法華義疏 12.118

12.118

有人言：六十二億是因位，觀音是古佛，即是因不及果也。難曰：一切因不及果，豈六十二億與果等耶？有人言：六十二億是淺行，觀音是深行。難曰：經不言六十二億是淺行、觀音是深行。又淺行不及深行，云何六十二億與觀音等耶？有人言：觀音是教主，六十二億是聽眾。難曰：必以聽眾故不及者，非但六十二億不及，一切聽眾亦不及也。今所明六十二億與觀音位行是齊而不及者，眾經有二種門：一、平等門，二、不平等門。平等門者，如妙音得普現色身三昧，八萬四千菩薩亦得是門，則妙音與諸菩薩平等門，供養、持名平等無異。二者、不平等門，六十二億實與觀音等，今欲令人尊重觀音，故於等作不等說之也。例如《稱揚諸佛經》說，禮寶光明佛止滅二十一劫生死之罪，禮𤘽留孫佛却無量劫罪。此示不平等門，故令眾生生高下心。若實是平等而作平等說者，則不得偏於觀音起尊重心。《法華論》云「受持觀音名及受持六十二億恒沙諸佛名」。《論》云「佛者皆是等覺地菩薩，既稱等覺，即是等覺佛也」。《論》云「彼福德平等有二義：一者、信力；二、畢竟知。信力有二：一、求我身如觀音自在無異，畢竟信故。二、謂於彼生恭敬心，如彼功德我亦如是畢竟得故。次言畢竟知者，決定知法界，故法界名為法性，彼法性入初地菩薩能證入，一切諸佛菩薩平等身故，平等身者謂真如法身，是故持六十二億恒河沙佛名、受持觀音名，功德無異」。此論大意就平等不二門辨無差別，初是信不二，後是悟不二也。然與前釋亦不相違。

Some say: The sixty-two koṭīs are at the stage of cause, whereas Avalokiteśvara is an ancient buddha; that is, the cause falls short of the fruit. This is refuted: In all cases the cause falls short of the fruit, so how could sixty-two koṭīs be equal to the fruit? Some say: The sixty-two koṭīs represent shallow practice, whereas Avalokiteśvara represents deep practice. This is refuted: The sūtra does not say that sixty-two koṭīs are shallow practice and Avalokiteśvara is deep practice. Furthermore, if shallow practice falls short of deep practice, how could sixty-two koṭīs be equal to Avalokiteśvara? Some say: Avalokiteśvara is the teacher, while the sixty-two koṭīs are the audience. This is refuted: If they necessarily fall short because of being the audience, then not only do the sixty-two koṭīs fall short, but all audiences would also fall short. Now what is explained is that the sixty-two koṭīs and Avalokiteśvara are equal in stage and practice, yet [the former] are spoken of as falling short because the sūtras have two kinds of approaches: 1. the approach of equality; 2. the approach of non-equality. As for the approach of equality, just as Gadgadasvara attained the samādhi of universally manifesting physical bodies, and eighty-four thousand bodhisattvas also attained this approach, then Gadgadasvara and the bodhisattvas belong to the approach of equality, where making offerings and upholding the name are equal and without difference. Second, regarding the approach of non-equality: the sixty-two koṭīs are in reality equal to Avalokiteśvara, but now, wishing to cause people to revere Avalokiteśvara, what is equal is spoken of as unequal. For example, the Sutra Praising the Buddhas states that bowing to Precious Radiance Buddha only extinguishes the karmic offenses of birth and death for twenty-one kalpas, while bowing to Krakucchanda Buddha removes karmic offenses of immeasurable kalpas. This demonstrates the approach of non-equality, thereby causing sentient beings to give rise to notions of superior and inferior. If what is in reality equal were spoken of as equal, one would not give rise to a mind of singular reverence toward Avalokiteśvara. The Fahua lun states: “Upholding the name of Avalokiteśvara and upholding the names of sixty-two koṭīs of Gaṅgā-sands of buddhas.” The treatise says: “The buddhas are all bodhisattvas of the stage of equal enlightenment; since they are called equally enlightened, they are equally enlightened buddhas.” The treatise says: “Their merit being equal has two meanings: first, the power of faith; second, ultimate knowledge. The power of faith is twofold: 1. seeking one’s own body to be sovereign and no different from Avalokiteśvara, because of ultimate faith; 2. giving rise to a mind of reverence toward him, because just as his merit is, I too shall ultimately attain it in like manner. Next, stating ‘ultimate knowledge’ means decisively knowing the dharmadhātu; hence the dharmadhātu is called the dharma-nature. That dharma-nature can be realized and entered by a bodhisattva entering the first bhūmi, because it is the equal body of all buddhas and bodhisattvas. The equal body refers to the tathatā-dharmakāya. Therefore, upholding the names of sixty-two koṭīs of Gaṅgā-sands of buddhas and upholding the name of Avalokiteśvara are of no different merit.” The general import of this treatise is to distinguish non-differentiation with respect to the approach of non-dual equality: the former is non-duality of faith, and the latter is non-duality of awakening. This, however, does not conflict with the previous explanation.