimacy through the three guidings, it is called the complete sūtra, which is the definitive meaning of eternal abiding. Moreover, because the three guidings are ultimate, the subsequent chapters clarify that many people attain the Path. Prior to the Lotus Sūtra, there was only the first guiding and not yet the second guiding, so those who attained the Path were few. If the latter section still clarified impermanence, there would only be two guidings and no third guiding. Furthermore, there would only be guiding the śrāvakas and no guiding the bodhisattvas; because the śrāvakas did not believe in the one, they are now made to enter the one, and thus the śrāvakas are guided. Since bodhisattvas and the Buddha would both be impermanent, how could he guide the bodhisattvas? Moreover, he could not guide the śrāvakas either. Why is this? If all buddhas and their disciples—the śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha saṅghas—were all impermanent bodies, how could he guide them? Furthermore, if the Buddha were impermanent, it would cause people of the two vehicles to give rise to thoughts of regression and no longer seek buddhahood. In addition, the three vehicles are still impermanent, which is termed the half-word; the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra says, "For the sake of śrāvakas, he spoke the half-word." This sūtra directly teaches bodhisattvas; how could it speak the half-word?

2.27

Question: If the three guidings are ultimate, why was the Nirvāṇa-sūtra spoken again?

2.28

Answer: The sons are of two kinds: first, those who have not lost their minds; second, those who have lost their minds. The sons who had not lost their minds heard the three guidings in their ultimacy and all attained understanding; the remaining sons who had lost their minds heard the three guidings and were not enlightened; therefore, through skillful means [the father] proclaimed his extinction and expounded nirvāṇa for them, whereupon they were finally able to accept the Path. If so, the Nirvāṇa-sūtra was spoken for people of the dullest faculties.

2.29

Question: If the Nirvāṇa-sūtra was spoken for people of dull faculties, should it be shallow?

2.30

Answer: The teaching is not shallow; it was merely spoken with an altered thrust in response to the recipients' awakening. Just as it is the same medicine, but those who have not lost their minds take it first, while those who have lost their minds take it later; just as it is the same single correct Path, but the sharp awaken first, while the dull awaken later. The Nirvāṇa-sūtra and the Lotus Sūtra have no difference whatsoever.

2.31

Question: If the Nirvāṇa-sūtra was spoken for people of the dullest faculties, how can the sūtra say that it was spoken for Kāśyapa, the "king of elephants among men"?

2.32

Answer: One must recognize two kinds of recipients. The first is recipients who do not awaken despite passing through teachings: those who do not awaken from seeing the Buddha's initial birth up through hearing the Lotus Sūtra are named recipients who do not awaken despite passing through teachings; these are people of the dullest faculties, who only awaken upon reaching the Nirvāṇa-sūtra. The second is those who had already attained awakening previously and now, upon reaching the Nirvāṇa-sūtra, advance further in awakening; like Kāśyapa and others of great, sharp faculties, it is for the sake of these persons that the Nirvāṇa-sūtra was spoken. There are also recipients with capacities who do not hear the previous teachings but directly hear the Nirvāṇa-sūtra, and immediately and fully recognize the Tathāgata's ultimate cause and fruition; they are called people of great, sharp faculties.

2.33

Question: If one attains awakening by passing through and hearing the previous teachings, why is that dull? If one grasps and understands by directly hearing the Nirvāṇa-sūtra, how is that sharp?

2.34

Answer: Passing through and hearing the various teachings progresses from small to great and enters from shallow to deep, and so one is dull; awakening by directly hearing the ultimate is called having sharp faculties.

2.35

The ninth is discerning the meaning of the three wheels. The first section opens the three to reveal the one; this refers to the provisional and real nature of the teaching, and is named the wheel of preaching the Dharma. The next chapter discerns opening the near to reveal the distant, and is named the wheel of supernatural powers. The wheel of preaching the Dharma refers to all teachings from beginning to end; although all teachings are many, they do not go beyond the provisional and the real. The five vehicles are the provisional teachings, and the one vehicle is the real teaching; formerly the one was opened into five, but now the five are gathered into the one. The wheel of supernatural powers refers to all bodies from beginning to end; although all bodies are many, they do not go beyond the original and trace bodies. Initially arising and finally perishing, formerly ordinary and subsequently noble—these are named the trace bodies. Having no beginning and no end, neither arising nor ceasing—this is named the original body. Formerly, trace was manifested based on the origin, so the origin was concealed to display the trace; now, the origin is revealed through the trace, setting aside the trace to clarify the origin. As for the wheel of reading others' minds, it pervades both teachings and both bodies.

