法華遊意 1

English (machine translation) 1

Language: English

Now, it is heard that the unsurpassed Tamer possessing sarvākārajñatā internally mirrors the trividyā and externally flows forth the seven eloquence-powers; he harbors an unconfined nature and accords with directional-less transformation, all coinciding with the Way without failing to match people's capacities. As for the *Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra*, this is indeed an exemplary discourse that plumbs principle and exhausts the nature, an ultimate statement that is definitive and without remainder. Its principles and purport are profound and far-reaching, commanding the essentials of all scriptures; its literary phrasing is elegant and beautiful, exhausting skillful and subtle speech—praised by the three sages and reverently borne upon the heads of the four reliances. Formerly, in Ṛṣipatana, this mani jewel was not yet shone; today, upon Gṛdhrakūṭa, this sweet dew is first sprinkled. Truly, because small aspirations were opened first, they ran early on with the goat and deer [carts]; when great minds were later aroused, only then did they yoke this white ox. This is truly the clear instruction for sattvas and the profound compass of the bodhimaṇḍa. Although this sūtra's text consists of seven scrolls, its doctrine has two sections: first, opening the door of upāya; second, revealing the meaning of tattva. Opening the door of upāya means opening two kinds of upāya; revealing the meaning of tattva means revealing two kinds of tattva. Setting up the three carts outside the gate to entice children absorbed in play, and devising the conjured city midway upon the road to gather in the exhausted and weary assembly, is called the expedient of the vehicle. All are my children and are equally bestowed the great cart; having learned to rest, they together reach the place of jewels: this is called the reality of the vehicle. Dīpaṃkara's bestowal of prediction, the attainment of the Way at Gayā, birth in the royal palace, and proclaiming extinction in the twin sāla grove are called the expedient of the body. Ajita cannot see its beginning, and those who have exhausted learning cannot fathom its end; the six destinies cannot encompass its birth, and the load of physical strength cannot transform its substance: this is called the reality of the body. Since both gates are upāya, they are therefore termed coarse; since both kinds are together called tattva, they are therefore designated subtle. Now, borrowing the one to demolish the three, when the three are removed, the one is discarded; using length to repudiate shortness, when shortness ceases, length is forgotten. That being so, when words are exhausted and deliberation is cut off, what is real and what is expedient? When the fundamental nature is tranquil, what is opened and what is concealed? Therefore, the principle transcends words and is forcibly termed subtle; serving as a standard for beings, it is designated Dharma; the Way being profound and beyond forms, a metaphor is borrowed from the lotus flower. That which is called a sūtra: subtly revealing the wordless tranquil extinction, unaltered from past to present, its substance serving as a model—therefore it is called a sūtra.

1.4

A distinction of the profound [meaning] of the Lotus Sūtra into ten gates:

1.5

1. Gate of the Purpose of Its Occurrence; 2. Gate of the Essential Purport; 3. Gate of Explaining the Title; 4. Gate of Distinguishing the Intention of the Teaching; 5. Gate of the Manifest and the Esoteric; 6. Gate of the Three and the One; 7. Gate of Function; 8. Gate of Propagating the Sūtra; 9. Gate of Textual Category; 10. Gate of the Conditions of Arising.

1.6

First, the Gate of the Purpose of Its Occurrence:

1.7

Question:

1.8

Due to what cause and conditions did the Buddha preach this *Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra*? The Buddhas do not utter words of their own accord without a matter or on slight cause and condition. For what sort of great cause and condition did he preach this sūtra now?

1.9

Answer:

1.10

The meanings of the subtle Dharma lotus are immeasurable, and the so-called causes and conditions are likewise not singular. Now, briefly outlining the main points, ten gates are opened: First, desiring to preach the bodhisattva practices for the sake of the bodhisattvas, he therefore preached this sūtra.

1.11

Question:

1.12

From the assembly of the *Avataṃsaka* at the beginning to the assembly before the Lotus Sūtra at the end, for over forty years, the various Mahāyāna sūtras have already preached the bodhisattva practices. Due to what cause and conditions does he now preach this sūtra again?

1.13

Answer:

1.14

There are two kinds of bodhisattvas: first, direct bodhisattvas; second, bodhisattvas who turn from the small to enter the great. From the past up until now, he has preached the bodhisattva practices for direct bodhisattvas; now, desiring to preach the bodhisattva practices for bodhisattvas who turn from the small to enter the great, he therefore preached this sūtra.

1.15

Question:

1.16

How is it known that from the assembly of the *Avataṃsaka* at the beginning to prior to the Lotus Sūtra at the end, it was for direct bodhisattvas, and now it is for bodhisattvas who turn from the small to enter the great?

1.17

Answer:

1.18

The "Chapter on Welcoming from the Earth" states: "When these sentient beings first saw my body and heard what I preached, they immediately had faith and accepted it, entering the buddha-jñāna—excepting those who previously cultivated and studied the Hīnayāna. People such as these I now also cause to hear this sūtra and enter the buddha-jñāna." Since it says "first saw my body," this is seeing Rocana Buddha in the tranquil bodhimaṇḍa; "heard what I preached" refers to the teaching of the *Avataṃsaka*. Thus we know that from the past until now, he preached the bodhisattva practices for direct persons. "Excepting those who previously cultivated and studied the Hīnayāna" shows that before this, he had not yet preached the bodhisattva practices for the two vehicles. "People such as these I now also cause to hear this sūtra and enter the buddha-jñāna" shows that now he preaches the bodhisattva practices for persons who turn from the small to enter the great.

