法華義疏 4

English (machine translation) 4

Language: English

From "Monks and nuns who harbor..." below is the second part, the verses. There are one hundred and fourteen lines, divided into two sections: The first four lines versify the circumstances of arising. The next one hundred and ten lines versify the main exposition. The circumstances of arising above had three parts; here it is abbreviated by not versifying the consent to preach and the admonition to listen; it versifies the second part, disparaging the impure assembly, and the third part, praising the pure assembly. Only versifying these two has two meanings: First, it seeks to substantiate the Buddha's and Śāriputra's stopping and requesting the preaching. By versifying the impure assembly, it reveals that the Buddha's refusal of the request was not in vain; next, versifying the pure assembly shows that Śāriputra's request was not erroneous. Second, versifying the impure assembly admonishes future sentient beings not to cling to the Hīnayāna and obstruct the great Dharma; next, versifying the pure assembly is to encourage all sentient beings to practice the Mahāyāna. The first line subsumes the four assemblies under three faults: both monastic assemblies share the fault of overweening pride (adhimāna). The reason for this is that the two monastic assemblies focus their minds on the path and its fruits, and mostly attain meditative absorption; hence, when attaining the four dhyānas, they claim to have attained the four fruits—this is called overweening pride. Some say: an increase in pride, or the highest form of pride, is called overweening pride. Now I state that "overweening" means a superior dharma; claiming to have attained a superior dharma when one has not attained it, and relying on this to elevate oneself, is called overweening pride.

4.4

Question:

4.5

How does it differ from wrong pride (mithyāmāna)?

4.6

Answer:

4.7

Tripiṭaka Master Paramārtha says: "Not having attained any noble dharma at all, yet relying on false dharmas to give rise to pride, is called wrong pride. If one has attained a minor dharma, such as attaining the four dhyānas, and claims it to be ultimate, this is called overweening pride."

4.8

Question:

4.9

Why is it said that they 'harbor' [such thoughts]?

4.10

Answer:

4.11

The Commentary on the Sūtra says: "Only when one advances in virtue with an unattached mind does one subsequently accord with the principle; because they harbor thoughts of an overweening path, it is pride." 'Harboring thoughts' means having something held in the mind, which is having an object of apprehension (upalambha).

4.12

Regarding "laymen with egotism (māna)," these persons also claim to have attained what they have not attained, but because they are men who stubbornly adhere to their resolves without wavering, it is called egotism. The Commentary on the Sūtra says: "Although they know selflessness, they take selflessness to be a self; this is also pride." The meaning here is: "I am capable of understanding selflessness," hence it is called egotism. Regarding "laywomen who are lacking in faith," although all four assemblies generally lack faith in the Mahāyāna, within this lack of faith three types are distinguished: The two monastic assemblies do not believe because of overweening pride. The laymen, being men, consider themselves bold, decisive, and steadfast in their resolution, thinking, "I have always believed that the arhat is the ultimate truth; how could I change my mind now?"—hence it is called egotism. Next, [the laywomen,] being women, have no other pretext and are directly called lacking in faith. The Commentary on the Sūtra says: "Although they believe the teaching of non-existence, taking non-existence as the object of belief is called non-belief." Master Zhao said: "Saying that it is 'non-existent' illuminates that it is not existent; it does not mean that it is a 'non-existence.'" But women immediately cling to non-existence, hence it is called lacking in faith. From "Such as..." below explains the number of the assembly. Regarding "did not see their own faults": one who has faults and is able to recognize them is called a wise person. Now, having the fault of being attached to words yet not knowing it oneself is called a foolish person. Regarding "having defects and breaches in their precepts": the preceding text explained that lacking ultimate Hīnayāna understanding they claimed to have understanding; now this line explains that lacking ultimate Hīnayāna practice they claimed to have ultimate practice. Furthermore, previously they had not attained the ultimate Hīnayāna fruit yet claimed to have attained the ultimate fruit, and again they did not accept the Great [Vehicle]; because they were unable to guard against these two evils, it is called "having defects and breaches in their precepts." Because they break these precepts, it is called a "defect"; and because their faithful mind leaks out, it is called a "breach." Furthermore, precepts are an embankment preventing and holding back the water of afflictions; once the precepts have defects and breaches, afflictions leak out. Regarding "sheltering and cherishing their flaws": this is present in order to resolve doubts. The doubt is: "Since they have neither practice nor understanding, and also do not see their own faults, why did the Buddha out of great compassion not instruct them rather than let them leave the assembly?" Therefore it explains: not seeing their own faults and sheltering and cherishing their flaws, they could not be converted. An internal flaw in jade is called xia, which serves as a metaphor for having no understanding in the mental ground while claiming to have understanding; an external flaw in jade is called ci, which serves as a metaphor for having no practice in body and speech while claiming to have practice. Furthermore, past root offenses that are deep and grave are xia, while present overweening pride is like ci. Furthermore, internally clinging to the Hīnayāna and not relinquishing it is xia, while externally hearing the Mahāyāna and not accepting it is ci. Covering up shortcomings is "sheltering"; begrudging errors is "cherishing." Regarding "the chaff and dregs of the assembly": this text appears to resolve doubts. What did these five thousand people gain upon entering the Buddha's Dharma? Therefore it explains: the five thousand people lost the true flavor of the Middle Way, and only obtained the dregs of annihilationism and eternalism. The name of the triyāna is like the husk on the outside of the rice; the principle of the ekayāna is like the grain of rice inside the husk. Only obtaining the name of the triyāna without knowing the meaning of the triyāna is why it is called chaff. Furthermore, the pure assembly is fit for use, likened to the rice for wine; the guilty persons are unfit for use, likened to the chaff and dregs. Regarding "departed due to the Buddha's awe-inspiring virtue": the Commentary on the Sūtra says, "When the wind rises, the dust and sand fly of themselves; when the sun rises, black and white are distinguished of themselves; this is called dismissal without actively dismissing them." Regarding "These people have little merit": the preceding prose explained that they have root offenses; now the verse reveals that they lack merit. The preceding verse explained that they departed because of clinging to the Hīnayāna; now this distinguishes their inability to receive the Mahāyāna.