2.36

Question: Was there also the meaning of the three wheels prior to the Lotus Sūtra or not?

2.37

Answer: There were also the three wheels, but the wheel of preaching the Dharma had not yet opened the provisional and real of the teachings, and the wheel of supernatural powers had not yet opened the original and trace of the body. Only now are both opened together, so it differs from the past.

2.38

The tenth is clarifying the two expositions: first, the direct exposition; second, resolving doubts to establish the former exposition. The direct exposition: the first section clarifies that there is neither the heterodox divergence of the ninety-six kinds nor the orthodox divergence of the five vehicles; all buddhas of the three periods have only the one Path. The second section establishes the former exposition: although the Path has no dual, if it were still impermanent, it would still be identical to the ninety-six kinds of paths, and also identical to the paths of the five vehicles, and could not be named the one Path. What is clarified now is that the ninety-six paths are naturally impermanent paths; what is clarified now is that the one Path is the permanent Path. The paths of the five vehicles are impermanent paths, while only the path of the one vehicle is the permanent Path; hence it adduces the permanent Path to establish the preceding one Path.

2.39

Next, the wonderful meaning of the cause is explained separately. The old [interpreters] said: “This sūtra explains only achieving Buddhahood through conditioning causes, and has not yet explained the primary cause, which is Buddha-nature; therefore, the cause is also not yet wonderful.” Critique: This was briefly stated earlier. This matter is not insignificant, so I shall now explain it extensively. This sūtra speaks of the wonderful in contrast to the coarse, and distinguishes the one by comparison with the three. Formerly, there being three vehicles, there were three natures; now, there being only one vehicle, there is only one nature—this is simply the logical consequence of the numbers. If the vehicle were one while the natures were three, that would be a failure of the logical consequence of the numbers. Now let us challenge this: If the vehicle is one while the natures are three, then since the natures are three, sentient beings would either achieve Buddhahood or not achieve it. Why is this? Because there are three natures and there is not one nature; therefore, some would achieve it and some would not. If that were so, how could the sūtra say, “Even a fine hair of good [action] leads all to achieve Buddhahood”? Furthermore, if one achieves Buddhahood now without having a one-vehicle nature, then in the past one should have achieved the three vehicles without having a three-vehicle nature. Furthermore, in the past there were three natures, so there was the principle of achieving three; now there is no one nature, so there would be no principle of achieving one. Moreover, if one achieves the one without a one-vehicle nature, then since both equally lack three natures, why not achieve three? Furthermore, if upon reaching the Lotus Sūtra, although it explains the one vehicle, there are still three natures, then the vehicle would be one while the natures are three. If the vehicle were one while the natures were three, then formerly the vehicles would have been three while the nature was one. But one cannot have three vehicles and one nature; how then could one have one vehicle and three natures? Moreover, having one vehicle and three natures is a contradiction in fact, which wise persons do not believe. For example, it would be like producing only one flavor and yet saying that milk has five natures. If milk has five natures, how could it produce only one flavor? If it produces only one flavor, how could one still say its natures are five? Anyone who slightly knows salt and plum, or is slightly different from wood and stone, would not make such a statement. If the statement is not even tenable, how could the doctrine still stand? If one says that the present teaching has no three-vehicle natures—differing from the past when there were three natures—then the present teaching should also have one nature, differing from the past when there was no one nature; this too is simply the logical consequence of the numbers. If one says that the present [teaching] explains that there are no three natures, and also explains that there is no one nature: since without three natures one does not achieve the three vehicles, if there is no one nature, how could one still achieve the one? If one says that the Buddha did not teach that there is a one-vehicle nature, nor did he explain that there is no nature, but merely spoke under a hidden aspect that the one vehicle achieves Buddhahood: having no causes and conditions for achieving Buddhahood, how could one ever achieve Buddhahood? In discussing the achievement of Buddhahood, there must be its rationale; only because sentient beings possess the principle of becoming Buddhas can they achieve Buddhahood. If it is not explained whether there is such a principle or not, by what means could it be achieved? For instance, without discussing whether a yellow stone contains gold or not, suddenly ordering someone to smelt it in a furnace is something unheard of.

