法華玄論 2.14

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.