法華玄論 7

English (machine translation) 7

Language: English

7.2

The Metaphorical Meaning of the Chapter on Faith and Understanding

Master Guangzhai posited nine parables: first, father and son losing each other; second, father and son seeing each other; third, calling the son without reaching him; fourth, calling the son and reaching him; fifth, instructing him to be a laborer; sixth, entrusting the wealth; seventh, knowing the son's lofty aspiration; eighth, bequeathing the family estate; ninth, receiving the family estate with joy. Critical assessment: This parable is difficult to understand, fully containing a multitude of meanings; it cannot be expounded merely according to the literal text. I shall now set forth its aspects extensively under fourteen headings; once this metaphor is grasped, the preceding chapter will naturally become clear.

7.4

First, determining the number of parables. If discussed in terms of the beginning and end of the doctrinal meaning, there are then ten kinds of grace, thus constituting the number ten, as explained previously. Second, in terms of the text and the intention of the teaching, there are altogether eight parables: first, father and son losing each other; second, father and son seeing each other; third, calling the son without reaching him; fourth, sprinkling cold water on the face; fifth, calling the son and reaching him; sixth, entrusting the wealth to secretly transform him; seventh, tempering and training the lesser mind; eighth, bequeathing the family estate. Indeed, these eight parables comprehensively subsume the beginning and end of a single period of teaching in an almost exhaustive manner. As for the parable of father and son losing each other, in the past they had received the Great Teaching, yet turning their backs on that transformation, they wandered through the five destinies—this is the son losing the father. After they turned their backs on the transformation, seeking their wholesome spiritual capacity for the Mahāyāna to no avail—this is the father losing the son. As for the parable of father and son seeing each other, after turning their backs on the transformation, the great capacity ought to be stimulated and one should awaken to the one vehicle—this is the son seeing the father. Seeing that the son's capacity has been stimulated so that he can receive the great transformation—this is the father seeing the son. As for the parable of calling the son without reaching him, when [the Buddha] first attained the Way, the great capacity had not yet stirred, being incapable of receiving the transformation of the one vehicle. As for the parable of sprinkling cold water on the face, when [the Buddha] first attained the Way, [sentient beings] were only capable of receiving the teaching of humans and gods, expounding for the blind dragon, Trapuṣa, and others the three refuges and the five precepts. As for the parable of calling the son and reaching him, heading to the Deer Park to expound for them the world-transcending teaching of the two vehicles. As for the parable of entrusting the wealth to secretly transform him, the great capacity was distantly stimulated, so he was commanded to preach the Prajñā[-pāramitā] to elucidate the bodhisattva practices, secretly dispelling his small attachments and covertly opening his great mind. As for the parable of tempering and training the lesser mind, the text states, "after another short while," which refers to the period following the Prajñā when various Vaipulya sūtras extensively expounded the gates of bodhisattva practice and fully displayed the supernatural transformations of the great beings, causing him gradually to disdain the lesser sentiments and joyfully aspire to the Great Way, as in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa and other sūtras where Kāśyapa lamented himself. As for the eighth parable of bequeathing the family estate, as his mind gradually became open and untroubled, his lesser mind was finally displaced, and [the Buddha] expounded the one vehicle for him to enter the Buddha's knowledge and vision. Hence, the beginning and end are fully detailed in these eight. However, sprinkling cold water on the face is commonly clarified within the parable of calling the son without reaching him; and tempering and training the lesser mind, since its scriptural text is brief, is subsumed under the family estate; therefore, there are only six parables. Now, examining the text and its meaning, advancing there should suitably be eight parables, and receding there are six parables; it should not be divided into nine.

7.5

Question: Why is there no parable of instructing him to be a laborer?

7.6

Answer: Instructing him to be a laborer is still just calling the son and reaching him; that is an affair of the Deer Park period, with no separate teaching, so it should not be divided into two.

7.7

Question: If the parable of instructing him to be a laborer belongs to the transformation of the Hīnayāna and is thus combined into one, then the parable of entrusting the wealth belongs to the transformation of the Mahāyāna, and should likewise not be separately opened as one.

7.8

Answer: The parable of entrusting the wealth, advancing does not yet reach the one vehicle, and receding is again not the Tripiṭaka [teaching]; being both a distinct teaching and a distinct period, it is fitting to open it as one. Calling the son and reaching him, and instructing him to be a laborer, involve neither two teachings nor two periods, so they should not be opened as two.

7.9

Question: For what reason are the parable of knowing the son's lofty aspiration and the parable of receiving the family estate with joy not adopted?

7.10

Answer: These both belong to the offshoots within the attainment of the one vehicle's transformation, so they should not be opened. Furthermore, one may object: if knowing the son's lofty aspiration and receiving the family estate are consequently opened as two parables, then within calling the son and reaching him there is also knowing his lesser aspiration—why is that not opened? Therefore, one should observe the doctrinal categories and not casually adopt isolated fragments of text.

7.11

Second, clarifying whether it grasps the preceding or does not grasp the preceding.

7.12

Question: Sūtra masters all state that the later parables each grasp the preceding ones according to their prior sequence. How is this?

