法華義疏 5
English (machine translation) 5
- Language
- English
5.1
Composed by the Hu [monk] Jizang.
5.2
Parable Chapter, the Third
5.3
The reason why this chapter comes next is that although the text of this sūtra has seven scrolls, its principle returns to the equal great wisdom. However, in entering this great wisdom there are various gates: some enter through the gate of preaching through Dharma, some enter through the gate of preaching through parables, and some enter through the gate of preaching through both Dharma and parables. If one awakens to and enters great wisdom because of these three gates, then all three kinds are gates; if one fails to awaken to and enter it because of these three gates, then all three kinds are not gates. Hence the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: "Some take amṛta and their life span is prolonged; some take amṛta and their lives are harmed, dying prematurely. The amṛta of unimpeded wisdom is the so-called Mahāyāna scriptures; such Mahāyāna scriptures are also named mixed poison." However, persons of superior faculties, having heard the preaching through Dharma, have already understood and do not depend on parables. Hence the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says, "It was only for persons of sharp faculties that he preached the nine classes of scriptures of the Mahāyāna, omitting parables"—this is precisely that matter. Those of medium faculties are not yet able to forget words and grasp the Dharma; hence, hearing the preaching through Dharma, they did not understand, but they can wait with an open mind for parables; therefore he preaches parables for them. Furthermore, the exposition of teachings varies according to customs: the words of China mostly rely on Dharma, whereas the language of India mostly adduces analogies and parables. In the past, Zhang Qian sought the source of the Yellow River and reached the country of the Da Yuezhi; seeing an Indian envoy arrive, he questioned him, saying: "What are the customs and affairs in that land like?" The envoy replied, saying: "In that country, when fighting they ride elephants, and in speech they mostly adduce analogies and parables." The Buddha appeared in India and conformed to their customs; therefore, he established parables.
5.4
Question:
5.5
What is the difference between pi (metaphor) and yu (parable)?
5.6
Answer:
5.7
In the sūtras and treatises, they are sometimes called pi and sometimes called yu; thus we know that pi and yu are different designations for [the same] focus. It can also be that they have distinct meanings: pi means 'to categorize', and yu means 'to clarify'. Borrowing near phenomena to illustrate distant principles and thereby clarifying matters for those who have not yet understood is called 'parable' (piyu). The Commentary states: 'Pi marks phenomena to speak of the mind; yu speaks of both the mind and phenomena.' However, within the sūtras and treatises there are four different types of propositions: First, borrowing the near to illustrate the distant, as this sūtra says: 'The great, wealthy elder is the Tathāgata.' Second, borrowing the distant to illustrate the near, as the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'Just as nirvāṇa is neither existent nor non-existent, sin is also like this—neither existent nor non-existent.' Third, using the near to illustrate the near, as the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: 'A state without brass compares it to gold.' Fourth, using the distant to illustrate the distant, as the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra explains: 'What is it like, the limit of reality? It is said to be like the nature of phenomena.' This uses the nature of phenomena to illustrate the limit of reality.
5.8
Question:
5.9
Since the second cycle of parabolic explanation is titled the 'Parable Chapter', the first cycle regarding the exposition of Dharma should be titled the 'Dharma Exposition Chapter'. Given that the first cycle was separately titled the 'Expedient Means Chapter', what title should this [chapter] now receive?
5.10
Answer:
5.11
Speaking generally, either could appear interchangeably. However, the preceding [chapter] was titled based on the specific, whereas this one is headed based on the general. As for what is called 'specific': 'exposition of Dharma' is a general term, whereas 'expedient means' is a specific name; hence it was designated according to the specific. As for what is now called 'parable': this phrase is general, so it was headed according to the general. Thus, Dharma and parable are both presented, and general and specific are interchangeably used in the titles.
5.12
Question:
5.13
The Great [Nirvāṇa] Sūtra says that 'parables are of eight kinds.' Which kind of parable is explained here?
5.14
Answer:
5.15
If the preceding chapter is the Dharma and this [chapter] illustrates the preceding Dharma with a parable, then it places the Dharma first and the parable after, which is called a subsequent parable. If we speak in terms of this chapter itself, where there has not yet been an exposition of Dharma and the parable is explained beforehand, it is an antecedent parable. Moreover, the present parable of the burning house is an all-inclusive parable. Thus, among the eight kinds of parables, it can subsume three. However, the meanings of the two names 'Dharma' and 'parable' are not fixed. People mostly think that parables pertain only to phenomena and that Dharma must be principle, but this is truly not so. The Great Sūtra says, 'Just as nirvāṇa...', wherein nirvāṇa serves as the parable; and 'Illustrating like a vajra...', wherein the vajra serves as the parable. Thus we know that the names and meanings of Dharma and parable are not fixed. Because they are not fixed, it is possible to use Dharma as a parable and a parable as Dharma. When taking a parable as Dharma, Dharma is not definitively Dharma; when taking Dharma as a parable, a parable is not definitively a parable. One should know that it is neither Dharma nor parable, and is forcibly named 'Dharma' and 'parable'. Therefore, relying on this Dharma and parable, [the Buddha] causes sentient beings to fully awaken to the right path that is neither Dharma nor parable. Thus the preceding text says: 'This Dharma cannot be demonstrated; the characteristics of words are extinguished.' Relying on words to title the chapter causes them to awaken to wordlessness; hence it is called the 'Parable Chapter'. The establishment of the chapter title should properly be placed from the passage: 'At that time Śāriputra addressed the Buddha, saying: "I now no longer have doubts or regrets..."' However, at the beginning of the fascicle, the three sections—Śāriputra's expression of understanding, the Tathāgata's endorsement, and the conferment of prophecy—are not yet the parable. As for why the chapter title is suddenly established here, someone says: when the person of superior capacity expressed understanding, looking forward to the establishment of the 'Belief and Understanding Chapter' below, a separate chapter title should have been established; but because the text was brief and insufficient for a separate title, it was temporarily placed at the beginning of the 'Parable Chapter'. Now I explain: it was essential that Śāriputra understood the preceding exposition of Dharma before he could request the subsequent parable; thus the subsequent parable stemmed from his preceding grasp of the Dharma. That is why the Parable Chapter was established at the beginning of his expression of understanding.