2.40

Question: Later in this sūtra it says, “The Honoured Two-Footed One among humans and gods / knows that phenomena are ever without nature.” Since it says “without nature,” how can one speak of a one-vehicle nature?

2.41

Answer: This is explained merely to refute attachment to an intrinsic nature. It also refutes the doctrine held by non-Buddhists and followers of the Hinayāna that there is an intrinsic nature in the cause. If it were like the nature of the Buddha-nature in the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra, how could one say it does not exist? Moreover, one may challenge: Since there is no nature, there would also be no separate Buddha-seed distinct from the seeds of the three vehicles; now that there is in fact a separate seed distinct from the seeds of the five vehicles, why should there not be a separate nature distinct from the three natures? If one says that the myriad practices are the seed and there is no nature: since these myriad practices have no nature, why must they result in Buddhahood? Furthermore, if a single practice has no Buddha, the myriad practices also have no Buddha; if the myriad practices nevertheless result in Buddhahood, why should a single practice, which also lacks it, not result in Buddhahood? Nāgārjuna said: “If a pot emerges where there is no pot in the clay, why do carriages, horses, and food and drink not emerge from the fingertips?” Furthermore, if one says that because he feared past attachments to self were not yet eliminated he did not teach Buddha-nature, why not fear that now one would fail to achieve Buddhahood and therefore teach that there is a nature? One should not be cowardly when looking at what went before and bold when looking at what comes after. Deducing from various matters, one must know that Buddha-nature ought to be elucidated, and also that Buddha-nature ought to be taught. Why is this? Buddha-nature is the root of the Buddha-vehicle; because there is Buddha-nature, one uses conditions provisionally to reveal it. But to explain only conditioning causes and not speak of the fundamental nature would be abandoning the root to cling to the branches, which is not clever. Moreover, Vasubandhu’s commentary on the Diamond Prajñāpāramitā already explains Buddha-nature, so how much more should the Lotus Sūtra not fail to teach it? Furthermore, five years after attaining the Way, he spoke the Tathāgatagarbha-sūtra, explaining that there is Buddha-nature; how much less could the Lotus Sūtra fail to explain it? If one says this is not a sequential teaching and therefore should not be cited, can one say that the Diamond Prajñāpāramitā is also a teaching without a fixed framework? If one says that Vasubandhu and others are not worthy of trust: the five periods were formulated by Huiguan, and the four tenets were composed by Guangtong—why then accept them? Opposing the sages and following the common: this is truly incomprehensible. If one says that because there is no explicit text stating “Buddha-nature” it is not used: the Nirvāṇa and the Avataṃsaka have no text mentioning the ālaya[-vijñāna]; should then the Nirvāṇa and Avataṃsaka not have explained the eight consciousnesses? Thus one cannot demand that a single sūtra be equipped with all teachings at once. If there were only one single work, how could it be applied across the eight directions? Because there is Buddha-nature, by cultivating practice one achieves Buddhahood, and therefore it is wonderful; if there were no Buddha-nature, one would not achieve Buddhahood, and therefore it would not be wonderful.

2.42

Next, the life span is discussed separately. The old [interpreters] said: “From the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā to the Lotus Sūtra, all teach impermanence. By what principle do you prove that the Lotus Sūtra teaches permanence?” Critique: We now demonstrate it with three proofs. First, proof from sūtras prior to the Lotus Sūtra. Vasu composed the Commentary on the Diamond Prajñāpāramitā, which says: “Because the three characteristics have different substances, being free from those three characteristics is the Tathāgata.” This explains that the three characteristics of arising, abiding, and cessation are of different substance from the dharmakāya, and being free from those three characteristics is the Tathāgata’s one dharmakāya. Thus we know that the Diamond Prajñāpāramitā has already explained the meaning of permanence; how much more so with the Lotus Sūtra, which comes later—could it be impermanent? If the Lotus Sūtra comes later and yet were impermanent, the Prajñāpāramitā would be superior and the Lotus Sūtra inferior. The “Sadāprarudita Chapter” of the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā says: “The physical bodies of the Buddhas have coming and going; the dharmakāya has no coming and going.” This explains that the dharmakāya is permanent; how much more so for the Lotus Sūtra? The Aṣṭasāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā clearly discerns that the dharmakāya cannot shift or be annihilated, which has the same meaning as the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā-prajñāpāramitā. Third, the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: “The Buddha’s body is free of outflows; all defilements have been exhausted. The Buddha’s body is unconditioned; it does not fall into any reckoning.” These two sentences completely explain the Tathāgata’s permanent body.