7.13

Critical assessment: This is not so. If one relies on the prior sequence, there is only the prior sequence while losing the subsequent sequence. If one does not rely on it at all, it cannot be called grasping the understanding of the preceding. Examining it through the text and meaning, there are fully two intentions: First, in terms of the present parable having its own sequence, the son's own account of the beginning and end has only three periods: first, the period of childhood; second, the period of losing his father; third, the period of returning to his homeland. These three completely encompass the parables. Initially studying the Mahāyāna is called the period of childhood; turning one's back on transformation and giving rise to delusion is called the period of losing the father; transforming delusion to follow awakening is the period of returning to the homeland. Within the third period of returning to the homeland, there are again three periods: first, the period of being far from home, as in heading toward the country; second, the period of being near to home, as in arriving at the city; third, the period of arriving at the father's residence. The first illustrates that awakening to the principle is still distant; the next, that awakening is slightly nearer; the third, coming into direct contact with the principle. Within the third period, there are again three periods: first, the period of initially seeing the father and not recognizing him; second, the period of not accepting the father's instruction; third, the period of being capable of gradual inducement. The first illustrates later attaining awakening to the principle, as in seeing the father; initially lacking the great capacity, as in not recognizing the father. The second illustrates that because he lacks the great capacity, he does not accept the great transformation. The third illustrates that having the small capacity, he is capable of receiving the small transformation. Within the third period, there are again three periods: first, the period of being hired to remove dung; second, the period of taking charge of the wealth and goods; third, the period of knowing they are father and son. The first illustrates the period of receiving the teaching of the two vehicles; the next illustrates the period of hearing the teaching of the Mahāyāna; the third illustrates the period of hearing the Lotus Sūtra. The Mahāyānasaṃgraha states: "There are three kinds of vehicles: first, the two vehicles; second, the Mahāyāna; third, the one vehicle." This corresponds and accords with these three. If these three periods are separately opened, they form ten parables: 1. the parable of childhood; 2. the parable of losing the father; 3. the parable of roaming and returning to the homeland; 4. the parable of arriving at the city; 5. the parable of arriving at the residence; 6. the parable of not recognizing the father; 7. the parable of not accepting the father's instruction; 8. the parable of working as a hired laborer; 9. the parable of taking charge of the wealth and goods; 10. the parable of knowing they are father and son. Next, in terms of the meaning of the parable from the father's account, there are altogether nine kinds: 1. the parable of begetting a son in his childhood; 2. the parable of losing the son; 3. the parable of seeking the son without finding him; 4. the parable of not neglecting the family estate; 5. the parable of seeing the son and immediately recognizing him; 6. the parable of calling the son without reaching him; 7. the parable of hiring the son to remove dung; 8. the parable of entrusting the wealth; 9. the parable of reuniting by innate nature. These nine are precisely the sequence. Initially expounding the Mahāyāna for him in past lifetimes is begetting a son in his childhood. Turning one's back on transformation and giving rise to delusion is called the father losing the son. Everywhere seeking the Mahāyāna when the wholesome roots are not yet mature is called seeking the son without finding the son. Although his wholesome roots are not yet mature, the conditions of the Way for the bodhisattvas have already matured and cannot turn back from transformation—this is called not neglecting the family estate. Seeing that his great capacity is about to be stimulated, and recognizing that he had once received the great transformation, is called seeing the son and immediately recognizing him. Initially not being capable of the real transformation is called calling the son without reaching him. Being capable only of provisional inducement is like hiring him to remove dung. Because the great capacity was distantly stimulated, he was commanded to preach the Great Dharma, like entrusting the wealth. Once the conditions for the Way have matured, they must be reunited by innate nature.

7.14

Question: First eight parables were clarified, next six parables, then ten parables, and finally nine parables; due to what causes and conditions are there four kinds of explanations?