5.16
From 'At that time Śāriputra' onward is the second major section within the exposition of Dharma: the person of superior capacity expressing understanding. The reason he was able to express understanding is that the teaching corresponds to the conditions, so it is said that the teaching matches the conditions; the conditions are the conditions for the teaching, so it is said that the conditions match the teaching. Because the teaching matches the conditions, medicine is administered according to the disease; because the conditions match the teaching, it is taken and practiced in accord with the Dharma. Therefore, the person of superior capacity immediately grasped and awakened.
5.17
Question:
5.18
Why is it that in the various sūtras, attaining the path is not displayed through expressing awakening, whereas in this teaching [Śāriputra] receives understanding and narrates it himself?
5.19
Answer:
5.20
It is for this very reason that the various teachings differ; if they had to be uniform, why would there be so many collections? Furthermore, before the Lotus Sūtra, the great and the small flowed in separate streams; after the Lotus Sūtra, the three and the one were already united. Since this sūtra marks the intersection of the great and the small, the beginning of turning away from the three and the start of returning to the one, because the meaning is difficult to understand, he had to express his understanding. Furthermore, when a person of the Hīnayāna has faith in the Great Dharma, though he says he has understood, there may still be errors and deviations; now wishing to state it himself to request the Buddha's verification, he had to express his understanding. Furthermore, to state his own expression of understanding is precisely to expound the ekayāna once again, enabling those who cling to delusion to thereby attain clarity. Furthermore, if the person of superior capacity did not narrate his awakening, then those of middling and lower sorts would think that no one had attained understanding; the teaching would then be in vain, and looking at the steep cliff, they would retreat. In order to instruct and guide deluded minds, he had to express his understanding. Furthermore, when the Buddha previously spoke himself, it was a great person transforming small persons; now Śāriputra stating his awakening is a small person transforming small persons. Furthermore, previously the father transformed the sons; now the son transforms the sons. Since the meaning encompasses both types of transformation, gaining faith is not difficult. Furthermore, when a great person receives the great teaching and awakens to the great, or a small person receives the small teaching and awakens to the small, these both match their rightful capacities and do not warrant an expression of understanding. Now, that a small person suddenly awakens to the great is something rarely heard of in the teachings, so he had to express his understanding; if he did not express his understanding, it might be said that small persons never awaken to the great and have no attainment of the Buddha's principle, which would reduce it back to the former sūtras, and the present teaching would have been set forth in vain. Furthermore, by narrating his own expression of understanding, he stirs those deluded followers, causing those clinging to their corners to focus their minds and spur themselves on: 'Since he has already understood, why am I still deluded?' For these reasons, he had to narrate it himself. Furthermore, at the end of the previous chapter, the Buddha showed the method of propagating the sūtra and exhorted those of superior capacity to uphold understanding and transmit the transformation; now, in expressing his understanding, he complies with the Buddha's prior instruction.
5.21
Regarding the text, there are two parts: first, the prose; next, the verses. The prose also has two parts: first, the compiler of the sūtra recounts his joy and reverence; next, he speaks to narrate his expression of understanding. In the former, there are two clauses: first, joy in his inner mind; second, showing reverence in his outward form. As for joy in his inner mind: joy arises from faith and understanding; hence he showed a joyful appearance to manifest faith and understanding. Śāriputra's joy has two general meanings: first, joy because something was eliminated; second, joy because something was attained. Joy because something was eliminated has two meanings: first, his former, long-held doubts and regrets were eliminated; second, his recent, new doubts and regrets were eliminated. These two griefs being eliminated, he therefore rejoiced. Joy because something was attained also has two meanings: first, having heard the preceding exposition of Dharma, he rejoiced because he attained an unprecedented understanding; second, having heard the preceding general prophecy, he rejoiced because he anticipated and delighted in obtaining prophecy. These two are the utmost of joy; hence it is called 'ecstatic dancing' (yongyue). The Commentary says: 'Doubts and anxieties eliminated externally, a joyful mind arose internally; unconsciously dancing and leaping, he was therefore ecstatic.'
5.22
Question:
5.23
The Tattvasiddhi Śāstra states: 'Being without grief and without joy is the virtue of an arhat.' Why then does the present sūtra say that the arhat rejoiced?