2.43

Question: How do these two fully discern the dharmakāya?

2.44

Answer: “The Buddha’s body is free of outflows” means that seed afflictions have been severed. “The Buddha’s body is unconditioned and does not fall into any reckoning” means that fruitional bonds have been severed. Since both seeds and fruits have been severed, how could it not be permanent? Moreover, because the Buddha’s body is free of outflows, it differs from the bodies of ordinary people; because the Buddha’s body is unconditioned, it differs from the impermanent bodies of the two vehicles. Therefore, the Buddha’s body is eternal and without change. Furthermore, because the Buddha’s body is free of outflows, the five entrenchments are all overthrown; because the Buddha’s body is unconditioned, both kinds of death are transcended. This differs from the bodies of bodhisattvas. Bodhisattvas, from their initial resolve up to the vajra[-samādhi], have not yet severed a single moment of fundamental ignorance and are still said to have outflows and impermanence; their suffering retribution still remains, so they are not called unconditioned. The Buddha has already transcended this; therefore, it is permanent. Furthermore, the Buddha’s body is free of outflows, so it cannot be regarded as existent; the Buddha’s body is unconditioned, so it cannot be said to be non-existent. Being neither existent nor non-existent is precisely the middle way dharmakāya, and hence is called permanent. If it were in the two extremes, it would be called impermanent. Furthermore, the Buddha’s body being free of outflows is liberation; the Buddha’s body being unconditioned refers to the dharmakāya and prajñā; though there are three dots, they do not exceed attainment and transcendence so as to possess the three virtues; therefore it is called permanent. Furthermore, the Buddha’s body being free of outflows is termed empty; the Buddha’s body being unconditioned is termed not empty; therefore, the great nirvāṇa possesses both the meanings of empty and not empty, which is precisely permanence. If the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa already discerns that the dharmakāya is permanent, how much more so the Lotus Sūtra? Moreover, the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says: “Worthy ones! This body is impermanent; you should delight in the Buddha’s body.” Since it says that this body is impermanent and one should delight in the Buddha’s body, if the Buddha’s body were still impermanent, it would be identical to one’s own body; what would there be to delight in?

2.45

Question: The prologue of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa merely explains permanence, but it is not yet the main teaching of the sūtra.