7.15

Answer: All possess doctrinal meaning. First, in terms of the beginning and end of a single period of teaching, there are fully eight parables; next, in terms of the primary parables, there are only six; then, based on the son's own account of the beginning and end, there are ten parables; next, in terms of the textual intention, there are only nine. The former two treat father and son together; the latter two delineate father and son separately. Because the sūtra's meaning is richly multi-layered, it cannot be exhausted by partial words. Just as in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa and the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, when explaining a single passage of sūtra there are many alternative explanations. Furthermore, when Śāriputra heard a single gāthā expounded, he understood its thousand meanings, whereas Maudgalyāyana only comprehended five hundred; therefore, within a single sentence, multiple meanings are fully contained. If it grasps the preceding: father and son losing each other grasps the general parable above; although the general parable has six meanings, they do not go beyond the transformer and the transformed, and thus clarifying that father and son lost each other directly grasps the general parable. Furthermore, in the parable of seeing the fire, father and son losing each other is clarified, as in saying, "All of you sons previously entered this house because of playing games," which is precisely the meaning of the son losing the father. Since the son has lost the father, that is also the father losing the son. If so, father and son losing each other can concurrently grasp the meaning of both parables. As for the parable of father and son seeing each other and the parable of seeing the fire from above: the preceding clarification of seeing the fire was seeing from the level of the dharmakāya, hence it states, "At that time the elder stood outside the gate"; the "Skillful Means" chapter is also like this, hence it states, "With my buddha-eye I observe and see sentient beings in the six destinies," referring to seeing from the level of the dharmakāya. Now, as for what is called father and son seeing each other, it can be clarified in terms of both the fundamental and the trace. First, before descending as a trace, while at the level of the dharmakāya, sentient beings' great capacity stirred and knocked upon the dharmakāya, which is called the son seeing the father; the Buddha seeing at the level of the dharmakāya that the great capacity stirred is called the father seeing the son. If so, from the father previously coming to seek the son without finding him, this implicitly contains the meaning of the son seeing the father and the father seeing the son. Second, speaking in terms of the trace, when he first attained the Way and saw that their great capacity was about to be stimulated, this is called the father seeing the son; stopping in the midst of a city and sitting on a lion throne—at that time, father and son seeing each other was first clarified. If so, the two parables of father and son losing each other and father and son seeing each other conjointly grasp the above parable of seeing the fire. Calling the son without reaching him grasps the above saving the son without reaching him. Calling the son and reaching him grasps the above saving the son and reaching him. Bequeathing the family estate grasps the above equally bestowing the great carriage. Sprinkling cold water on the face grasps expounding the teaching of humans and gods when first attaining the Way. Entrusting the wealth grasps the Buddha expounding the Prajñā teaching. The reason these two parables appear is that in the past they had heard but had not yet awakened, and by means of the present they awaken to the past; they do not grasp the six parables above. As for not grasping the parable of not being false: having grasped the great purport of the entire period of teaching, one only then awakens to the Buddha's circuitous and profound grace, and his towering and heavy virtue; one then merely worries that one's shame is insufficient—how could one dare doubt that the Buddha was false? Furthermore, awakening in this manner is itself comprehensively grasping the principle of not being false.

7.16

Third is explaining the three conversions. As for the three conversions: first, the initial conversion; second, the following-along conversion; and third, the ultimate conversion. These three conversions subsume the eight parables. The 'initial conversion' refers to expounding the Mahāyāna in the past. The 'following-along conversion' refers to when, after turning their backs on that conversion, they wandered through the five destinies, and the bodhisattva followed them into saṃsāra to teach and convert them. The 'ultimate conversion' refers to their seeing each other as father and son, understanding the one vehicle, receiving prediction of buddhahood, and attaining irreversibility; this is called the ultimate conversion. Alternatively, initially preaching the vehicle of humans and devas is the initial conversion; preaching the two vehicles and, for over forty years prior to the Lotus Sūtra, following along without abandoning them is the following-along conversion; and preaching the Lotus Sūtra so that they receive prediction of buddhahood is the ultimate conversion. Alternatively, initially preaching the two vehicles as a provisional enticement is the initial conversion; when sentient beings then clung to this and rested content without seeking further progress, the Tathāgata never abandoned them, either causing them to speak the great Dharma themselves or having them hear others speak the great [Dharma], which is called the following-along conversion; and when they arrive at the Lotus Sūtra and finally attain awakening, this is the ultimate conversion. Alternatively, initially preaching the Mahāyāna prajñā teaching is called the initial conversion; from Prajñā onward, hearing various vaipulya sūtras in succession is the following-along conversion; and ultimately awakening to the one vehicle and bringing forth the great fruit, like the autumn harvest and winter storage, is the ultimate conversion. Alternatively, currently preaching only the Lotus Sūtra for them is the initial conversion; from this point forward up to the tenth stage, constantly teaching and transforming them is the following-along conversion; and when reaching the stage of equal awakening with the vajra-mind, transforming them to attain the perfection of the stage of wondrous awakening is called the ultimate conversion. Furthermore, donning the armor [of resolution] at the initial mind is called the initial conversion; variously converting them in the interim is the following-along conversion; and resting only upon attaining buddhahood is the ultimate conversion.

7.17

Question: For what reason must the three conversions be established?

7.18

Answer: Initially explaining that father and son lost each other, and later suddenly saw each other, would seem to lack causes and conditions; therefore, the three conversions must be established.

7.19

Fourth is explaining the three periods of time. Among the eight parables, the initial losing of father and son concerns events of the past period. From seeing that their great spiritual capacity was about to arise, that in one lifetime they should awaken, and that the Lotus [Sūtra] would predict their buddhahood—starting with suddenly stopping at a city and ending with the eighth parable—these are all events of the present period.

7.20

Fifth is explaining the original and the trace. At first glance, all eight parables are matters within the trace. The Tathāgata attained buddhahood long ago; in the past, he manifested as a novice to preach the Mahāyāna, and down to stopping at a city midway today, this too is attaining buddhahood through skillful means. Therefore, all eight parables belong to the trace. However, the father and son seeing each other has two originals and two traces. First, the dharmakāya saw that the great spiritual capacity of the bodhisattvas had already matured, and thus manifested as Rocana to convert them; stopping midway at a city and not abandoning the family business are this very matter. Second, when Rocana attained awakening, he saw that the sons had only small spiritual capacity and no great spiritual capacity, and thus descended as Śākyamuni to convert them; taking off his fine royal garments and donning soiled, ragged clothes is this very matter.

7.21

Question: If so, the dharmakāya stage fully illuminates both spiritual capacities and simultaneously descends in both traces.