4.13

"In this assembly there are no branches or leaves": second, this versifies the purification of the assembly. From "Śāriputra, listen well" downward is second, versifying the main exposition above. Above there were four gates: first, the gate of the reality of the ekayāna; next, the gate of the expedient means of the triyāna; third, the gate of gain and loss; fourth, the gate of encouraging belief. Now the verse section turns its momentum to expound the Dharma, also having four gates: first, it versifies the gate of the reality of the ekayāna; second, it versifies the gate of the expedient means of the triyāna; third, it explains the gate of praise; fourth, it explains the gate of encouraging belief. The reason there are these four gates is: first, it clarifies the reality of the ekayāna; next, it clarifies the expedient means of the triyāna. These two clarify the beginning and end of a single period of conversion. Third, it offers praise, and having praised, encourages living beings to believe and accept. The initial gate of the reality of the ekayāna has three [parts]: first, the gate of Śākyamuni's own exposition; second, the gate of citing corroboration; third, the gate of showing concordant agreement. Now, versifying these three forms three sections. In the prose above, the gate of Śākyamuni's own exposition had three [parts]: first, the gate of praise; second, the gate of unfalsity; third, the gate of revealing the purport of the teaching. Now the verses turn momentum to versify them, also opening three gates: first, the gate of revealing the purport of the teaching; second, the gate of resolving doubts; third, the gate of encouraging belief. First, it directly clarifies the grand purpose of expounding the teaching, showing that it is for the sake of returning to the ekayāna. Second, it explains the doubt of the assembly at the time: if it was solely for returning to the ekayāna, why did he not expound the one earlier, but rather expounded the three earlier? To resolve this doubt, he explains the reason for having the three first and the one afterward; thus next is distinguished the gate of resolving doubts. The purport of the teaching having already been displayed, and the sequence of before and after also having been illuminated, third is therefore the encouragement of belief. The first gate also has two [parts]: first, clarifying the purport of expounding the former teachings, which versifies the prose above on how what is expounded in accord with suitability has an import difficult to understand; second, clarifying the purport of the present teaching, which versifies the prose above on appearing in the world for the sake of the one great cause and condition. In this first gate there are also two [parts]: first, clarifying the purport of expounding the Hīnayāna teachings in the past; second, clarifying the purport of expounding the Mahāyāna teachings in the past. The first gate has two [parts]: first, clarifying the expounding of the Hīnayāna teachings in the past, which versifies the prose above on how what is expounded in accord with suitability has an import difficult to understand; next, versifying the purport indicated by expounding the teachings in the past, which versifies the prose above on how only Buddhas can know it. This first gate also has two [parts]: first, recounting the past expounding of the human and deva teachings; second, recounting the past expounding of the two-vehicle teachings. In the first there are three gates: the first verse versifies the praise of the Buddha's provisional wisdom as possessing the efficacy of skillful exposition. The second verse versifies the praise of the Buddha's wisdom inwardly illuminating capacities and inclinations. From "The Buddha, having fully known this" downward is third, with four verses directly clarifying the Buddha's expounding of the teachings. Why the past teachings have only these three gates is that the initial praise of the Buddha's provisional wisdom refers to the skilled physician; next, knowing the capacities and inclinations refers to diagnosing the disease; afterward, expounding the teachings refers to dispensing the medicine. The first verse says "The Dharma attained by all Buddhas," which refers to real wisdom. "Incalculable power of expedient means" refers to provisional wisdom. Next, inwardly endowed with these two, externally he is able to expound the Dharma for living beings. In the second verse, the upper three lines know present nature and desires, while the lower one line clarifies the illumination of past karmic causes; because present desires stem from past karma, it is versified next. The next four verses form two [parts]: the first single verse generally clarifies adapting to conditions to expound the teaching, the teaching matching the conditions; the next three verses separately clarify the teaching-gates. The general comes first and the specific after, in order to explain the meaning. In separately clarifying the expounding of the teaching, the first line and a half clarifies the nine