法華遊意 1.171

1.171

今以四處徵之，則知為謗深也。一、用《法花》前教為難，二、用《法花》正文責之，三、尋關河舊說，四、以義推難。法花前教，謂大小《波若》及《淨名》等經。《大品．常啼品》云「諸佛色身有去來、法身無去來」，《金剛波若論》云「三身異體故，離彼是如來」，故知如來非有為法，身即是常住。《淨名．方便品》云「此身可患厭，當樂法身」，蓋是毀生死身無常，即歎法身常住，故逼引之教成、欣厭之觀立。若生死無常法身復改起滅者，則同可厭棄，何所欣哉？故逼引之教不成、欣厭之觀行不立。〈弟子品〉云「法身無漏諸漏已盡」，此明無有無常因也，「法身無為不墮諸數」，此明佛果無為常住也。尋《波若》、《淨名》，是《法花》前教當辨常住，《法花》居二經之後，寧是無常耶？

Now, refuting it through four perspectives, one will know that the slander is profound. First, using the teachings prior to the Lotus Sūtra to pose objections; second, using the explicit text of the Lotus Sūtra to censure it; third, looking to the old explanations from Guanhe; fourth, using reason to deduce difficulties. The teachings prior to the Lotus Sūtra refer to the larger and smaller Prajñā sūtras, the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, and so forth. The 'Sadāprarudita Chapter' of the Larger Prajñāpāramitā states: 'The form-body of the buddhas has coming and going, but the dharmakāya has no coming or going.' The Vajracchedikā-ṭīkā states: 'Because the three bodies have different substances, being free of them is the Tathāgata.' Therefore, one knows that the Tathāgata is not a conditioned phenomenon; his body is indeed eternal. The 'Upāya Chapter' of the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa states: 'This body is to be loathed and reviled; one should take joy in the dharmakāya.' This disparages the body of saṃsāra as impermanent while praising the dharmakāya as eternal; thus the teaching of spurring and guiding is established, and the contemplation of aversion and aspiration is founded. If saṃsāra is impermanent and the dharmakāya likewise changes, arises, and ceases, then it would equally be worthy of rejection and abandonment—what would there be to delight in? Thus the teaching of spurring and guiding would fail, and the practice of aversion and aspiration would not be established. The 'Disciples Chapter' states: 'The dharmakāya is anāsrava, for all defilements have been exhausted.' This clarifies that it has no cause of impermanence. 'The dharmakāya is unconditioned and does not fall into any reckoning.' This clarifies that the buddha-fruit is unconditioned and eternal. Looking at the Prajñā and Vimalakīrtinirdeśa, they are teachings prior to the Lotus Sūtra that expound the eternal; as the Lotus Sūtra comes after these two sūtras, how could it be impermanent?