7.22

Answer: It may also be understood in this way. But here, wishing to explain the two Buddhas transmitting and discussing the original and the trace to convert the two conditions of great and small, this determination is made.

7.23

Sixth is explaining cause and effect. In terms of the original, it is entirely the conversion of the fruit. In terms of distinguishing the trace, it establishes affinity in the past; manifesting the trace of a novice is merely causal and not the fruit. From stopping midway at a city, it is called the trace of the fruit. Between these two, it is either cause or fruit.

7.24

Seventh is explaining conversion attained and not attained. If taking awakening to the one vehicle and receiving prediction as attainment, the seven parables are all failing to summon the son, and only the eighth is attainment. If taking conversion through the Mahāyāna as attainment or non-attainment: in the past, when he was a novice preaching the Mahāyāna, that was conversion attained; from the time they turned their backs on the conversion onward, it was non-attainment; upon reaching the Lotus [Sūtra] and awakening to the one vehicle, it was attainment. As the 'Parable' chapter says: 'In the past, I taught you to aspire to the Buddha path'—this is conversion attained through the Mahāyāna; 'Yet now you have completely forgotten'—this is non-attainment; 'I now cause you to remember your original vow,' preaching the Lotus Sūtra for the śrāvakas—this is conversion attained.

7.25

Eighth is explaining the two teachings. From suddenly stopping at a city, it recounts the elder's noble wealth, sovereignty, kin, retinue, and attendants. This receives [the meaning of] Rocana's teaching converting the bodhisattvas when first attaining buddhahood in the Avataṃsaka. Taking off his fine royal garments and donning soiled, ragged clothes is Rocana as the original; descending as the trace of Śākyamuni to convert the two vehicles everywhere, down to the end of the eighth parable, all receive the teaching of Śākyamuni.

7.26

Ninth is explaining the mundane and the supramundane. Sprinkling cold water on the face to preach the teaching of humans and devas is mundane dharma; from successfully converting the son onward, they are all supramundane teachings.

7.27

Tenth is explaining the great and the small. In the parable of successfully summoning the son, the teaching of the Deer Park is conversion by the Hīnayāna; from entrusting the wealth to finally bequeathing the family estate, these are all conversions by the Mahāyāna. Here, there is no meaning of the shared teaching of the three vehicles. How is this known? When teaching them to act as laborers, he only preached the dharma of the two vehicles, which is called the Tripiṭaka teaching; from Prajñā onward, he entrusted them with the wealth of the Mahāyāna Dharma and no longer taught persons of the two vehicles to act [as laborers]; therefore, it is exclusively the Mahāyāna teaching. If one were to say that Prajñā is the shared teaching of the three vehicles, then at the time of entrusting the wealth, there should have been persons of the three vehicles of the shared teaching acting [as laborers].

7.28

Eleventh is explaining self and other. The Prajñā teaching explains self-teaching; after Prajñā, it explains converting teaching. 'Self-teaching' means having the mouths of the śrāvakas speak of the great causes and great fruits themselves, and teaching them using this very dharma; it may be called using their own mouths to speak in order to instruct their minds. From Prajñā onward, hearing various vaipulya sūtras in succession and hearing others speak the great [Dharma] to bring them to awakening is therefore called other-teaching.

7.29

Twelfth is explaining the explicit and the esoteric. From Prajñā until prior to the Lotus Sūtra, it is called explicitly teaching the bodhisattvas and esoterically teaching the two vehicles, just as the explanation of entrusting the wealth secretly revealed the great Dharma as their own responsibility. The teaching of the Lotus [Sūtra] is called explicitly teaching the two vehicles.

7.30

Thirteenth is explaining delusion and awakening. From the father and son losing each other to the smelting and refining of their small minds, the two vehicles both not knowing that they were the Buddha's sons constitutes delusion; arriving at the Lotus Sūtra, they finally attained awakening. Thus the text below says: 'Now I have attained the path and attained the fruit, obtaining the pure eye regarding undefiled dharmas.' Prior to this, they were all without the eye.

7.31

Fourteenth is expanding upon the above explanations. There are two sections above: first, five parables expand upon the past delusion above; second, the final parable expands upon the present awakening above.

7.32

Question: For what reason are there these fourteen meanings?

7.33

Answer: This parable encompasses the complete purport of Śākyamuni's teaching from beginning to end over his entire lifetime; therefore, these fourteen points are made.

7.34

Chapter on the Parable of the Medicinal Herbs: The Meaning of the Five Vehicles; The Meaning of the Single Voice.

7.35

Regarding the meaning of the five vehicles: The overarching meaning of the sūtra's 'one rain and one cloud' set forth above is that although teachings have myriad differences, they ultimately express a single path. The path expressed is without duality, and the teaching that expresses it is also one. It is only in accordance with the five kinds of faculties and sentient grasping that there are differences in the teachings of the five vehicles. Since the five are preached in accordance with beings, then all five vehicles are provisional. Since the five vehicles are provisional, what is not-five is taken as real; because it refutes the five sicknesses, what is not-five is taken as real. However, since the five are not real, what is not-five is also provisional. Therefore, whatever involves words and names is not ultimate; it is merely to gradually entice sentient beings that the five and the not-five are set forth. In the tranquility of the ultimate path, where could there be five or not-five?