divisions of scriptures, which refers to the teaching Dharma; the next line and a half clarifies the fruit Dharma of nirvāṇa. In the Hīnayāna Dharma, expounding the teachings of the nine divisions causes them to attain the fruit of nirvāṇa; this, then, is the sequential order. Furthermore, the nine divisions apply generally to the four vehicles, whereas the fruit Dharma only clarifies the teaching of the two vehicles. Although what was expounded in the past was extensive, it does not go beyond these two. Furthermore, the nine divisions refer to the human and deva teachings, while the subsequent exposition of nirvāṇa refers to the two-vehicle teachings. However, sūtras and treatises differ, generally having four propositions: First, both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna are broad: the Mahāyāna completely possesses twelve, and the Hīnayāna possesses twelve according to its capacity. Why they only clarify twelve is because twelve is the fullness of a single number, and also because it cures the twelvefold conditioned disease of living beings. Second, both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna are abridged, identically clarifying nine divisions. Why they only clarify nine divisions is also because it is the fullness of a single number, and also because the nine divisions are expounded for the living beings of the nine destinies. In the Hīnayāna, three are removed on account of the shallowness of the doctrine: because the Hīnayāna doctrine is shallow and narrow, it lacks the expansive (vaipulya); conferring prophecy of buddhahood is not the central tenet of the Hīnayāna, and furthermore Hīnayāna practitioners have no sense of succeeding to a buddha's place, so prophecies (vyākaraṇa) are removed; Hīnayāna doctrine is shallow, so there are those who can ask, and thus spontaneous expositions without inquiry (udāna) are removed. Furthermore, great beings can act as uninvited friends to living beings, so they have spontaneous expositions without inquiry; the Hīnayāna cannot save living beings and must await an invitation before expounding, so it lacks spontaneous expositions without inquiry. In the Mahāyāna, three are removed on account of the sharpness of the practitioners' faculties: Mahāyāna practitioners have sharp faculties and understand upon direct exposition, needing neither causes and conditions (nidāna) nor parables (avadāna), nor relying on treatises (upadeśa); hence these three divisions are abridged. The third proposition is that the Hīnayāna is broad while the Mahāyāna is abridged: as the Bodhisattvabhūmi Treatise states, the Bodhisattva Piṭaka is called the Vaipulya Sūtra, whereas the Śrāvaka Piṭaka refers to eleven divisions. This means that the twelve Mahāyāna divisions are for illuminating the principle of the vaipulya; being named after the principle they express, the twelve divisions are all called vaipulya. The twelve Hīnayāna divisions are not for illuminating the principle of the vaipulya, so they preserve the names of the eleven divisions while omitting the designation of vaipulya. The fourth proposition is that the Mahāyāna is broad while the Hīnayāna is abridged: displaying that the Mahāyāna is the complete letter, it therefore fully possesses the twelve divisions; the Hīnayāna is the half-letter, so it only has nine divisions; this is precisely as stated in the present text, and is the central tenet of the Lotus Sūtra. The twelve divisions generally take verbal teachings as their essence; thus the Nirvāṇa Sūtra explains knowing the Dharma and knowing the meaning—knowing the Dharma means knowing the Dharma of the twelve divisions of scriptures, and hence we know this is teaching. Next, dividing them into two: although there are twelve divisions, they do not go beyond prose and verse. They may also be divided into three: sūtra, geya, and gāthā. These three take their names from the teaching itself; thus teaching forms the essence of these three divisions, while the remaining nine divisions receive their names from specific matters, yet also do not depart from these three. As for sūtras, the Chengshi lun and the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa explain that direct verbal exposition is a sūtra, which refers to sūtras of specific characteristic. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra takes everything from "Thus [have I heard]" to "faithfully practiced it" as sūtras of common characteristic. In the Tripiṭaka, the Sūtra[-piṭaka] is vertically long and horizontally narrow: vertically long because it subsumes the twelve [divisions], and horizontally narrow because it is only a single basket. Among the twelve divisions, the sūtra is horizontally broad and vertically short: not subsuming the [other] eleven, it is vertically short; subsuming the three baskets, it is horizontally broad. Gāthās are the second division, referring to unrhymed, non-repeating verses.

4.14

Question:

4.15

When various sūtras and treatises list the twelve divisions, the second is geya; why does it now explain gāthā instead?

