法華玄論 6.30

6.30

Answer: Although this text is brief, it generally outlines the beginning and end of Śākyamuni's single teaching career; therefore, it can serve as the basis for the subsequent parables. Second, determining the number of parables. The ancients of old divided them into five parables: first, the parable of the elder; second, the parable of considering rescue; third, the parable of provisional enticement; fourth, the parable of impartiality; and fifth, the parable of not being false. A critique states: The first is actually a general parable, not solely about the elder. 'Considering rescue' means deliberating upon saving them; this signifies that conversion through the one vehicle could not be accomplished, and since it is still brief, lacking the parable of seeing the fire, this explanation should not be used. Guangzhai speaks of ten parables: 1. general; 2. seeing the fire; 3. failing to save the sons; 4. succeeding in saving the sons; 5. seeing the sons escape danger; 6. the sons asking for carriages; 7. rejoicing at seeing the sons escape danger; 8. impartially bestowing the great carriages; 9. rejoicing at receiving the carriages; and 10. the parable of not being false. The ten dharmas here serve as the basis for the ten subsequent parables. A critique states: The emergence of the ten parables began with Guangzhai and did not exist among the other masters. We now evaluate it with four arguments. First, if divided by lines, there are nine lines, so there should not be ten. If divided by meaning, there are only six meanings: 1. general; 2. seeing the fire; 3. conversion through the two vehicles failing; 4. conversion through the three vehicles succeeding; 5. returning to preaching the one vehicle; and 6. not being false. All the other minute lines are subsidiary branches, encompassed within these six meanings. Since he neither takes the lines upon advancing nor relies on the meaning upon retreating, the ten parables are incorrect. Second, if there are ten parables, doctrine and parable are inverted. In the doctrinal explanation, asking for the carriages comes before and the father's rejoicing is placed after; in the parabolic explanation, the father's rejoicing comes before and asking for the carriages is placed after. Even if one attempts to harmonize them, it ends up being circuitous, as will become evident below. Third, the conflict between the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna. Previously, in the doctrinal explanation, he rejoiced because he saw the Mahāyāna capacity stirred; in the parabolic explanation, he rejoiced because he saw the Hīnayāna capacity escape danger. The doctrinal explanation clarifies the great cause; the parabolic explanation narrates the lesser fruit. The doctrinal explanation indicates that the great obstacle is about to collapse; the parabolic explanation indicates that the lesser danger has already been escaped. The momentum of meaning is that the lesser vehicle is taken as the primary counterpart. Fourth, the difference between presence and absence. In the doctrinal explanation, because it recounts those of superior faculties easily awakening, there is no asking for carriages; in the parabolic explanation, because it clarifies that those of middling faculties are still deluded, there is asking for carriages. If so, taking the words of reverence as the basis for asking for carriages completely fails to grasp the meaning of the text. These four arguments will become evident in the text of the chapter below. Now, relying on the six parables, none of these four faults exist. Third, clarifying presence and absence. The prose has five sections: 1. opening the three; 2. revealing the one; 3. the five verses; 4. true and false; and 5. not being false. Now, the verses have six. The fifth is only present in the prose; as for 'true and false', it is absent in the verses. The verses have the desire for the Dharma, which the prose lacks, belonging to the revealing of the intention. The rest are all identical. Fourth, clarifying the sequence. The prose first opens the three and then reveals the one; the verses first reveal the one and then open the three. The rest are identical. Fifth, clarifying opening and combining. Opening the three and revealing the one serves as the basis for the general parable, combined and not opened. Next, the passage on leaving the five turbidities serves as the basis for the four parables, opened and not combined. The single section on 'not being false' serves in turn as the parable of not being false, neither opened nor combined. Sixth, clarifying adoption and rejection. The four passages of sūtra text serve as the basis for the six parables, adopted and not rejected. The single section praising the Dharma is not the basis for the six parables, rejected and not adopted. Seventh, discussing the general and the particular. The initial opening of the three and revealing of the one generally outlines the doctrinal teaching of Śākyamuni's single teaching career. From the five turbidities onward, all belong to the particular parables. Eighth, clarifying the root and the traces. The general narration of the Buddhist teachings encompasses both root and traces. From the five turbidities onward, it separately clarifies the root and traces: the single section on the five turbidities specifically clarifies abiding in the root of the dharmakāya, seeing that sentient beings have suffering and no joy, and giving rise to great compassion. From failing to convert through the one vehicle onward, all belongs to manifesting the traces from the root through the eight phases of attaining the Way, starting from sitting at the site of awakening up to preaching the Lotus teaching today.