7.36

Question: If the five vehicles are all provisional, why was it said earlier that the two vehicles are provisional and the Buddha vehicle is real, stating: 'Only this one thing is real; the remaining two are not true'?

7.37

Answer: The approaches of meaning are distinct. Earlier, existence and non-existence were judged with respect to the three vehicles to explain the provisional and the real, precisely wishing to rebuke the sickness of the two vehicles; thus it clarified that the Buddha vehicle is real and existent, while the two vehicles are false and non-existent. Why is this? Persons of the two vehicles considered the two vehicles and the Buddha vehicle to both be real and existent, so this rebuke was made. Because the two vehicles are non-existent, they were sought out [and dismantled]; because the bodhisattva vehicle is existent, it was not sought out [and dismantled]. Now, in explaining that there are no five [vehicles], looking at it from the perspective of the true path, this dharma cannot be demonstrated—how could there ever be five or not-five? Speaking of five and not-five is entirely preaching in accordance with beings, and both are provisional.

7.38

Question: If the path is genuinely neither five nor not-five, and both five and not-five are provisional, for what reason are the five not sought out [and dismantled]?

7.39

Answer: If one recognizes that the path is neither five nor not-five, and that speaking of five and not-five are both provisional, this person does not seek them out [and dismantle them]. For those who do not recognize such provisionality and reality, there is also the meaning of seeking out the five [and dismantling them].

7.40

Next is discussing the names and meanings.

7.41

Question: There should not be five vehicles, but only two: humans and devas as the mundane vehicle, and the remaining three as the supramundane vehicles. Alternatively, there should be two vehicles: the Buddha as the real vehicle, and the other four as provisional vehicles; the Buddha is the vehicle of ultimate truth, and the other four vehicles are all vehicles of conventional truth, as explained in the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra. Furthermore, the Buddha is the fruit vehicle, and the other four are causal vehicles. Alternatively, there should be three vehicles: the vehicle of humans and devas as the lower vehicle, the two vehicles as the middle vehicle, and the Buddha vehicle as the upper vehicle. Furthermore, the vehicle of humans and devas is the vehicle that escapes the three evil destinies, the two vehicles are the vehicle that escapes the three realms, and the Buddha vehicle is the vehicle that escapes the five hundred yojanas. Furthermore, humans and devas are called the vehicle of not cutting off afflictions, the two vehicles are called the vehicle of cutting off afflictions, and the Buddha vehicle is the vehicle of neither cutting off nor not cutting off. It is not like ordinary beings, hence not 'not cutting off'; it is not like the two vehicles, hence not 'cutting off'. As the Vimalakīrti says: 'Neither cutting off afflictions nor dwelling together with afflictions'—originally non-existent, there is nothing to dwell together with; currently not non-existent, there is nothing to be cut off. Both the Mahāyāna teachings prior to the Lotus Sūtra and the Lotus Sūtra have this meaning, whereas the Tripiṭaka does not have this teaching. Furthermore, ordinary beings are called the vehicle of not cutting off, and the Buddha is called the vehicle of cutting off; the two vehicles both cut off and do not cut off: relative to ordinary beings, they have cut off a small portion; compared to the Buddha, they have not yet cut off. This applies to both past and present. Furthermore, humans and devas are called the vehicle of ordinary beings, the two vehicles are called the vehicle of sages, and the Buddha is called the vehicle of neither ordinary nor sage. Furthermore, ordinary beings are the vehicle of existence, the two vehicles are the vehicle of emptiness, and the Buddha vehicle is the vehicle of the middle way; this is the purport of the Mahāyāna teaching. Furthermore, ordinary beings are the vehicle of clinging to saṃsāra, the two vehicles are the vehicle of clinging to nirvāṇa, and the Buddha is called the vehicle of non-clinging; this is also the purport of the Mahāyāna teaching. Furthermore, there should be four vehicles, such as the four kinds of heavy burdens, the four hundred billion classes of continents, and the four great treasuries in the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra. These are all the purport of the Mahāyāna teaching, because in the Mahāyāna teaching there is separately the great earth that can support the four treasuries. Now, for what reason are five vehicles established instead of two, three, or four?