4.16

Answer:

4.17

Wishing to show that the Buddha's expounding of the Dharma is unfixed, he altered the conventional norm; since expounding nine divisions in the past was to clarify the small, and now clarifying nine divisions is to open into the great, wishing to display this meaning of indefiniteness he expounded them in mixed order. Furthermore, here these nine divisions are combined into five pairs: First, prose and verse form a pair. All Buddhas either expound sūtras directly for living beings, or right from the outset expound in verse, hence called gāthās; since the sūtra repeatedly marks them with the word "or," we know that sūtras are not necessarily first, and gāthās are not necessarily behind. Itivṛttaka and jātaka form the second, self-and-other pair. Itivṛttaka recounts past events of others, as in the "Former Deeds of the Medicine King Chapter" and so forth; recounting one's own past events is jātaka. Adbhutadharma and nidāna form the pair of good and evil events. Adbhutadharma refers to auspicious events, such as the blue ox carrying the almsbowl, the white dog listening to the sūtra, the great earth trembling, and the physical stature of the devas; nidāna refers to the events concerning the origin and consequences of generating transgressions, which are expounded under the name of nidāna scriptures. Avadāna and geya form the pair of teaching and parable. In full, they should be called loka-geya and gāthā-geya; above, the specific was kept while the general was abridged, but here the general is kept while the specific is abridged. Upadeśa is called treatise, which is that which explicates; the above eight divisions forming four pairs are what is explicated, which forms the pair of the explicator and what is explicated.

4.18

Question:

4.19

If both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna are called vaipulya, what is the difference?

4.20

Answer:

4.21

The Mahāyāna is the complete vaipulya, while the Hīnayāna is vaipulya according to its capacity. Furthermore, in the Mahāyāna, the correct principle is called 'square' (vai-), and the abundance of meaning is called 'broad' (-pulya); texts that express this principle of vaipulya are called vaipulya sūtras. In the Hīnayāna, correct speech is called 'square,' and the multitude of texts is called 'broad.'

4.22

From "Those of dull faculties delight in lesser dharmas" downward is a line and a half, clarifying the fruit Dharma of the Hīnayāna. Furthermore, the earlier clarification of the nine divisions referred to the human and deva teachings, while this clarifies the two-vehicle teachings. Although humans and devas differ, they do not go beyond the nine divisions; although the two vehicles differ, they equally seek nirvāṇa. Therefore, in the human and deva teachings, first the capacity of humans and devas was unfolded, and next the ninefold teaching was clarified; here too, first the capacity of the two vehicles is recounted, and next the two-vehicle teaching is recounted.

4.23

Question:

4.24

Since it says they delight in lesser dharmas, why does it further say they are greedily attached to saṃsāra?

4.25

Answer: In their present capacity and conditions they delight in lesser dharmas, but over the long past they were greedily attached to saṃsāra. Furthermore, according to their capacity they delight in lesser dharmas, but based on emotional attachments they are greedily attached to saṃsāra. Moreover, delighting in lesser dharmas is itself being greedy for saṃsāra, because lesser nirvāṇa is just Mahāyāna saṃsāra. Therefore, "For them I expound nirvāṇa" is second, clarifying the Hīnayāna teaching. From "I devised these expedient means" downward: above clarified the two kinds of past teachings, while this clarifies the purport of the two kinds of teachings. First, closely following the preceding, it clarifies the purport of expounding the Hīnayāna teaching, showing that expounding the Dharma of nirvāṇa in the past was intended to cause them to enter the Buddha's wisdom. "Definitively expounding the Mahāyāna": in the past, words expounded the small while the intent was in the great, so the teaching did not match the intent and was not called definitive; now both words and intent are revealed, so it is called definitive. Furthermore, sūtras such as the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā explicitly teach bodhisattvas while secretly transforming the two vehicles; for bodhisattvas it was definitive, but for the two vehicles it was not yet definitive. Now explicitly teaching bodhisattvas and explicitly teaching the two vehicles, it is therefore called definitive. Furthermore, the Mahāyāna is the definitive Dharma, as the Nirvāṇa Sūtra states: the Lion's Roar is called the definitive exposition, meaning that all living beings possess Buddha-nature; here too, it definitively expounds that all living beings possess the ekayāna. Because in ultimate principle there is no remainder and in nature there is only Buddha-nature, expounding Buddha-nature is called the definitive exposition; the ekayāna is likewise.

