[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [法華遊意](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1722) › 1.209 # 法華遊意 1.209 法華遊意 1.209 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.209](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1722.1.209) 有人言，此經明因未辨佛性，但明萬善緣因成佛，望前三乘之因故名為妙，若望後《涅槃》佛性正因，未是妙也。今以十種文義推之，不同此釋：一者、大乘若有三則有三性，既道理唯一佛乘，所以唯一佛性也。二者、若言此經但明善人有佛性、惡人無佛性，異《涅槃經》者，常不輕菩薩見增上慢四眾惡人云「我不輕汝等，汝等行菩薩道，必當作佛」。《法花論》釋云「示一切眾生皆有佛性，故悉當作佛」。以此推之，知非善人獨有佛性。又〈譬喻品〉勸信文云「汝等若能信受是語，一切皆當得成佛道」，此分明說一切成佛，豈簡惡人？三者、若此經但有一乘名故不明佛性者，蓋是未識一法多名故生此謬耳。《涅槃》云「佛性有五名，一乘則五中之一」，又言「佛性亦一非一。云何為一？一切眾生同一乘故為一。云何非一？非數法故」，則知佛性與一乘皆是異名。四、引例釋之，若言此經無佛性語即是未明佛性者，《涅槃》、《花嚴》無八識之名，亦無變易生死之語，則》涅槃》》花嚴》應未明八識及二生死也。五者、《寶性論》云「《究竟一乘經》說有如來藏及三寶無差別」，此經既明究竟一乘，則知亦辨如來藏，故〈信解品〉云「而不為我分別汝等當有如來知見寶藏之分」，其證也。六者、《中論．四諦品》云「雖復懃精進修行菩提道，若先無佛性終不得成佛」。長行釋云「如鐵無金性，雖復鍛鍊終不成金」。若此經不明佛性，雖修萬善不得成佛。七者、天親《釋金剛波若》上已明佛性，況《法花》耶？八者、《涅槃經》引《摩訶波若》云「我無我無有二相」，此明眾生無我與佛性真我更無有異，而《大品》已明佛性，況《法花》耶？九者、夫見佛性方得常身，〈壽量品〉既明常，豈得此經不明佛性？十者、人語難依聖語宜信，天親《法花論》七處明佛性：一者〈方便品〉云「唯佛與佛乃能究竟盡諸法實相」，論云「諸法實相者，謂如來藏法身體不變故」，乃至釋〈法師品〉云「知去佛性水不遠故」。以十種文義往推，即知此經已明佛性，即因門究竟謂因妙也。次釋蓮華經言「無名相法為眾生故假名相說，欲令眾生因此名相悟無名相，蓋是垂教之大宗群聖之本意」。所以無名相中假名相說者，如《大品》云「一切眾生皆是名相中行」，今欲止其名相，故借名相令悟無名相矣。通而言，妙法與蓮華皆悉是名相，故經云「說大乘經名妙法蓮華」；據別而言，妙法則是無名而名，蓮花是無相而相。故此經之題，法喻雙舉、名相俱陳也。舊云，外國稱分陀利，此翻為連花。今謂分陀利未必翻為蓮花，《涅槃經》云「人中蓮花、人中分陀利花」，既其兩出，似如為異。今謂蓮花為通，分陀利為別，所以然知者之，凡引五證：一、《涅槃經》迦葉問云「云何處濁世不污如蓮花？」佛具舉優鉢羅花、波頭摩、拘物頭、分陀利四花答問。即知蓮花通四華，故舉四華答之。二者、《大品經》有文列外國四華，謂優鉢羅、拘物頭、波頭摩、分陀利花；此有文列此土四花，謂青蓮花乃至白蓮花。三者、《地獄經》云「優鉢羅地獄形似青蓮華，波頭摩地獄其形似赤色，拘物頭地獄其形示黃色，分陀利地獄形以白蓮花」。四者、《悲花經》列四華云「分陀利者謂白蓮華」。五者、謂《法顯傳》及天竺諸僧皆云「分陀利者白蓮華也」。故知蓮華是通，白蓮華是別。又此華凡有三時，未敷之時名屈摩羅，敷而將落名迦摩羅，處中盛時秤分陀利華。即知分陀利是四色中是一色，三時中是一時，以其處中盛時榮曜備滿足鮮白分明，以喻斯經也。 > Some say that while this sūtra explains that the fruit is wonderful, it has not yet clarified the buddha-nature, but only clarifies attaining buddhahood through the conditional causes of the myriad virtues; looked at in contrast with the preceding causes of the triyāna, it is called wonderful, but looked at in contrast with the subsequent correct cause of the buddha-nature in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, it is not yet wonderful. Now, examining it through ten textual and doctrinal points, one does not agree with this interpretation. First, if the Mahāyāna had three, there would be three natures; since in principle there is solely the one buddha-vehicle, there is consequently solely the one buddha-nature. Second, if one says that this sūtra only clarifies that good persons have the buddha-nature and evil persons do not have the buddha-nature, differing from the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, \[we see that\] Bodhisattva Sadāparibhūta, seeing the evil persons among the four assemblies with overweening pride, said: 'I do not disparage you, for you will practice the bodhisattva path and certainly become buddhas.' The Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa explains this, saying: 'It demonstrates that all sentient beings possess the buddha-nature, and therefore will all become buddhas.' Inferring from this, we know that it is not that good persons alone have the buddha-nature. Moreover, the passage encouraging faith in the 'Parable' chapter says: 'If you are able to believe and accept these words, all of you shall certainly attain the buddha path.' This clearly states that all attain buddhahood; how could it exclude evil persons? Third, if one claims that because this sūtra only contains the name 'ekayāna' it does not clarify the buddha-nature, this error only arises because one does not recognize that a single principle has many names. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'The buddha-nature has five names; the ekayāna is one of the five.' It also says: 'The buddha-nature is both one and not one. Why is it one? Because all sentient beings share the same ekayāna, it is one. Why is it not one? Because it is not a countable dharma.' Thus we know that buddha-nature and ekayāna are simply different names \[for the same thing\]. Fourth, explaining it by citing an analogy: if one says that because this sūtra lacks the phrase 'buddha-nature' it does not clarify the buddha-nature, then since the Nirvāṇa and Avataṃsaka Sūtras lack the name 'eight consciousnesses' and also lack the phrase 'inconceivable transformation of birth and death,' the Nirvāṇa and Avataṃsaka would likewise not have clarified the eight consciousnesses and the two kinds of birth and death. Fifth, the Ratnagotravibhāga says: 'The Ultimate Ekayāna Sūtra states that the tathāgatagarbha exists and that the Three Jewels are non-different.' Since this sūtra clarifies the ultimate ekayāna, we know that it also elucidates the tathāgatagarbha; hence the 'Faith and Understanding' chapter says: '\[The Buddha\] did not distinguish for our sake that you would have a share in the treasure of the Tathāgata's knowledge and vision'—this is its proof. Sixth, the 'Examination of the Four Noble Truths' chapter of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā says: 'Even if one strives diligently and practices the path to bodhi, if one previously lacked the buddha-nature, one would in the end never attain buddhahood.' The prose commentary explains: 'Just as iron lacks the nature of gold, so even if it is smelted it will never become gold.' If this sūtra did not clarify the buddha-nature, then even by cultivating the myriad virtues one could not attain buddhahood. Seventh, since Vasubandhu already clarified the buddha-nature in his Commentary on the Vajracchedikā Prajñāpāramitā, how much more so in the Lotus Sūtra? Eighth, the Nirvāṇa Sūtra cites the Mahāprajñāpāramitā, saying: 'Self and non-self have no two characteristics.' This clarifies that the non-self of sentient beings and the true self of the buddha-nature are not at all different; and since the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra already clarified the buddha-nature, how much more so the Lotus Sūtra? Ninth, it is only upon seeing the buddha-nature that one attains the eternal body; since the 'Lifespan' chapter already clarifies eternity, how could this sūtra not clarify the buddha-nature? Tenth, human words are difficult to rely upon, but holy words should be believed: Vasubandhu's Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa clarifies the buddha-nature in seven places. First, the 'Upāya' chapter says: 'Only a buddha together with a buddha can exhaustively fathom the dharmatā of all phenomena.' The treatise says: 'The "dharmatā of all phenomena" means that the essence of the tathāgatagarbha's dharmakāya is changeless,' and so on, until in explaining the 'Dharma Teacher' chapter it says: 'Because one knows that the water of the buddha-nature is not far off.' Inferring from these ten textual and doctrinal points, one readily knows that this sūtra has already clarified the buddha-nature; that is, the portal of the cause is ultimate, which means that the cause is wonderful. Next, explaining the Lotus Sūtra: it is said that 'phenomena without names or characteristics are conventionally spoken of through names and characteristics for the sake of sentient beings, wishing to make sentient beings awaken to the absence of names and characteristics by means of these names and characteristics; this is indeed the great doctrine of bequeathed teachings and the original intention of the multitude of sages.' The reason that one conventionally speaks through names and characteristics