2.46

Answer: This is a fool’s question. All that is comprehended and spoken by Vimalakīrti constitutes the main teaching of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa; how can one say it is not the main teaching? Thus Master Sengzhao said: “From the pure land at the beginning to the offering at the end, though the words differ, their inconceivability is one.” Furthermore, if it were not the main teaching of the sūtra, it would contradict the main teaching; how could it be spoken? Moreover, the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa has two locations and four assemblies. The two locations are: first, the Āmrapālī grove; second, the ten-foot-square room. The four assemblies are: the “Buddha Land Chapter” as the initial assembly in the Āmrapālī grove; the “Skillful Means Chapter” as the initial assembly in the ten-foot-square room; from “Inquiring after Illness” onward as the repeated assembly in the ten-foot-square room; from the “Bodhisattva Practice Chapter” onward as the repeated assembly in the Āmrapālī grove. If so, the “Skillful Means Chapter” was spoken inside the room; how can one say it is not the main teaching of the sūtra? Furthermore, if the prologue of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa contradicted the main teaching, then all other sūtras should be the same. Moreover, Zixia’s Preface to the Classic of Poetry and Yuankai’s Preface to the Zuo Commentary would both have to violate their primary classics. Next, we cite the text of the Lotus Sūtra to prove this by explaining three teachings and three comprehensions. The “Skillful Means Chapter” clarifies one kind of teaching: first, it extensively discerns the provisional and real of the doctrine; second, it briefly clarifies the root and trace of the body. As it says, “There is only the Dharma of the one vehicle,” which refers to the real teaching; “Provisionally expounding the three vehicles,” which refers to the provisional teaching. “When I first sat at the place of awakening,” which refers to the trace body; “Since kalpas long past,” praising and demonstrating the Dharma of nirvāṇa, which refers to the root body. Śāriputra in turn comprehends these two matters: the initial passage comprehends the provisional and real of the doctrine; next it says, “Just as the World-Honoured One now, from birth and leaving home to attaining the Way and turning the wheel of the Dharma, also speaks by skillful means,” which comprehends the root and trace of the body. Since it states that birth and leaving home are the provisional trace body, being unborn and unceasing is the real body. Since taking arising and cessation as the trace body makes the trace body impermanent, taking non-arising and non-cessation as the root body makes the root body permanent: this is one teaching and one comprehension. Next, the “Parable Chapter” clarifies that the three carriages are the provisional teaching and the one carriage is the real teaching. The Tathāgata having already transcended all afflictions of cause and fruit and possessing all virtues refers to the dharmakāya. Yet being born in the decayed burning house of the three realms refers to the trace body. Furthermore, it says: “At that time the elder stood outside the gate,” which refers to the dharmakāya. “Alarmed, he entered the burning house,” which refers to the trace body. The trace body manifests the eight phases of attaining the Way within the three realms, and therefore has arising and cessation. The root body transcends outside the three realms, and therefore is without arising and cessation. The “Faith and Understanding Chapter” also comprehends two matters: the first messenger refers to the real teaching; the second messenger refers to the provisional teaching. “The elder adorned and dignified” refers to the root body; “Taking off his precious attire and putting on coarse, dirty garments” refers to manifesting the trace body.

2.47

Question: This explanation of root and trace is truly as you say. But how does one use this to prove permanence and impermanence?

2.48

Answer: Now I ask: is the elder surrounded by his retinue the dharmakāya or the saṃbhogakāya/nirmāṇakāya? If it is the dharmakāya, how could he have a retinue surrounding him, managing finances and giving and receiving? And how could it say that he halted midway in a city? If it is Śākyamuni’s nirmāṇakāya, then what body does taking off his precious attire and putting on coarse, dirty garments illustrate? What is now explained is that the elder adorned and dignified is the Rocana body; his managing finances and giving and receiving refers to the Rocana teaching. If so, Rocana’s form and teaching are contained within the Lotus Sūtra; how could the teaching of the Lotus Sūtra not speak of permanence? How could it still be called a half-letter [teaching]? If the Lotus Sūtra were an impermanent, half-letter teaching, the meaning of the Rocana Buddha’s teaching should also be the same.

2.49

Question: Where in this is there a text [stating] that the dharmakāya is permanent?

2.50

Answer: Since halting midway in a city is the nirmāṇakāya, prior to halting midway is the dharmakāya. Therefore, using the dharmakāya to manifest the traces of Rocana means that the dharmakāya is permanent.

2.51

Question: Where in the teaching of Śākyamuni is there a text on the three bodies?

2.52

Answer: The Sūtra on Resolving Doubts in the Semblance Dharma states: "Some see my body as Rocana, surrounded by hundreds of thousands of Śākyamunis. Some see my body filling empty space"—this is the dharmakāya; "some see [a body] sixteen feet tall"—this is the nirmāṇakāya.

2.53

Question: One ought only to understand the two bodies; why does this sūtra convey understanding of the three bodies?

2.54

Answer: This sūtra conveys understanding of the entire beginning and end of a single teaching era, and thus fully conveys the three bodies. The three bodies each have their own sections. The third cycle also fully contains both teachings on the provisional and the real, which are easy to understand. For instance, when it states, "I become a buddha in other lands and have yet other names," this explains the source and traces of the bodies. It is omitted and not set forth in the understanding section; it can be understood by analogy with the above.

2.55

Question: If so, and the three cycles fully explain physical form, teachings, and lifespan, why is there such redundant exposition?