5.24
Answer:
5.25
Some say: the arhat truly has no joy; wishing to guide beings, he therefore displayed joy. Others say: originally distinguishing śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas according to the six minds, the arhat is still an external ordinary person—how could he be without grief and joy? This is an explanation based on principle. If explained according to the doctrine, this is non-existent. The Tattvasiddhi Śāstra states: 'Grief and joy necessarily arise from conceptualization and discrimination.' The arhat has completely severed fundamental afflictions and no longer has grasping or delusion; how could he have grief and joy? As for the sūtra saying he has them, this figuratively speaks of a heart of jubilation as joy, just as it figuratively speaks of uncontaminated contemplative wisdom as spontaneous bliss. Now I explain: within the Hīnayāna it is said that an arhat has no grief or joy, but discussing it in terms of the Mahāyāna, there is joy. For example, while the five desires of ordinary persons could not move Kāśyapa, the music of bodhisattvas left him unable to keep still.
5.26
Second, 'promptly arose and pressed his palms together' shows reverence in outward form. Intending to state his expression of understanding and looking up at the Tathāgata to ask for his verification, he therefore left his seat to manifest his reverent sincerity. Furthermore, the preceding was joy in the mental karma; this is now paying reverence in bodily karma. As for 'looking up at the venerable countenance': by looking up at the venerable countenance, he was watching for a suitable time to speak.
5.27
From 'and addressed the Buddha, saying' onward is the second part: speaking to narrate his expression of understanding; having waited for the right opportunity, he then dared to speak. Furthermore, the preceding was joy and reverence of body and mind; this is now verbally stating his expression of understanding. Regarding the text, there are three parts: first, indicating the joy; second, explaining the joy; third, concluding the joy. Within the indication there are two clauses: first, indicating the cause of attaining joy; second, directly showing the attainment of joy. 'Hearing this Dharma sound' refers to 'all returning to the one sound' in the Expedient Means Chapter, which is the cause of attaining understanding. 'His mind embraced ecstatic joy' is the second: directly showing the joy. Having heard what he had never heard before, it is therefore called attaining what was unprecedented. From 'Why is this?' onward is the second: explaining the joy. Because the meaning of the joy was not yet manifest, it is appropriate to explain the reason. Regarding the text, there are two parts: first, recounting his former delusion which brought about grief; second, explaining his present understanding which caused joy. The first text is again divided into two: first, recounting his former regret; second, explaining his former doubts. Because he lost the great, he felt regret; because he seized the small, he had doubts. Once doubts and regrets arose, his inner mind was displeased; hence these two had to be explained. However, just as he doubted seizing the small, so it was with losing the great; just as he regretted losing the great, he also regretted seizing the small: these meanings are mutually connected. 'I formerly heard such Dharma from the Buddha' is an overall narration of formerly hearing the Dharma. 'And saw the bodhisattvas receive prophecies of attaining Buddhahood' specifically clarifies the matter heard. Furthermore, the previous [clause] recounted hearing the Dharma; this recounts seeing the persons. In a single assembly both persons and Dharma are present, so he stated them completely. However, seeing the bodhisattvas receive prophecies of attaining Buddhahood can apply to both great and small: within the Mahāyāna, from the Prajñāpāramitā onward up to the point just before the Lotus Sūtra, all clarify conferring prophecies on bodhisattvas; yet within the Tripiṭaka there is also this explanation. The Treatise [on the Great Prajñāpāramitā] states: 'The Madhyama, Mūla, and Uttara Āgamas prophesy Maitreya attaining Buddhahood, explaining that his land is pure, the people splendid, and his spiritual virtues immeasurable.' Śāriputra, seeing this, then gave rise to feelings of regret. 'Yet we did not participate in this matter, and I was deeply grieved' means lamenting that he and his kind were not included in the superior stream. 'Losing the Tathāgata's immeasurable knowledge and vision' means: having missed out on parity with his companions, and having also forfeited the fruit of the immeasurable—what suffering could compare to this? That is why he grieved and sighed.
5.28
From 'World-Honoured One, I often dwelt alone' onward is the second: explaining his old doubts, namely supposing that the Buddha had bestowed partially. Losing the great fruit was because the Buddha conferred the small; hence he falsely blamed the Buddha. 'I often dwelt alone beneath mountain forests and trees' refers to the days when he was dwelling alone and contemplating, in contrast to the previous explanation of the time when he was in the assembly seeing and hearing. From 'and constantly had this thought' onward directly brings forth what was doubted. As for 'all entering the nature of phenomena': the nature of phenomena is precisely the true mark, and none of the three vehicles attain the path without relying on it. The Chapter on the Examination of Dharma in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā states: 'Those who attain the true mark are of three kinds, namely the people of the three vehicles.' The Great Sūtra says: 'Those who contemplate the Middle Way are of three kinds.' These are all the same matter; hence it says 'all entering the nature of phenomena'.
5.29
Question:
5.30
Where did Śāriputra hear of the nature of phenomena and awaken?
5.31
Answer:
5.32
There are three periods in which Śāriputra entered the nature of phenomena: First, when he first encountered Aśvajit, he immediately heard the teaching of emptiness, hence it is said, 'Ceasing the mind and reaching the primal source, one is therefore called a śramaṇa.' The primal source is indeed the nature of phenomena. Having heard these words, he attained purity of the Dharma-eye, which is how he entered it. Second, after Śāriputra attained the first fruit, he later heard the Buddha debate with Dīrghanakha, reproving his view of non-acceptance as falling into both coarse and subtle defeats, and elucidating that all phenomena are empty. Hearing these words, Śāriputra immediately became an arhat; this was likewise entering the nature of phenomena together [with others]. Third, after becoming an arhat, he successively heard the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā Sūtra and various Vaipulya sūtras, all of which elucidate that the three vehicles enter the nature of phenomena together. Therefore, speaking from beginning to end, there were altogether three periods of hearing the nature of phenomena together.