within that which lacks names and characteristics is as the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra says: 'All sentient beings practice within names and characteristics.' Now, wishing to put an end to their names and characteristics, \[the Buddha\] borrows names and characteristics to cause them to awaken to the absence of names and characteristics. Speaking broadly, both the wondrous Dharma and the lotus are names and characteristics; hence the sūtra says: 'Preaching the Mahāyāna sūtra named the Lotus Flower of the Wonderful Dharma.' Speaking specifically, the wondrous Dharma is naming the nameless, and the lotus is manifesting a characteristic from the uncharacterized. Therefore, in the title of this sūtra, dharma and metaphor are both brought forth, and names and characteristics are both presented. Formerly it was said that in foreign countries it was called the puṇḍarīka, which was translated here as lotus. Now we maintain that puṇḍarīka is not necessarily translated as lotus. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra speaks of 'the lotus among humans and the puṇḍarīka flower among humans'; since the two appear together, they seem to be distinct. Now we maintain that 'lotus' is general, while 'puṇḍarīka' is specific. Five proofs are cited to show how this is known: First, in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra Kāśyapa asks: 'How does one abide in the defiled world unstained, like a lotus?' The Buddha comprehensively cited the four flowers of utpala, padma, kumuda, and puṇḍarīka in answering the question. Thus we know that lotus generally applies to the four flowers, and therefore he cited the four flowers to answer him. Second, the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra has a passage listing the four foreign flowers, namely utpala, kumuda, padma, and puṇḍarīka flowers; and here there is a passage listing the four flowers of this land, namely the blue lotus up to the white lotus. Third, the Hell Sūtra says: 'The Utpala Hell has a shape resembling a blue lotus; the Padma Hell has a shape resembling a red color; the Kumuda Hell has a shape showing a yellow color; and the Puṇḍarīka Hell has a shape resembling a white lotus.' Fourth, the Karuṇāpuṇḍarīkasūtra lists the four flowers and says: 'The puṇḍarīka is the white lotus.' Fifth, the Faxian zhuan and various Indian monks all say: 'The puṇḍarīka is the white lotus.' Hence we know that 'lotus' is general and 'white lotus' is specific. Furthermore, this flower has three stages: when it has not yet opened it is called kumuda; when it has opened and is about to drop its petals it is called kamala; and when it is in its flourishing prime midway through it is called the puṇḍarīka flower. Thus we know that the puṇḍarīka is one color among the four colors and one stage among the three stages; because its flourishing prime midway through possesses radiant splendor in full perfection, brilliantly white and clearly distinct, it is used to metaphorize this sūtra. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.208](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1722.1.208) - [Next: 1.210](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1722.1.210) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1722.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1722~en-mt.1.209) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (2) - [法華義疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1721.4.124) — Classical Chinese - [法華玄論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1720.1.92) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1722.1.209](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1722.1.209) · Pramāṇa