4.26

From "These my nine-division teachings" downward, second, [the text] clarifies the intention of preaching the nine divisions of the doctrinal Dharma. The first half [of the verse] clarifies expounding doctrinal teachings in accordance with what is appropriate; the second half clarifies the intention of expounding the teachings. Preaching the nine divisions was to bring about awakening and entering into the Mahāyāna, and taking understanding of the Mahāyāna as the fundamental purpose; therefore it is said that entering into the Mahāyāna is the foundation. From "There are Buddha-sons whose minds are pure" downward, above [the text] clarified the past intention of preaching the Hīnayāna teaching; now, second, it clarifies the past intention of preaching the Mahāyāna teaching. If discussed in terms of the five yānas, above it spoke of the four yānas, and now it distinguishes the fifth, the Mahāyāna teaching. If one takes the sequence of the three teachings: first, humans and devas are the lower teaching; next, the two yānas are the intermediate teaching; now, the Mahāyāna is the superior teaching. The text genuinely bears this meaning: in each passage, it always first clarifies the capacity and next distinguishes the teaching, which becomes apparent upon examining the text. Someone says: "Above it clarified that the past preaching of the Hīnayāna was an upāya; now it clarifies that the Mahāyāna among the past three yānas was also an upāya, because [the Buddha] intended to unite the three yānas to return to the ekayāna; hence earlier he clarified the Hīnayāna and now distinguishes the Mahāyāna." We say this is not so: earlier he clarified the Hīnayāna, and the text distinguished the Hīnayāna as an upāya; if the past Mahāyāna were an upāya, then he should likewise have first listed the Mahāyāna and next clarified that the Mahāyāna was an upāya. Yet the text does not do so; it directly clarifies the past Mahāyāna without saying it was an upāya. Hence we know that the past Hīnayāna was an upāya, while the past Mahāyāna was not an upāya. Furthermore, expounding the Mahāyāna for bodhisattvas who practice the six perfections exclusively could indeed be an upāya. Yet the text says "Buddha-sons who have practiced the profound and marvelous path of immeasurable Buddhas"; these are not persons of conventional designations who practice exclusively, so we know this is the real Mahāyāna. Moreover, the Madhyamakaśāstra states: "Earlier, for the sake of śrāvakas, he preached the twelve links of dependent origination that arise and cease; next, for those who had already trained in practice, possessed great minds, and were capable of receiving the profound and marvelous Dharma, he preached the twelve links of dependent origination that do not arise and do not cease." If so, then these—great and small—would both be upāyas; yet the Madhyamakaśāstra clarifies that the former preaching of the small was an upāya and the subsequent preaching of the great was real. The present text is likewise.

4.27

Question:

4.28

[The text] ought only to clarify that the past small was an upāya; why does the present text clarify the past Mahāyāna?

4.29

Answer:

4.30

This text introduces together the two storehouses, the great and the small, of the Tathāgata—all the various teachings of the two yānas, great and small, from the Avataṃsaka onward up until [the assembly at] Vulture Peak. Why introduce both teachings together? Introducing the intention of the Hīnayāna teaching clarifies turning from the small to enter the great. Bodhisattvas of dull faculties, who had not attained awakening in the past, only now receive and understand. Introducing the intention of the Mahāyāna teaching praises the direct-progress bodhisattvas from the Avataṃsaka onward up until [the assembly at] Vulture Peak whose great capacities matured early and whose sharp faculties awakened early. This merely serves repeatedly to praise the bodhisattvas' earlier attainment and to lament the śrāvakas' later awakening. It is not about the past great being an upāya.

4.31

Question:

4.32

How is this known to be so?

4.33

Answer:

4.34

Through two textual passages as evidence: First, the "Emerging from the Earth Chapter" states: "When these sentient beings first saw my body and heard what I preached, they immediately attained entry into the Tathāgata's wisdom." This clarifies that the direct-progress bodhisattvas awakened early to the Buddha's wisdom. Next it states: "Except for those who previously cultivated and studied the Hīnayāna; such persons as these I now also cause to hear this sūtra and enter into the Buddha's wisdom." This clarifies that bodhisattvas who turned from the small to enter the great awakened only late. Second, this sūtra text clarifies that the śrāvakas practiced the Mahāyāna late, heard the Mahāyāna late, received prophecies late, and gave rise to joy late; since this is the real teaching, the bodhisattvas' practicing the Mahāyāna early, hearing the Mahāyāna early, receiving prophecies early, and giving rise to joy early is also the real teaching. If the present text's clarification that bodhisattvas heard the Mahāyāna early and received prophecies early were an upāya, then sūtras such as the Avataṃsaka would all be upāyas, which would be an extreme defamation of the Dharma.

4.35

Question:

4.36

If the past Mahāyāna's clarification of conferring prophecies on bodhisattvas to become Buddhas was indeed the real teaching, and yet śrāvakas relied on sūtras such as the Prajñā[pāramitā] to soften and tame their minds, and only afterward were able to awaken and enter into the Lotus [Sūtra], then one knows that the Prajñā[pāramitā] is an upāya for the Lotus [Sūtra]; how could it be the real teaching?

4.37

Answer:

4.38

The Prajñā[pāramitā] explicitly taught bodhisattvas and secretly transformed the two yānas; people of the two yānas relied on the bodhisattvas' real teaching to soften and tame their minds and thereby were able to enter into the Lotus [Sūtra]. This is merely relying on others' earlier attainment to achieve later progress; how could one say that the teaching for those of earlier attainment was an upāya exposition?