5.33
Regarding 'How could the Tathāgata use the Hīnayāna Dharma to deliver us?': 'entering the nature of phenomena together' clarifies that what is realized is identical, while 'using the Hīnayāna Dharma to deliver us' clarifies that what was attained is different. In reality, it was because their seeing of the nature of phenomena differed in depth that they supposed the Buddha's bestowal had greater and lesser. Failing to examine their own fault, they suspected that the Buddha's bestowing was biased. From 'This is our fault, not the World-Honoured One's' downward is the second part: clarifying that once past doubts and regrets have been eliminated, he now attains understanding and rejoices. As for the text, it has two parts: first, stating the main proposition; second, explaining the main proposition. Previously, without careful reflection, they mistakenly blamed the Buddha; now, upon repeatedly examining it thrice, [they see that] the fault lay in themselves, hence he says, 'This is our fault, not the World-Honoured One's.' From 'Why is this?' downward explains the proposition. There are two sentences in all: first, clarifying that because they did not wait for the Mahāyāna to be taught, they lost the Mahāyāna; second, clarifying that because they seized upon the Hīnayāna themselves, they therefore realized the Hīnayāna. Both of these were their own losses, not the Buddha's error. Regarding 'If we had waited for the explanation of the causes': 'waiting' means the waiting of one who ought to wait; 'causes' refers to all the practices such as the six pāramitās in the stage of learning. All the practices such as the six pāramitās are causes for realizing the ultimate fruit, which is why all practices are called the causes. If we had waited for this explanation, the Tathāgata would certainly have used the Mahāyāna to deliver us across the sea of suffering and free us from burdens and fetters; thus it says that if we had waited for the explanation of the causes, we would have attained sambodhi and would certainly have attained liberation through the Mahāyāna.
5.34
Question:
5.35
How is this known to be so?
5.36
Answer:
5.37
The preceding text states: 'All of you should now know: join your palms and wait single-mindedly'—waiting for the Buddha later to arise from samādhi and teach the Dharma. Furthermore, the sūtra says: 'awaiting the place, awaiting the time, awaiting the person'—it must certainly be a matter of a later time. From 'Yet we did not understand the upāya taught in accord with what is appropriate' downward is the second part: clarifying that they seized upon the Hīnayāna themselves. It clarifies that because we did not understand, we seized upon the Hīnayāna ourselves; thus the fault lay in ourselves and the error was not the Buddha's.
5.38
Question:
5.39
What is the difference between 'upāya' and 'in accord with what is appropriate'?
5.40
Answer:
5.41
'Upāya' reveals that the Dharma is not ultimate truth; 'in accord with what is appropriate' adapts to the capacity and suitability of the person before him. Because person and Dharma differ, both are presented. Moreover, upāya and adapting to suitability are two distinct matters: upāya has the meaning of gradual stages, like the class of the seven expedient stages, meaning that the teachings have greater and lesser, and the master's preaching of the Dharma naturally has gradual stages—teaching the Hīnayāna ought to come first, and explaining the Mahāyāna is fitting later; being appropriate for transformation in this way is termed 'in accord with what is appropriate.' 'If I had understood, I should have abandoned the earlier Hīnayāna and waited for the later Mahāyāna.' Because I did not know, I regarded the Hīnayāna as the ultimate truth, and therefore faithfully received it and realized it; the reason the fault of losing the Mahāyāna lay in oneself is this.
5.42
Question:
5.43
The five monks were the first to hear the Buddha's Dharma; how can Śāriputra be spoken of as hearing it first?
5.44
Answer:
5.45
Saying that he 'heard it first' does not mean that Śāriputra was the first among all people. It merely means that Śāriputra originally studied non-Buddhist teachings, and upon first hearing the Buddha's Way from Aśvajit, he immediately realized the first fruit, his hair and beard fell away, and he became a śramaṇa.
5.46
Question:
5.47
The Tattvasiddhi Śāstra states: 'When taking up the robes, one has afflictions; having taken up the robes, one is free from afflictions.' Since Śāriputra was a person of great sharp faculties, why did he not immediately become an arhat, but rather realized the first fruit?
5.48
Answer:
5.49
The Vibhāṣā says: 'A pāramitā-śrāvaka must first realize the first fruit and later become an arhat; this is the nature of things.' Some say: Śāriputra was widely learned and heard much; his wisdom regarding worldly matters was superior, but his wisdom for entering the Way was inferior; hence he was not equal to those who have afflictions when taking up the robes and are free from afflictions once having taken them up.
5.50
From 'Since the past' downward is the third part: concluding with rejoicing. Being about to conclude with joy, he reiterates past grief. 'Since the past, day and night' reiterates the text from the two preceding places together. It reiterates being in the assembly earlier and brings up reflecting alone later, clarifying that at no time was it not so; hence it says 'since the past.' During the day it was throughout, and during the night it was complete; constantly rebuking himself, how could there be a time of joy? 'And now, hearing from the Buddha what has never been heard before' directly clarifies his present joy.