2.56

Answer: In the [first] two cycles the teachings are extensive and the bodies are brief, while in the final cycle the bodies are extensive and the teachings are brief. Furthermore, the first cycle adduces two bodies to establish two teachings, while the final cycle adduces two teachings to establish two bodies. Next, regarding proof based on the two nirvāṇas, this is a brief explanation of the meaning of nirvāṇa. In terms of the greater and lesser nirvāṇas, there are three differences in all: first, the difference between being fundamentally calm and extinguished versus not fundamentally calm and extinguished; second, the difference in severing delusions internal and external to the three realms; third, the difference between being replete with all virtues versus not replete with all virtues. Regarding the difference between being fundamentally calm and extinguished versus not fundamentally calm and extinguished, the "Expedient Means" chapter states: "I set forth these skillful means / to preach the path to the cessation of all suffering, / displaying it as nirvāṇa, / but this too is not true extinction." This explains the expedient nirvāṇa of the past. "All phenomena from the beginning / are constantly characterized by calm extinction. / Once the children of the Buddha have practiced the path, / in future ages they will become buddhas." This explains the true nirvāṇa of the present teaching.

2.57

Question: What is the difference between these two nirvāṇas?

2.58

Answer: It has already been explained in the text. However, some claim that this refers to the text of the one vehicle and is not about nirvāṇa. We now clarify that this is not so: the sūtra text directly contrasts the lesser nirvāṇa to illuminate the great nirvāṇa; the lesser nirvāṇa is provisional and the great nirvāṇa is real. Therefore, the preceding verse explains it is not real extinction, and the subsequent verse explains true extinction.

2.59

Question: How do these two nirvāṇas disclose the provisional and the real?

2.60

Answer: As the sūtra itself states, because practitioners of the lesser vehicle extinguish defilements, it is called the lesser nirvāṇa. In the Mahāyāna it says, "All phenomena from the beginning are constantly characterized by calm extinction," and thus it is called the great nirvāṇa.

2.61

Question: Why is extinguishing defilements called lesser? How is being fundamentally calm and extinguished called great?

2.62

Answer: The Hīnayāna does not know that defilements and the body are fundamentally unarisen and now also without extinction; hence they see defilements arise and now wish to extinguish them. This is the contemplation of arising and extinction, and is therefore called lesser. Mahāyāna practitioners know that defilements are fundamentally unarisen and now also without extinction; because it is the contemplation of non-arising and non-extinction, it is called the great nirvāṇa.

2.63

Question: By what is it also proven that practitioners of the lesser vehicle do not know fundamental non-arising and present non-extinction?

2.64

Answer: The preceding passage itself serves as clear evidence, and the meaning can be known from it. Furthermore, the *Exegesis* (*Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa*) states: "As for the Mahāyāna gate of emptiness, it means that all phenomena are empty in their intrinsic nature and empty in their intrinsic characteristics. As for the Hīnayāna gate of emptiness, it explains emptiness by analyzing phenomena." The *Mahāyānasaṃgraha* states: "Practitioners of the lesser vehicle do not know that phenomena are empty by nature, and therefore do not attain the suchness of the selflessness of phenomena." Furthermore, the *Vimalakīrtinirdeśa* states: "For persons of overweening pride, the Buddha preached that the severance of the three poisons is called nirvāṇa. If they are free of overweening pride, the Buddha preached that the three poisons are themselves nirvāṇa." That the three poisons are themselves nirvāṇa means that the three poisons are fundamentally unarisen and now unextinguished—how could this not be nirvāṇa? Furthermore, the *Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa*, in explaining the presence or absence of the two vehicles and the one vehicle, clarifies that there is no nirvāṇa of the two vehicles, but only the great nirvāṇa of the tathāgata. Thus we know that this sūtra differentiates nirvāṇa from that of the lesser vehicle. If so, how could the body be the same as in the past? As for the second [difference], explaining the difference between the lesser vehicle's nirvāṇa and the Mahāyāna's nirvāṇa: in the "Simile" chapter, practitioners of the lesser vehicle merely depart from falsehood and call it liberation, but in reality have not attained all liberation; the seed and fruit of the three realms are called falsehood, and when the two vehicles escape them, it is called attaining liberation. "All liberation" means that all seeds and fruits, both within and outside the three realms, are entirely transcended, which is called all liberation. Thus the greater and lesser nirvāṇas differ in the sense of being short or long.

First 64 of 183 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

法華玄論 — Classical Chinese