[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [法華義疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1721) › 4.61 # 法華義疏 4.61 法華義疏 4.61 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [4.61](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1721.4.61) 「若我遇眾生」下，第二、釋疑門。此文來意有近有遠：所言遠者，上來一章皆明所說諸教為表一乘並令眾生普成佛，若爾如來何不為一切人皆說一耶？二者近，從上本誓願生，昔既發願令一切成佛，今滿本願，初出世時何故說三不即說一，今方說一耶？為釋此意故有此章來也。就文有四：初、明不得普為一切說於一乘；二、釋不得說一所以；三、明既不得說一故方便說三；四、明雖復說三終為顯一。「若我遇眾生盡教以佛道」者，此上半牒難情，假設遇眾生便說於一也。下半明有損無益，凡有三過：一者、機小教大有錯亂之失；二者、鈍根迷教惑理之過；三者、不信有誹謗之咎。「我知此眾生」下，第二、釋不得說一所以。不得說一凡有二義：一、知眾生無有善本；二、知眾生有諸惡根。則用二義釋無智錯亂等三失。「無善本」者，未曾修行無所得善為菩提本，故此眾生不信解一。「堅著於五欲」下，第二、明眾生有於惡根。就文為二：初、明有愛惡；次、明有見惡。所以偏明有愛見者，此二總攝一切諸煩惱故。又在家人多起愛，出家外道多起諸見。又眾魔樂生死故起愛，外道著諸見故起見。又愛是舊行煩惱，見是新起之惑。一切眾生雖並成就三界愛見，而愛多現行，若值邪師方乃起見。又愛煩惱名為一失，諸外道等以有愛惑而於其中更復起見，是為失中更復起失，為此因緣明愛見也。就明愛內開為二章：一、辨愛因；二、明愛果。「堅著於五欲」者，起愛之處，出所愛事也。「癡愛故生惱」者，所以愛五欲者，由癡故起愛也。如《涅槃》云「誑故生貪」，如《淨名》云「從癡、有愛，則我病生」。惱者，明從愛因生於現惱，所謂以愛因緣令身心惱，或自惱惱他故也。故癡是愛因，惱為愛果。「以諸欲因緣」下，上明生惱謂現報也，從此以下明生後二報也。 > From "If I encounter sentient beings" downward is the second section, resolving doubts. The purpose of this passage has a distant and a proximate aspect. The distant aspect is: the preceding section explained that all the teachings expounded were meant to reveal the ekayāna and cause sentient beings universally to attain Buddhahood; if so, why did the Tathāgata not expound the One for all people? The proximate aspect arises from the original vows above: since in the past he made a vow to cause all to attain Buddhahood, and now fulfills this original vow, why did he expound the three and not immediately expound the One upon first appearing in the world, expounding the One only now? This section comes in order to explain this meaning. In the text there are four parts: 1. explaining that he could not universally expound the ekayāna for all; 2. explaining the reason why he could not expound the One; 3. explaining that since he could not expound the One, he expediently expounded the three; 4. explaining that although he expounded the three, it was ultimately to reveal the One. "If I encounter sentient beings, I would instruct them all with the Buddha Path": this first half-line cites the objection, hypothetically supposing that upon encountering sentient beings he would immediately expound the One. The second half-line explains that this would cause harm without benefit, involving three faults in all: first, the fault of confusion through matching small capacity with a great teaching; second, the error of dull faculties going astray regarding the teaching and being confused about the principle; third, the transgression of slander through non-belief. From "I know that these sentient beings" downward is the second part, explaining the reason why he could not expound the One. Not being able to expound the One has two meanings: 1. knowing that sentient beings lack roots of goodness; 2. knowing that sentient beings have roots of evil. These two meanings are used to explain the three faults of lack of wisdom, confusion, and so forth. "Lacking roots of goodness": having never cultivated the goodness of non-apprehension as the root of bodhi, these sentient beings therefore do not faithfully understand the One. From "Deeply attached to the five desires" downward is the second part, explaining that sentient beings have roots of evil. In the text there are two parts: first, explaining the presence of the evil of craving; second, explaining the presence of the evil of views. The reason for specifically explaining craving and views is that these two completely encompass all afflictions (kleśas). Moreover, householders mostly give rise to craving, while non-Buddhist renunciants mostly give rise to views. Furthermore, the hordes of Māra delight in saṃsāra and so give rise to craving, whereas non-Buddhists cling to views and so give rise to views. In addition, craving is a long-practiced affliction, whereas views are newly arisen delusions. Although all sentient beings possess both craving and views of the three realms, craving is mostly active, whereas views arise only when encountering false teachers. Furthermore, the affliction of craving is called a single fault; non-Buddhists and others, having the delusion of craving, give rise to views on top of it, which is to give rise to a fault upon a fault. It is for this reason that craving and views are explained. Within explaining craving, it is divided into two sections: 1. discerning the cause of craving; 2. explaining the fruit of craving. "Deeply attached to the five desires": this is the locus where craving arises, identifying the objects of craving. "Giving rise to vexation through foolish craving": the reason they crave the five desires is that craving arises due to folly. As the Nirvāṇa \[Sūtra\] says, "Delusion gives rise to greed"; and as the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa says, "From ignorance and craving, my illness arises." "Vexation" explains that present vexation is produced from the cause of craving, namely, by condition of craving causing bodily and mental vexation, or vexing oneself and vexing others. Thus folly is the cause of craving, and vexation is the fruit of craving. From "By reason of the various desires" downward: the above explained the arising of vexation, referring to present retribution; from here downward, it explains the production of the latter two retributions. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 4.60](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1721.4.60) - [Next: 4.62](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1721.4.62) - [Up: 4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1721.4) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1721~en-mt.4.61) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1721.4.61](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1721.4.61) · Pramāṇa