7.42

Answer: It indeed possesses all the meanings mentioned above, and it is precisely by means of these meanings that the five vehicles are subsumed. But now, in clarifying five, this is the Tathāgata's dharma gate of gradual abandonment, and therefore five are established. We now draw upon the intention of the 'Chapter on the Arising of the Tathāgata's Nature' in the Avataṃsaka to outline the general meaning of the five vehicles. As the sūtra says: 'The suffering of the three evil destinies refers to the suffering of the denizens of the evil destinies; the suffering of King Yama is the suffering of the king of the evil destinies.' Therefore, within the three pathways there is entirely an accumulation of suffering. Wishing to abandon this suffering, one should cultivate the five precepts; the causes and conditions of the five precepts lead to obtaining a human body, and thus the five precepts are spoken of as the human vehicle. However, among humans faculties are dull and life is short, with little joy and much suffering. Wishing to leave these behind, one should cultivate the ten goods; the causes and conditions of the ten goods invite celestial retribution, which is called the heavenly vehicle. Next, it says that the three realms are all suffering, impermanent, and subject to destruction, like a red-hot iron ball with nothing pleasurable; to escape this suffering, the śrāvaka vehicle is taught. But śrāvakas hear the Dharma from others and dwell in the position of disciples; externally they lack the physical marks and internally their wisdom is not profound. Those who are solitary and tranquil in the mountains, self-awakened without a teacher, having merit and sharp faculties, are called pratyekabuddhas; for their sake the condition-awakened [vehicle] is taught, causing them to abandon the śrāvaka vehicle. Although condition-awakened persons are self-awakened without a teacher, their wisdom is not yet complete, through kalpas their residual defilements are unbroken, they solely improve themselves, and their mind of loving-kindness and compassion is meager. Only the Buddha vehicle is supreme, fully possessing all virtues, with residual defilements forever extinguished, having fulfilled self-benefit and broadly capable of crossing over others; therefore the Buddha vehicle is taught to cause them to abandon the condition-awakened [vehicle]. Thus in the past, wishing to show the dharma gate of gradual abandonment, he taught the five vehicles. Followers who received the teachings did not understand the Buddha's intention, and ultimately clung to the three vehicles as all being ultimate.

7.43

Question: Were the five spoken for five people, or were the five spoken for one person?

7.44

Answer: It possesses both meanings. Just as among seven people in the Ganges each possesses [one of the] seven, or one person possesses all seven.

7.45

Question: How does the teaching of the five in the past differ from that in the present?

7.46

Answer: In the past, when the five vehicles were taught, the two vehicles were explained as not ultimate, while three were already ultimate; now when the five are taught, it is as the Avataṃsaka teaches the dharma gate of gradual abandonment.

7.47

Question: Above it was said that the Avataṃsaka relates the intention of the past; why say that now the five are taught?

7.48

Answer: The present teaching relates the meaning signified by the past teaching.

7.49

Next, the opening, combining, sameness, and difference are discussed.

7.50

Question: The Treatise clarifies five goods, the Śrīmālā distinguishes four storehouses, and the Lotus Sūtra [presents] the three grasses and two trees; how do their sameness and difference stand?

7.51

Answer: As for the five goods: humans and devas are two goods, the two vehicles are one good, and buddhas and bodhisattvas are two goods. Because the five precepts and ten goods of humans and devas differ in superiority and inferiority, they are opened into two. The two vehicles differ in sharp and dull faculties, but because their wisdom and eradication are equal in meaning, they are combined into one. The myriads of practices and myriads of virtues, cause and effect, ascent and descent of buddhas and bodhisattvas should be opened into two. Thus, the five goods open the great and combine the small, whereas the five vehicles open the small and combine the great; the four storehouses combine the ordinary and open the noble, whereas the five vehicles open both the ordinary and the noble. These all differ according to conditions, and need not be forced into conformity. Regarding the three grasses and two trees, some say: humans and devas are the small grass, the two vehicles are the medium grass, external ordinary beings are the great grass, internal ordinary beings are the small tree, and the first bhūmi through the tenth bhūmi are the great tree. Some say: internal ordinary beings are the great grass, the first bhūmi through the seventh bhūmi are all the small tree, and the eighth bhūmi is the great tree. Appraisal: The meaning of the stages is difficult to elucidate; we now take the matching of the parables as correct. Matching the two grasses is as determined above. Matching the great grass, [the sūtra] says: 'Seeking the place of the World-Honored One, [thinking] "I shall become a buddha," practicing vigor and dhyāna'—this is called the great grass. Since it is called the Buddha path, it must surely extend from the ten faiths of external ordinary beings to the thirty minds of internal ordinary beings; these forty minds are all the great grass. Why is this? Because they have not yet attained the unproduced and their roots are planted still shallowly, they should be given the name 'grass'. Furthermore, since the two vehicles are taken as the medium grass, the forty minds prior to the bhūmis all belong to bodhisattvas, and hence are called the great grass. The first bhūmi through the sixth bhūmi are called the small tree, and the seventh bhūmi and above are called the great tree.

7.52

Question: How is this known to be so?

7.53

Answer: The Explanatory Treatise determines that the unproduced has two stages: first, the first bhūmi; second, the seventh bhūmi. Later we see that the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa also says: 'The unproduced of the first bhūmi, the unproduced of the seventh bhūmi.' Since the unproduced is two, the trees are likewise so.

7.54

Question: How does this sūtra prove that the seventh bhūmi is the great tree?

7.55

Answer: The Explanatory Treatise says: 'Dwelling in the stage of the seventh bhūmi, one attains the forbearance of the unproduced and is endowed with the six superknowledges.' This sūtra says: 'Attaining the power of superknowledges, they turn the non-retrogressing wheel.' Thus they correspond with each other.

7.56

Question: How is it known that the first bhūmi is like the small tree?

