法華玄論 5.136

5.136

Someone said: The first phrase is based on principle, while the remaining three pertain to understanding. Generally speaking, the reason sentient beings do not know how to become Buddhas is truly because the five turbidities and eight sufferings obstruct the functioning of their minds. If the function of the five turbidities is strong, it can obstruct the principle of the future fruit; if the principle cannot be revealed, that is the meaning of being closed. When the Tathāgata appears in the world and preaches the teaching of this sūtra, sentient beings open and remove the obstructions and burdens of the five turbidities, and the knowledge and vision of the Buddha fruit are revealed; hence it is called 'opening'. As for the word 'pure', when the five turbidities are in the mind, the principle of the future fruit is not revealed, which entails the meaning of defilement and burden; now that the five turbidities can no longer cause obstruction, the principle of the future fruit is brightly manifest, hence it is called 'pure'. The latter three pertain to understanding: because although they possess the knowledge and vision of the future fruit, they cannot know it themselves, now wishing to cause them to attain knowledge of it and give rise to the understanding of wisdom born of hearing, it is called 'displaying the Buddha's knowledge and vision'. Further causing them to attain the understanding of wisdom born of reflection is called 'awakening to the Buddha's knowledge and vision'. Later causing them to advance and attain the understanding of wisdom born of cultivation is called 'entering the Buddha's knowledge and vision'. I critique this: Opening, displaying, awakening, and entering arise sequentially in succession; why should the first clarify principle and the latter three clarify understanding? If they are divided into three on the basis of the three wisdoms, there are forty stages prior to and upon ascending the grounds; why not make them four? Furthermore, even if one explains principle and the three wisdoms, the meaning is still not correct. Since the principle has not yet clarified Buddha-nature and the dharmakāya, the three wisdoms also do not attain understanding of Buddha-nature and the dharmakāya, and in the end this is not the Buddha's knowledge and vision.