4.39

Question:

4.40

Can this Mahāyāna also be an upāya or not?

4.41

Answer:

4.42

Viewed from the perspective of the Path, there has never been great or small; because of responding to the conditions of the great and the small, provisional names and characteristics are expounded where there are no names and characteristics. Therefore, great and small are both upāyas; not only are great and small both upāyas, but three and one are also both upāyas. However, now when contrasting great and small: because the Hīnayāna is incomplete, it is an upāya; because the Mahāyāna is already complete, it is called real.

4.43

Regarding this text, there are two parts: First, praising the bodhisattvas' merit and sharp faculties as possessing seven kinds of earliness, which thereby reveals that the śrāvakas' meager merit and dull faculties possess seven kinds of lateness. Second, concluding with the intention of expounding the Mahāyāna in the past. "There are Buddha-sons whose minds are pure" is the first, praising the bodhisattvas' having the virtue of being fit to hear early in the present, which thereby reveals the śrāvakas' condition of being fit to hear late. Because they are free from the grasping minds of ordinary persons and the two yānas, they are called "pure". "Supple" means having the faithful mind of nongrasping, complying with the Buddhas and not going against the Mahāyāna, like moist cowhide that is easily bent and folded. "Sharp faculties": faith is their beginning and wisdom is their end, summarily citing the first and last of the five faculties. Furthermore, in the great ocean of the Mahāyāna Dharma, faith is what enables entry and wisdom is what enables crossing; hence these two are cited. From "In the presence of immeasurable Buddhas" downward is the second, praising the bodhisattvas' early cultivation of the great cause; since they met many Buddhas and accumulated much practice, this thereby reveals that the śrāvakas' cultivation of the Mahāyāna cause was late. From "For the sake of these Buddha-sons" downward is the third, praising expounding the Mahāyāna for bodhisattvas early, which thereby reveals expounding the Mahāyāna for śrāvakas late. As for the statement "I preached this Mahāyāna sūtra," "this Mahāyāna sūtra" is the Lotus [Sūtra]. In the past, he had already expounded the Lotus [Sūtra] early for the direct-progress bodhisattvas. Therefore, the "Emerging from the Earth Chapter" states: "When these sentient beings first saw my body and heard what I preached, they immediately entered into the Buddha's wisdom." The Buddha's wisdom is the Lotus [Sūtra]'s equal, great wisdom; it merely took the names of Avataṃsaka and Prajñā[pāramitā] in the past. Now, for the sake of those who turn from the small to enter the great, he delivers the Lotus discourse; hence we know that the Mahāyāna's illumination of the Path is identical in meaning. Thus it is said: "Prajñā is one single Dharma; the Buddha expounds it under various names, establishing different terms for it in accordance with the capacities of sentient beings." The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa also states: "The Lotus Sūtra is another name for the Prajñā[pāramitā]," which is clear proof. "I prophesied that such persons as these would in future worlds achieve the Buddha Path" is the fourth, praising conferring prophecies on bodhisattvas early, which thereby reveals that the śrāvakas attained prophecies late. "Because with deep minds they are mindful of the Buddha" is the fifth, praising the bodhisattvas' early cultivation of correct understanding and therefore early attainment of the Buddha's prophecy, which reveals the two yānas' late cultivation of correct understanding and therefore late attainment of the Buddha's prophecy. "With deep minds they are mindful of the Buddha" means thoroughly awakening to the Tathāgata's body of no-arising and no-ceasing. As the Avataṃsaka Sūtra states: "All dharmas do not arise and all dharmas do not cease; if one can understand in this way, all Buddhas will constantly manifest before them." Furthermore, the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra states: "What is meant by mindfulness of the Buddha? It means that having no recollection is mindfulness of the Buddha." Here, internal and external are both extinguished, and object and contemplation are both tranquil; this is true mindfulness of the Buddha. "Because they cultivate and uphold pure precepts" is the sixth, praising the bodhisattvas' early cultivation of correct practice and therefore early attainment of the Buddha's prophecy; neither upholding nor violating, and free from the precepts of grasping found among ordinary persons and the two yānas, they are therefore called "pure precepts." However, practice and understanding have no distinct substances; they are distinct aspects of a single correct contemplation: freedom from delusion is understanding, and freedom from fault is practice. From "These, upon hearing that they will attain Buddhahood" downward is the seventh, praising the bodhisattvas' giving rise to joy early, used to criticize the śrāvakas' being joyful only after attaining prophecies later. The bliss of the third dhyāna in the mundane world is called bliss that permeates the body, yet it is still a small joy. Now, receiving the Buddha's prophecy, they immediately attain the Buddha's bliss; hence it is called "great joy." Awakening to the intrinsic cessation of this body and mind is called "permeating the body."

4.44

From "The Buddha, knowing their mental conduct" downward, second, concludes with the intention of expounding the great teaching in the past. When the Buddha first attained the Path, he knew the bodhisattvas' merit and sharp faculties, and therefore expounded the Mahāyāna for them early.