5.51
Question:
5.52
He should merely clarify joy; why did he previously distinguish grief?
5.53
Answer:
5.54
Śāriputra's joy arose because grief was eliminated; formerly, because of doubt and regret, grief arose; now, because doubt and regret have been eliminated, he rejoices. Furthermore, in terms of benefiting sentient beings: earlier narrating delusion and grief showed that he was the same as other beings; now rejoicing upon awakening leads other beings to be the same as himself. Moreover, both of these matters serve to guide beings: Śāriputra was foremost among the śrāvakas; having seized upon the Hīnayāna and lost the Mahāyāna, he gave rise to doubt and regret—how could all the other arhats, whose path was inferior to Śāriputra's, hold on to the Hīnayāna and not rejoice in the Mahāyāna?
5.55
Question:
5.56
Do doubt and regret apply to both past and present?
5.57
Answer:
5.58
Doubt applies to both past and present; regret pertains only to the past. In the past, because of losing the Mahāyāna, he felt regret; now that it is made clear that he has not lost the Mahāyāna, there is no regret. That doubt applies to both past and present means: in the past, he doubted regarding teaching and principle—since principle is only one, teaching should not be three. As for the present doubt, it was doubt between the two teachings of past and present: the past teaching spoke of three, so on what basis does the present distinguish one? As stated in the three requests. Regarding 'Body and mind are at ease and blissfully secure': grief and regret blocked the mind, which is why it was not at ease; doubt shook his thoughts, which is why he was not secure. This text fully contains two joys: first, joy because past doubt and regret are eliminated; second, joy because present doubt and regret are eliminated. Regarding 'Truly a son of the Buddha': this clarifies that there are two categories of Buddha's sons: first, the Hīnayāna has five kinds of Buddha's sons, namely the four fruits and pratyekabuddhas; second, the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna combined clarify five kinds of Buddha's sons, namely the four fruits and dharmakāya bodhisattvas. Now saying 'truly a son of the Buddha' stands in contrast to the five kinds of Buddha's sons of the Hīnayāna, which are not true sons; now awakening to and understanding the ekayāna and being able to carry on the lineage of the Buddhas, one is first a true son of the Buddha. The Śrīmālā Sūtra has a separate 'True Son Section,' as explained there. Regarding 'born from the mouth of the Buddha': above, in contrast to the artificiality of the Hīnayāna, he generally clarified that the present Mahāyāna is the true son. From here down, he specifically explains the true son in terms of the three kinds of wisdom. Born from the Buddha's teaching, one gives rise to the understanding of wisdom born of hearing; hence it says 'born from the mouth of the Buddha.' Regarding 'born transformed from the Dharma': from the principle of phenomena arises the understanding of wisdom born of reflection. Regarding 'attaining a share of the Buddha's Dharma': this gives rise to the understanding of wisdom born of cultivation. Hence the Abhidharma says: 'Wisdom born of hearing arises entirely from teaching, wisdom born of cultivation arises entirely from principle, and wisdom born of reflection arises sometimes from principle and sometimes from teaching.' According to the present text, both reflection and cultivation wisdom arise from principle. The Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa says: 'Non-Buddhist texts clarify that brāhmaṇas are born from the mouth of Brahmā and are supreme among the sentient beings of the four castes.' Here, conforming to worldly convention, it praises being born from the mouth of the Buddha. The Buddha is the true Brahmā, and being born from the mouth of the Buddha is supreme. 'Born transformed from the Dharma' is likewise praise using an analogy: just as deities and the like suddenly transform into birth upon their parents' knees, being supreme among the four forms of birth, so now, being born transformed from the ultimate Dharma is indeed supreme. 'Attaining a share of the Buddha's Dharma' is likewise selective praise. There are two kinds of people who enter the Buddha's Dharma: first, those greedy for fame and gain, which is called taking a share of wealth; second, those who awaken to and understand the Buddha's Dharma, which is called taking a share of the Dharma. Now, in contrast to the past taking of a share of the Hīnayāna, that was not called taking the Buddha's Dharma; taking the Mahāyāna is called taking the Buddha's Dharma. As the text below says: 'not losing one's share of the Tathāgata's treasure store of knowledge and vision,' which is precisely this matter.