7.57

Answer: Since the Treatise says 'The first bhūmi attains the supreme,' and this sūtra says 'Moreover, all sons of the Buddha are decisive and free of doubt'—free of doubt is precisely the path of severance, for before the bhūmis defilements are not yet severed and one cannot be called free of doubt. Furthermore, a person of the first fruit corresponds to the bodhisattva's first bhūmi; since the first fruit severs doubt, so now does the first bhūmi. In addition, the Daśabhūmika-śāstra says: 'The first bhūmi is called the decisive stage.' These four passages all support one another. Next, the meaning of the sequence of the stages of the three grasses and two trees is discussed. Humans and devas are mundane, and so are compared to the small grass. The two vehicles are supramundane, and so are compared to the medium grass; this is proceeding from the mundane to the supramundane. From the ten faiths upward to the dedications downward, these forty minds are the Great Vehicle, called the great grass; this is entering the great from the small. Ascending the bhūmis upward to the sixth bhūmi downward is called the small tree; this is proceeding from the ordinary person to the noble. The seventh bhūmi upward to the tenth bhūmi downward is called the great tree; this is proceeding from the shallow to the profound. Thus it completely subsumes the ordinary and the noble, and encompasses the great and the small; hence there is the parable of the three grasses and two trees.

7.58

The meaning of the single voice.

7.59

Question: The sūtra clarifies that 'one cloud and one rain moisten according to the faculties,' whereas [another says] 'teaching the Dharma with a single voice, each according to its kind achieves a different understanding'; what is the difference between these?

7.60

Answer: There are both sameness and difference. As for the difference: the intent behind the cloud and rain is as distinguished in the causes and conditions for expounding the sūtra. Here we briefly raise two points: first, it takes being without mind yet able to benefit universally; second, it wishes to reveal the identical correct path becoming different according to faculties. As for the single voice: it wishes to clarify that the Tathāgata's three mysteries are inconceivable, and cannot be fathomed by ordinary beings or the two vehicles. Why is this? A person of a lower stage can only use a single sound to cause [those with] conditions to hear the same one thing together; they cannot use a single voice to cause myriad kinds to hear differently. Only the Buddha is able to do so, and hence it is called the inconceivable mystery of speech.

7.61

Question: The meaning of the single voice and that of the single rain clarified above were different; how are they also the same?

7.62

Answer: The single cloud and single rain jointly clarify the single teaching, yet [recipients] are merely enabled to become different according to their faculties; the single voice is likewise to reveal the single path, while according to their kinds there are myriad distinctions. In this there is no difference.

7.63

Question: What is meant by 'a single voice'?

7.64

Answer: Some say it is solely the single dharmakāya; because the dharmakāya is non-dual, it is called single. The voice issues from the single dharmakāya, and taking its name from the dharmakāya it is called a single voice. Appraisal: The Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā, in explaining the physical marks, says: 'With a single voice responding to all sounds'; it does not clarify the dharmakāya, so this is not the explanation. Some say: within a single time multiple sounds issue forth together, hence it is called a single voice. Appraisal: The sūtra merely says a single voice, and does not say that multiple sounds issue forth together; this too is not to be adopted. Some say: the body is an Indian body, and the voice is an Indian voice, hence it is called a single voice. Appraisal: The Buddha is able to utter a single voice as appropriate, not restricted to India. Yet others say: among the five tones, he uses any one tone as appropriate. Appraisal: Since the Buddha relied on the traces of a particular region and received the sounds of a particular land, the meaning of the five tones applies generally; this too is not to be adopted. What is clarified now is that this meaning contains many aspects; we briefly clarify four kinds: First, relying on the 'Chapter on Medicinal Herbs', it clarifies that one great cloud covers universally and one great rain soaks everywhere, which is an analogy for the great Dharma voice of the One Vehicle, and hence is called a single voice. But those with great capacities awaken to the great and thus correspond to the great; those with small capacities awaken to the small, and the small is not called great, so the name 'single voice' primarily refers to the voice of the One Great Vehicle.

7.65

Question: How does the small not correspond to the great?

7.66

Answer: As when the Great Parinirvāṇa is taught and the path achieved is that of an arhat, or the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa extensively distinguishes purifying the Buddha land while they realize the Small Vehicle—all such cases are small capacities hearing the great without corresponding to the great, and therefore the name 'single voice' primarily refers to the great.

7.67

Question: Why does the single voice in this sūtra universally refer primarily to the great?

7.68

Answer: Wishing to reveal that there is only the One Vehicle and no five vehicles, the single voice primarily refers to the Great Vehicle.

7.69

Question: How is it known that the single voice universally refers primarily to the great?

7.70

Answer: The sūtra says 'one great cloud, one great rain'; hence we know it primarily refers to the voice of the One Great Vehicle. Second, as distinguished in the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, it clarifies that the Tathāgata teaches the Dharma with a single voice while myriad kinds achieve different understandings.

7.71

Question: In terms of what single voice is this based?

7.72

Answer: Since it says the Buddha teaches the Dharma with a single voice, it is the Buddha's voice; the Buddha's voice is the single Brahmā voice.

7.73

Question: Why does it primarily refer to the single Brahmā voice?

7.74

Answer: In terms of the trace of conversion in a single region, he took form in India and as a retribution obtained the Brahmā voice; therefore the single voice primarily refers to the Brahmā voice.

7.75

Question: From where does this statement come?

7.76

Answer: In the Vibhāṣā this explanation is given. The Buddha in the Deer Park, with a single Brahmā voice, expounded the four truths: the five people heard human language expounding the four truths, the eighty thousand devas heard divine language expounding the four truths, and the earth yakṣas heard yakṣa language expounding the four truths, and so proclaimed it, and in this manner it was heard transmitted in turn up to the Brahmā world. Hence we know the single voice primarily refers to the Brahmā voice.