4.45

From "Śrāvakas or bodhisattvas" downward, second, reveals the intention of the present teaching; this is the verse summary of the prose above: "solely for the sake of the one great matter as the cause and condition do they appear in the world." The prose has three intentions: first, clarifying that they appear in the world for the sake of the great matter; second, that it is only to teach bodhisattvas; third, clarifying that throughout the Buddha-lands of the ten directions there is only the one and no second, explaining and completing the preceding two matters. The present text shifts tone to versify this, likewise opening into three distinctions: first, clarifying that it is only to teach the one person; next, clarifying that in principle there is the one and no second; last, distinguishing the Buddhas' grand intention in appearing in the world. Why did it first clarify solely teaching the one person? In order to contrast with the two teachings of the past, each responding to two capacities; now it clarifies that the two capacities together receive the one teaching. In the past, the śrāvakas' great capacity was not yet mature, so he preached the small for them; the bodhisattvas' great capacity had matured early, so he preached the great for them; thus the two teachings each responded to two capacities. Now, at the gathering on Vulture Peak, the great capacities of both śrāvakas and bodhisattvas have matured; therefore, both capacities together hear the one teaching and all equally become Buddhas. For this reason and condition, it first clarifies solely teaching the one person. "Without doubt": in the past, when he expounded the three yānas, śrāvakas had no advancing on the Path, while bodhisattvas had paths of retreat; now, clarifying that there is the one and no three, śrāvakas have advancing on the Path, and bodhisattvas have no paths of retreat; hence it says "without doubt." "In the Buddha-lands of the ten directions" is the second, clarifying that in principle there is the one and no second. Truly because in principle there is only the ekayāna and no two yānas, therefore śrāvakas and bodhisattvas, upon hearing a single verse of the Lotus [Sūtra], all equally become Buddhas; thus the present text explains and completes the above meaning. As for "Except for the Buddha's upāya expositions": a doubter says, "Since there is the one and no second, why did he say in the past that there are two yānas?" Therefore it explains: based on principle above, there is no second; it is only except for upāya expositions that there are said to be two. As for "Merely through provisional names": the doubter, having heard that except for upāya expositions there are said to be two, might think that there is the slightest substantial entity to the two yānas. Therefore it explains: ultimately there is no substantial entity to the two yānas; they are merely expounded through provisional names. As for "Guiding all sentient beings": the doubter says, "Since there is no substantial entity, why expound these empty names?" Therefore it explains: desiring to guide and show sentient beings and lead them out of the burning house, through these empty names they obtain real benefit; hence it is called skillful means. As the sūtra says: "When I first attained Buddhahood, I saved all with an empty fist." From "Because of expounding the Buddha's wisdom" downward is the third, clarifying the Buddhas' grand intention in appearing in the world. Because in principle there is the great and no small, and all Buddhas are persons who embody principle: because in principle there is the great, they appear in the world solely for the sake of the great matter; because in principle there is no small, they do not appear in the world for the sake of the small. Therefore, following upon the preceding principle, it clarifies the grand intention of appearing in the world.

4.46

Regarding the text, there are two parts: first, clarifying that all Buddhas appear in the world solely for the sake of the great matter and not for the sake of the small matter; second, citing proof to explain and complete it. The initial text also has two parts: first opening the two chapter-headings, and next explaining the two chapter-headings. The first verse sets forth the chapter-heading of appearing in the world solely for the sake of the great matter; the next half-line clarifies the chapter-heading of not appearing in the world for the sake of the small matter. The first half of the preceding verse sets forth appearing in the world for the sake of the great matter; the second half adduces the true and the false to explain and complete it. Because only the one is real while the other two are not true, therefore all Buddhas appear in the world only for the sake of the one matter.

4.47

Question:

4.48

Above it said there is no second and no third; why does it now say that the two are not true?

4.49

Answer:

4.50

The earlier explanation of "there are no two" meant that there are no pratyekabuddhas, and "there are no three" explained that there are no śrāvakas; this corresponds to the present passage's statement that "the two are not real." However, earlier it explained that both are non-existent, whereas now it explains that they are taught through upāya as existing, but they do not exist in reality.

4.51

From "I would never use the Hīnayāna" downward: this half-line indicates the thematic topic of not appearing in the world for minor matters. One may also take "only this one true matter" to explain the preceding thematic topic of appearing in the world for the sake of the great matter, and "the other two are not real" as explaining and completing the thematic topic of not appearing in the world for minor matters. Because the other two are not real, [the Buddha] never uses the Hīnayāna to liberate beings. From "the Buddha himself abides in the Mahāyāna" downward is the second part, which explains both thematic topics. The first full line explains the thematic topic of the Buddha appearing in the world for the sake of the great matter: because the Buddha himself abides in the Mahāyāna, he also liberates beings using the Dharma obtained by the Buddha.