5.59
Second, the verse portion: versifying the proposition, explanation, and conclusion above, it consists of three parts. Versifying the statement of joy has two parts: first, one verse and a half directly versifying rejoicing; next, one verse praising the Buddha. Within the first there are three parts: the first line versifies the reason joy was attained; the next half-verse directly versifies rejoicing. From 'The net of doubts has all been removed' downward explains the meaning of rejoicing. Joy has two aspects: first, joy because doubts are removed; second, joy because there is something attained. Regarding 'not losing the Mahāyāna': understanding that what was attained in the past is indeed the Mahāyāna. In the past, the great cause was taught as the small fruit, which is called 'speaking of three on the basis of the one'; now, realizing that the small fruit is indeed the great cause, he therefore does not lose the Mahāyāna. Moreover, the preceding line clarifies that the net of doubts is removed, while this half-verse clarifies that regret has ceased; doubt and regret having been removed, he therefore rejoices. From 'The Buddha's voice is exceedingly rare' downward is the second part, praising the Buddha. Because understanding was attained through the Buddha, he praises the Buddha. The first half praises the Buddha's ability to remove the grief and affliction of sentient beings within the three realms. Regarding 'Because I have attained the exhaustion of outflows': Śāriputra narrates of himself that he is no longer afflicted by the troubles and confusion of the three realms, but had only the grief of losing the Mahāyāna and the distress of seizing upon the Hīnayāna; now hearing the Buddha's teaching, these too have been removed. Furthermore, the upper half praises the past teaching as having the efficacy of being able to remove [afflictions], while the lower half-verse distinguishes the present teaching as having the function of dispelling doubts. From 'When I dwelt in mountain valleys' downward is the second part: versifying the above meaning of explaining joy. From this passage on, it narrates Śāriputra's joy arising from the removal of grief during three periods: First, it narrates joy because doubts and regrets were removed after attaining the Path. Second, it narrates joy because clinging to views was removed when he first attained the Path. Third, it versifies joy because doubts were removed upon hearing the Lotus Sūtra teaching at present. These three encompass beginning and end, exhausting the intent of the unified teaching. The first two are past, longstanding doubts and regrets, from first attaining the Path until before the Lotus Sūtra. Next is the new doubt, which only arose upon hearing the Lotus Sūtra.
5.60
Question:
5.61
Where do these three verses appear?
5.62
Answer:
5.63
Earlier commentators on the sūtra consistently looked only to the prose to explain the verses, entirely missing the verses' intent. We now explain that the verses' intent is largely the same, but in looking from the verses to the prose, it is mostly an exposition of the Dharma with a shift in perspective. As for versifying what came before: the first versifies the previous text on doubt and remorse; the next versifies the previous text on first hearing the Buddha's teaching and immediately believing and accepting it upon encountering it; the third versifies the text from "and now having heard from the Buddha unprecedented Dharma never before heard" onwards. Regarding the first section, there are three parts: first, versifying remorse due to missing the great [vehicle]; second, versifying the arising of doubt after remorse, as to whether he had lost the Mahāyāna or not lost the great [vehicle]; third, explaining the removal of doubt and remorse. The first part also has two: first, explaining that remorse arose through solitary contemplation; second, explaining that remorse arose from seeing and hearing while in the assembly. That this is inverted from the prose above is also an exposition of the Dharma with a shift in perspective, intending to clarify that his hearing was not limited to a single assembly, nor was his contemplation limited to a single time; hence they are presented in reverse order to express this. The half-line from "I was dwelling in mountain valleys" versifies the place of remorse. The half-line from "whether sitting or walking" versifies the time of remorse. "Alas, I deeply reproached myself" directly presents the words of remorse, which is the very essence of remorse. "Alas, I deeply reproached myself" is a general statement expressing words of self-pity and self-lament; having brought it upon himself and misled himself, it is said that he deceived himself. From "we too are the Buddha's children" onwards, it specifically presents the matter of self-pity. "Equally entering the untainted Dharma" versifies the prose statement about equally entering the Dharma-nature. As for "untainted," the Dharma-nature is unconditioned and untainted. Furthermore, the prose explains the Dharma-nature by citing the objective realm, whereas here "untainted" is explained by citing wisdom. Without wisdom there is no objective realm, and without an objective realm there is no wisdom; since they mutually complete one another, they are stated in two different ways before and after. From "we cannot in the future" onwards, above it explained their present equality, whereas here it laments that their future fruits will differ; this half-line explains the loss of the fruit of transforming others. From "the golden color and the thirty-two [marks]" onwards, these two verses explain the loss of the fruit of one's own virtues. Furthermore, what preceded was the secret virtue of speech, whereas here are the two secret virtues of body and mind. As for the difference between the two verses, the first verse presents the Buddha's two bodies—the birth-body and the Dharma-body—according to the Hīnayāna, while the subsequent verse presents the Buddha's two bodies—the birth-body and the Dharma-body—according to the Mahāyāna. How is this known? The *Dazhidulun* states: "In the Hīnayāna, the eighty minor marks are not taught for the birth-body, nor are the eighteen unshared dharmas taught for the Dharma-body." Here, classifying by Hīnayāna and Mahāyāna, it clarifies that Śāriputra has lost both. Furthermore, the first presents the thirty-two marks as external and the ten powers as internal, briefly praising the Buddha's internal and external virtues; the subsequent verse presents the eighty minor marks as external and the eighteen unshared dharmas as internal, extensively praising the internal and external virtues. Being classified as extensive and brief, the two verses are therefore not the same. As for "yet within the same one Dharma we do not attain these matters," it is said either to mean "within the same one Buddha-dharma" or "within the same one Dharma-nature"; hence it says "within the same one Dharma." The reason for citing their sameness is to show the extremity of his remorse. If what was practiced had differed and what was attained had been distinct, there would be no remorse. It is precisely because what was entered was the same yet what was attained was different that there is remorse. This versifies the loss of the Tathāgata's immeasurable knowledge and vision mentioned in the prose.
5.64
Question:
5.65
The prose explains that seeing the bodhisattvas receive prophecies of attaining Buddhahood was the reason remorse arose; this explains the arising of remorse amidst phenomenal events. Next it explains: having equally entered the Dharma-nature, how could the Tathāgata deliver them with a Hīnayāna teaching? This explains the arising of doubt regarding the principle. Now the verses explain that having equally entered the Dharma-nature, they lost the virtuous fruits of Buddhahood; this is based on remorse arising within the principle. Why is this so?