7.77

Question: Is it called Brahmā voice because it is the voice of Brahmā devas, just as having obtained the divine eye through retribution it is called the divine eye?

7.78

Answer: It is not so. Among the eight kinds of voices, this pure and most wonderful voice is called the Brahmā voice; it is not the voice of the Brahmā devas. Thus the Explanatory Treatise says: 'Because the Buddha was born among humans and received human dharmas, it is a human voice; furthermore, if it were the voice of Brahmā devas, humans would not hear it.' Hence we know it is not so.

7.79

Question: The Explanatory Treatise says: 'In the teachings of the Small Vehicle there is no inconceivability, such as speaking the Lotus Sūtra for sixty kalpas being perceived as like the duration of a meal.' Why do the Tripiṭaka [texts] clarify teaching the Dharma with a single voice and understanding according to kind?

7.80

Answer: Although the Small Vehicle does not have the inconceivability of speaking the Lotus Sūtra for sixty kalpas, it has the other five inconceivabilities, namely the Buddha's power, the nāga's power, and so forth. Now, teaching the Dharma with a single voice is precisely clarifying the Buddha's inconceivability. Next, saying 'a single voice' does not necessarily restrict it to the Brahmā voice alone; whatever single voice the Tathāgata utters is able to cause different kinds each to hear it, and hence it is called a single voice. Furthermore, as for the single voice: when humans hear it, it is a human voice; when devas hear it, it is a deva voice; it is neither human nor deva. Because it is the voice of devas and humans, it is called multiple; because it is neither human nor deva, it is called a single voice. Up to the śrāvakas hearing the small and the bodhisattvas hearing the great, yet the voice is neither great nor small, and hence it is called single.

7.81

Question: If when humans hear it, it is a human voice, and when devas hear it, it is a deva voice, yet the voice is neither human nor deva, then likewise when a single condition hears it, the voice is single, and when multiple conditions hear it, the voice is multiple, yet the voice is neither single nor multiple.

7.82

Answer: It is so.

7.83

Question: If so, when an auditory condition hears it, it is a voice; when a non-auditory condition hears it, it is not a voice.

7.84

Answer: It is also so. Therefore the sūtra says: 'Together in the same seat, some hear the Buddha teach the Dharma, while some see the Buddha silent.' As Master Zhao said: 'Mind arises from what has mind; forms emerge from what has forms'—this is precisely that matter.

7.85

Question: If so, why was it previously called a single voice?

7.86

Answer: Precisely because persons of lower stages cannot use a single voice to cause myriad kinds to achieve different understandings, praising the Buddha for being able to do so, he therefore clarified the single voice.

7.87

Question: How does uttering merely a single voice cause myriad kinds to hear differently?

7.88

Answer: The Avataṃsaka briefly explains three matters from first to last. First, it explains that the Buddha is able to emit sounds equal in number to [all] sentient beings, which other people cannot do; only the Buddha alone is able to, and therefore the Buddha is inconceivable. Second, the Buddha is able, within a single sound, to simultaneously emit sounds equal in number to sentient beings, so that all sentient beings each have something heard. This explains that other people cannot emit all sounds within a single sound, while the Buddha is able to do so. Third, expounding the Dharma with a single sound is able to cause all [beings] each to have something heard, and also does not divide the single sound into many sounds. Others cannot do this; only the Buddha alone is able. If it is like this, it possesses three kinds of meanings and cannot be restricted to one. These three all reveal the inconceivable matter of the Buddha's secret of speech. Since the secret of speech is threefold, the [secret of] body is also like this.

7.89

Question: The "Nature-Arising Chapter" of the Avataṃsaka says: "The Great Brahmā King, by means of a small skillful means, causes the sentient beings of the great trichiliocosm to all see his body, and yet he does not divide his body." If it is like this, other people are also able to do it; why is it only the Buddha?

7.90

Answer: That [Brahmā] is limited only to the great trichiliocosm, whereas the Tathāgata universally pervades the dharmadhātu. That [Brahmā] acts with mind, whereas the Tathāgata transforms beings without mind. Furthermore, a bodhisattva enters samādhi with the eye and emerges from meditative absorption with the ear, contemplating that the eye has no arising and speaking of emptiness as not existent. That [Brahmā] cannot do this; how could he equal the Buddha?

7.91

Question: Regarding these four kinds of distinguishing the single sound, which is taken as correct in explaining it now and formerly?

7.92

Answer: All of them are comprehensively possessed. However, having only the sound of the one vehicle pertains precisely to the present teaching; the other three pervade both present and past.

7.93

Question: The Buddha has two kinds of light: first, the constant light, which he constantly possesses naturally from his initial birth until extinction, which is the ten-foot light mark; second, the non-constant light, which is manifested according to the occasion. Is expounding the Dharma with a single sound to cause myriad kinds [of beings] to have different understandings this constant sound, or is it a manifestation?

7.94

Answer: Among the eighty minor marks, it says: "Responding to all sounds with a single sound." If it is like this, this is the Buddha's constant sound.

First 94 of 186 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

法華玄論 — Classical Chinese