4.52

Question:

4.53

Concentration (samādhi) and wisdom (prajñā) are themselves the Mahāyāna; why speak of "adornment of the Mahāyāna"?

4.54

Answer:

4.55

One is quiescent and the other illuminating; this is to adorn the general by means of the particular. It is also to adorn the person by means of the Dharma. As for speaking of "power" (bala), it is called "power" because it can liberate beings. Moreover, concentration and wisdom alone are explained because when there are no encumbrances that are not stilled, that is concentration; and when there are no virtues that are not perfected, that is wisdom. Furthermore, when there are no encumbrances that are not stilled, this is concentration, which is the fruit-of-the-fruit of nirvāṇa; when there are no objects that are not illuminated, this is the fruit of bodhi. Because these two encompass the vehicle of fruition in its entirety, they are explained here.

4.56

From "having personally realized the unsurpassable Path" downward is the second part, explaining the preceding thematic topic of not appearing in the world for the sake of minor matters. If he himself abode in the equal Dharma of the Mahāyāna yet liberated beings by means of the lesser, there would then be two faults: first, going against the equality of the Mahāyāna; second, falling into the failing of stinginess and greed. Coveting the great for oneself and not bestowing it upon beings is called "stinginess and greed." First, it goes against the principle of equality; second, it goes against the mind of all Buddhas. Hence it says, "Such a thing is inadmissible." From "If people faithfully take refuge in the Buddha" downward is the second part, proving the preceding point that it is for the great and not for the minor. Regarding appearance in the world, there are three proofs in all: first, adducing proof from others; second, adducing proof from oneself; third, adducing proof from the past. "Adducing proof from others" means that persons who faithfully take refuge in the Buddha know that the Tathāgata's words do not deceive. Abiding oneself in the true Dharma while giving a bogus vehicle to beings is called "deceiving." Using this to entice others is called "beguiling." Because the Buddha himself abides in the true vehicle and also gives it to beings, he does not deceive. "Nor is there any thought of greed or jealousy": as for the external speaking of deceit and beguilement, it stems from greed and jealousy in the internal mind; coveting the true vehicle for oneself and being jealous of sentient beings, one gives them a bogus teaching, which is why one deceives. The Buddha has no greed or jealousy, and therefore does not deceive. "Severing evil among all phenomena": not only is he free from greed and jealousy, he has completely severed all evil among all phenomena. Because having evil within causes fear in whatever one encounters, and because the Buddha is free from all evil, in the ten directions he alone is without fear. From "I, with the marks that adorn my body" downward is the second part, adducing proof from oneself. There are four lines in all: 1. By having this body with marks and signs, it is known that inwardly he is without greed and jealousy, and outwardly without deceit. 2. Since he illuminates the world with the light of his body, it is known that his body benefits beings; therefore inwardly he is without greed or jealousy, and outwardly he does not deceive. 3. It explains that he is revered by immeasurable multitudes, and therefore is not a person of greed, jealousy, or deceit. 4. It explains that he expounds the seal of true reality for people to certify all phenomena, from which it is known that he himself abides in the Mahāyāna and also causes others to abide in the Mahāyāna. Moreover, the previous verse explained that the Buddha is free of evil; this verse discerns that the Buddha possesses good, and both together explain that the Buddha himself abides in the Mahāyāna and bestows the Mahāyāna upon beings. From "Śāriputra, you should know" downward is the third part, adducing as proof his past vows. The first verse adduces the Buddha's past vow; the second verse explains the fulfillment of the past vow. It explains that when he first generated the mind [for awakening], he already vowed to cause all people to attain Buddhahood; how much more so now, having attained Buddhahood, could he abide in the great himself yet bestow the small upon beings?

4.57

Question:

4.58

When the Tathāgata first generated the mind, he vowed that all would attain Buddhahood, yet now they have not all attained Buddhahood; how can it be called "the vow is already fulfilled"?

4.59

Answer:

4.60

In the single assembly on Vulture Peak, those who turned from the small entered the great, and the bodhisattvas entered the ekayāna together; prior to that, he had conferred prophecies of Buddhahood upon bodhisattvas who proceeded directly. Throughout this one lifetime of appearing in the world, he caused universally only these two kinds of people to attain Buddhahood, and this constituted the fulfillment of the vow for this lifetime, as proven by the passage cited above from the "Emerging from the Earth Chapter." In terms of the principal intent: prior to the Lotus Sūtra, he could only expound the Buddha vehicle for the solitary bodhisattva, so the Buddha's vow was not yet fulfilled; now, he expounds it for beings of the five vehicles and the six destinies and causes them all to attain Buddhahood, so the Buddha's vow is fulfilled. Furthermore, expounding the ekayāna for people expresses the Buddha's intent, and is thus also called "fulfillment."

4.61

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.

First 61 of 265 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

法華義疏 — Classical Chinese