5.66
Answer:
5.67
Both principle and phenomena can give rise to doubt and remorse; it is simply that the verses and prose present the text reciprocally. From "when I was walking alone" onwards, this versifies the remorse from seeing and hearing in the assembly from the prose. Connecting to the preceding verse: above it explained the loss of the fruit of virtue, while here it explains the loss of the fruit of renown. The former distinguished the three secrets and thus was the fruit of virtue; here, saying "renown filling the ten directions" refers to the fruit of renown. Furthermore, the former distinguished the loss of the virtue of propagating [the Dharma] above, hence saying "we cannot in the future expound the unsurpassed Way"; here it distinguishes the loss of the capacity to benefit those below, hence saying "broadly benefiting sentient beings." Thus they are different.
5.68
Question:
5.69
Since it says "when I was walking alone," how can it also say "I saw the Buddha amidst the great assembly"?
5.70
Answer:
5.71
Some say: this takes the walking alone above and applies it to being in the assembly below, collectively clarifying that he lost these superior virtues in both places. Some say: Śāriputra was not in the Buddha's assembly, but merely saw the Buddha in the assembly from afar, and therefore lamented to himself.
5.72
"Reflecting on my own loss of this benefit, I have deceived myself": from "alas, I deeply reproached myself: how could I have deceived myself?", the topic of self-pity was introduced. From "we too are the Buddha's children" onwards, the topic of self-pity was explained. Now this half-line concludes the self-pity. From "I constantly, day and night" onwards: everything up to this point versified his past remorse; these two verses are second, versifying the arising of doubt after remorse. The two verses form two parts: the first verse, doubt arising in solitude; the subsequent verse, doubt arising in the assembly. The remorse above occurred at two times—in solitude and in the assembly—and the doubt now is also like this. Furthermore, doubt arising in solitude is doubting the forfeiture of the fruit's virtues; doubt arising in the assembly is doubting the loss of the causal practice. Although the matters of doubt are many, they do not go beyond these two.
5.73
Question:
5.74
Since Śāriputra saw that the principle was the same but the teachings differed, was it called "the same" because he already knew they converged in the same, or was it called "the same" because he did not yet know they converged in the same?
5.75
Answer:
5.76
Dharma Master Yao's commentary states: "He had already seen the principle of converging in the same, but using the principle he doubted the teaching, and using the teaching he doubted the principle, mutually deducing them, which is why doubt arose. Inferring according to the principle, the teaching should not be threefold; speaking in terms of the teaching, the principle should not be single; hence he wavered between principle and teaching." The various masters all agree with this explanation, but we now say this is not so. If Śāriputra, with his sharp faculties, had known in advance the sameness and difference of principle and teaching, he should also have discerned in advance the provisional and the real in principle and teaching, knowing that the principle is real and recognizing that the teaching is provisional. Why would the provisional and real be difficult to know, while the sameness and difference were said to be easily recognized? Furthermore, it may be asked: if he already knew that the principle was one and the teaching was three, before the *Lotus Sūtra* was preached the roots of his attachment would have already been shaken; what attachment would the words of the brief exposition shake further? Moreover, if he already knew that the principle was one and the teaching was three, why does it say below: "When I first heard what the Buddha taught, my heart was filled with great astonishment and doubt"? If so, there would only be his old astonishment and no new fear. Master Yao says: "'When I first heard what the Buddha taught, my heart was filled with great astonishment and doubt' means: when first hearing the teaching prior to the three requests, he definitely knew that the principle was one, and this doubt of confusing the principle with the teaching was immediately severed; later he was astonished and doubted why the Buddha had in the past gone against the principle to teach three. Because there was the doubt of confusing the teaching with the principle, from the text of the proper exposition onwards, the second doubt was then severed." We say: this too is not so. The text of the three requests was only the beginning of attachment being shaken and doubt arising; it was not yet truly severed. Furthermore, the text of the new doubt comprehensively explains the contradiction between three and one, the conflict between present and past; it does not exclusively focus on confusing the teaching with the principle. What is now explained is merely that he knew the principle of the emptiness of Dharma-nature was the same; he did not know that the principle of the ekayāna was the same. The *Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā* and this text are quite clear on their own: because the essence of the Dharma-nature is the same yet the fruits of the triyāna differ, he therefore confused the teaching with the principle and the principle with the teaching. Viewing it from the teaching, it should be an eternal loss; viewing it from the principle, it should still not be a loss. Hence, dejected and hesitating, his mind remained unresolved, which is why it says, "whether it was lost or not lost." In the second verse, seeing the Buddha praise the bodhisattvas, he still harbored an aspiration of longing, not knowing whether he would permanently abide as a śrāvaka or also become a bodhisattva; hence it says, "therefore day and night I contemplated such matters."
5.77
From "now hearing the Buddha's voice" onwards: everything from above was narrating his distress due to the two doubts and two remorses; this one verse expresses his belief and understanding because, hearing the present teaching, his doubt and remorse were dispelled. The upper half articulates the opening of the gate of upāya; the lower half articulates the revealing of the real meaning. Having comprehended these two meanings, his doubt and remorse were thereupon quelled. As for "untainted and inconceivable, leading the multitude to the place of enlightenment," regarding the untainted [dharmas] of the triyāna, in terms of teaching each abides in its three fruits, yet when examined and discussed, they all converge in attaining Buddhahood. Teaching three to reach three can indeed be conceived, but now teaching that the untainted of the triyāna leads equally to the place of enlightenment is therefore inconceivable.
5.78
"I originally clung to wrong views and was a teacher of the brahmavādins": this is second, versifying the joy arising from the eradication of his clinging mind when he first attained the Way.
5.79
Question:
5.80
Why not first versify the eradication of clinging views upon first attaining the Way?
5.81
Answer:
5.82
After attaining the Way, he saw and heard superior events, and doubting that he had lost the fruit of Buddhahood, distress arose; now, knowing he has not lost it, he is joyful, which is why it is versified first. When he first attained the Way, he did not yet have the distress of losing the fruit, and thus had no present joy; hence it was not versified before. But the later doubt and remorse stemmed from his initial clinging; therefore, citing the sentiment of clinging explains the source of the doubt and remorse above. The text has three parts: first, narrating his clinging views; second, explaining his awakening and understanding; third, describing the source of his understanding. The first half-line is Śāriputra's own account. "I originally clung to wrong views": Śāriputra originally served the non-Buddhist Sañjaya as a disciple. "And was a teacher of the brahmavādins": when Sañjaya passed away, he entrusted his two hundred and fifty disciples to Śāriputra, making him a teacher of the brahmavādins. "The World-Honoured One, knowing my mind": this subsequent half-line narrates the Buddha bestowing upon him the lesser teaching. The *Dazhidulun* states: "When Aśvajit was first about to enter Rājagṛha to beg for alms, the Buddha said to him: 'Today, if you meet an extraordinary person, do not explain the Dharma at length.'" This is precisely the World-Honoured One knowing his mind. "Uprooted the false and spoke of nirvāṇa": Aśvajit spoke the verse: "All phenomena arise from causes and conditions; these dharmas' conditions and their cessation—my teacher, the Great Sage and Lord, speaks such a doctrine." This verse explains the three truths: "all phenomena arise from causes and conditions" refers to the truth of suffering; "these dharmas' conditions" refers to the truth of origin; "and their cessation" refers to the truth of cessation. Although there are three truths, its primary purpose is to illuminate the truth of cessation, nirvāṇa; hence it says "uprooted the false and spoke of nirvāṇa." From "I completely eliminated wrong views" onwards, this one verse presents his past awakening to the Hīnayāna. The upper half explains when Śāriputra severed wrong views and attained the first fruit; the lower half explains when Śāriputra heard the debate of Dīrghanakha and attained arhatship. Thus within the false there were two occasions, and within the true there were also two occasions. "Yet now I myself realize that this is not true extinction": what came before narrated clinging and delusion; now it presents his attainment of awakening. From "if I am able to become a Buddha" onwards, the first half-line articulates his recognition of delusion, which is grasping the opening of the gate of upāya; now it articulates the revealing of the real meaning. Having realized that the past extinction was not ultimate, he immediately knew that the ultimate has its place; hence it says, "at that time it can then be called eternal cessation without remainder." "The Buddha amidst the great assembly": third, this one verse praises the Buddha, which narrates the cause of his attainment of awakening.
5.83
From "when I first heard what the Buddha taught" onwards: third, versifying the joy from the elimination of his new doubt. The previous two were both joy from the elimination of past, old doubt and remorse. The text has three parts: first, one verse recounting the new doubt; second, explaining the elimination of doubt; third, Śāriputra's own repentance of his error. First, "heard what the Buddha taught" refers to what was taught when initially opening the three and revealing the one in brief, which shook his attachments and produced doubt. "My heart was filled with great astonishment and doubt" means that at the beginning of setting forth the doctrine, attachments were shaken and doubt arose. "Could Māra be acting as the Buddha?": since doubt had arisen in his mind, at that time he secretly suspected that the Buddha was Māra. The reason is that Māra's nature is to call non-existent what exists and to call existent what does not exist, to call three what is one and to call one what is three; thus it seemed like Māra's deceptive talk. "Disturbing and confusing my mind?": the upper half is confusion by teaching, and the lower half is confusion by physical form.
5.84
Question:
5.85
How does the new doubt differ from the old doubt?
5.86
Answer:
5.87
The old doubt arose regarding the true alone; the new doubt arose regarding both the false and the true combined. The old doubt arising regarding the true: formerly the principle and the teaching were both the Buddha's Dharma, yet one used the principle and the teaching to doubt each other; hence it was arising from within the true. Now, the doubt arising regarding both the false and the true combined: Śāriputra thought that the former teaching was spoken by the Buddha, while the present teaching was spoken by Māra; hence it is called arising from both the false and the true combined. By severing the former doubt, one thereby recognizes the Mahāyāna as real and the Hīnayāna as provisional; by severing the present doubt, one thereby knows the ekayāna is a true teaching and not a false teaching. Therefore, the preceding chapter distinguished that the ekayāna is real and not provisional, thereby differing from the Hīnayāna; this chapter distinguishes that the ekayāna is a true teaching and not a false teaching. Because by eliminating these two doubts all doubts are severed and the meaning of the ekayāna is perfected.
First 87 of 336 passages. Read on
Linked texts (1)
- 法華義疏 — Classical Chinese