1.19

Question:

1.20

Why does the text of the sūtra rely only upon these two persons?

1.21

Answer:

1.22

The first brings up what was for the beginning of the Great, and the latter marks the teaching at the end of the Small; the intervening period of the single teaching career can thereby be known.

1.23

Question:

1.24

Why was it first for direct bodhisattvas and later for persons who turn from the small to enter the great?

1.25

Answer:

1.26

Direct persons have long practiced the Buddha Way, possessing merit and sharp faculties, and for that reason he taught them first. Persons who turn from the small to enter the great did not practice the Buddha Way, possessing meager merit and dull faculties, and for that reason he taught them later. Therefore the "Chapter on Upāya" states: "There are Buddha's children whose minds are pure, pliant, and sharp-witted, who in the presence of immeasurable Buddhas have practiced the profound and subtle Way; for these Buddha's children, I preach this Mahāyāna sūtra." And: "Those of dull faculties delight in the Hīnayāna dharma, are greedily attached to saṃsāra, and in the presence of immeasurable Buddhas do not practice the profound and subtle Way; afflicted by a multitude of sufferings, for them I preach nirvāṇa"—down to: "Now is precisely the time; I definitively preach the Mahāyāna." Thus we know that bodhisattvas of sharp faculties hear the Great Way first, while śrāvakas of shallow and inferior [faculties] enter the buddha-jñāna later; the text itself is evidence of this.

1.27

Second, desiring to accept the request of King Brahmā, he therefore preached this sūtra.

1.28

The question says:

1.29

In the past, the teachings such as the Prajñā[-pāramitā] already clarified that he preached because he accepted King Brahmā's request. How does this differ from the present?

1.30

Answer:

1.31

There are two times of requesting, and the responses are also of two kinds. As for the two times of requesting: first, requesting the preaching of the fundamental wheel of Dharma of the ekayāna; later, requesting the preaching of the branch-and-leaf teaching of the triyāna. The responses are also of two times: from the past until now, he accepted the request to preach the teaching of the triyāna; only now does he finally respond to the request to preach the fundamental wheel of Dharma of the ekayāna. Therefore, clarifying the acceptance of the request now differs from the past, fully as explained in the "Chapter on Upāya" and the first fascicle of the *Dàzhìdù lùn*.

1.32

Third, desiring to clarify that the two cognitions of the expedient and the real of all Buddhas of the ten directions and the three periods of time mutually assist and accomplish each other, he therefore preached this sūtra. Yet the minds of the Buddhas have never possessed expedient and real; how could they be one and three? Therefore, inner and outer are both obscured, and object and contemplation are both tranquil. It is merely within that which is devoid of names and marks that conventional names and marks are spoken; desiring to deliver sentient beings, one forcibly terms them expedient and real. Thus they mutually assist and accomplish each other: without the real, there is no way to discern the expedient; without the expedient, there is no way to discern the real. The real has the function of initiating the expedient, and the expedient has the efficacy of assisting the real. Hence the text says: "Within the one Buddha vehicle, I preach the three by making distinctions"—this refers to initiating the expedient from the real; "I devise such upāya to enable them to enter the buddha-jñāna"—this means using the expedient to lead to the real. However, among those who receive the teachings, some cling to the expedient and lose the real, while others cling to the real and lose the expedient. Those who cling to the expedient and lose the real are those who from the past up until now have clung to the teaching of the triyāna and are unable to awaken and enter the single reality. Those who cling to the real and lose the expedient are the bodhisattvas who, receiving the ekayāna of the Lotus Sūtra, having heard that the principle is exclusively one and there is no triyāna, consequently maintain the unity of its principle and lose the three applications. As the *Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa* comments on the "Chapter on the Metaphor of the Medicinal Herbs": "It comes in order to demolish the disease of the bodhisattvas; although born of one ground and moistened by one rain, yet the grasses and trees each have their differences." This clarifies that although the principle is one, in accordance with conditions there are three; how could one cling to the one and lose the three applications? However, those who formerly received the teaching of the triyāna, having lost the real, also forfeited the expedient; and those who cling to the teaching of the ekayāna, having forfeited the expedient, also lost the real. Therefore, both of these people lose the Tathāgata's two cognitions of the expedient and the real, and both dwell in inverted, erroneous annihilationism and eternalism. Desiring to break through the conditions of this mutual loss in the present and the past, and to cause them to recognize that the Tathāgata's two cognitions of the expedient and the real mutually assist and accomplish each other—having recognized the two cognitions, they then enter the buddha-jñāna and together return to the single Way—he therefore preached this sūtra.

1.33

Fourth, desiring to preach the Dharma gate of the three purifications, he therefore preached this sūtra. Yet the fundamental nature of sentient beings is tranquil and has never been defiled or pure. Although not defiled or pure, due to the inversion of sentient beings, it therefore becomes defilement. But as this defilement is heavy, sentient beings cannot be suddenly extricated; therefore the Buddhas and bodhisattvas gradually deliver them. For this reason they opened the teaching of the three purifications: first, purifying the three bad destinies by means of the five precepts and ten good deeds; next, preaching the two vehicles to purify the three realms; finally, clarifying the single Way to purify the two vehicles. Taking the three bad destinies as heavy suffering, the three realms as middling suffering, and inconceivable transformation as light suffering, they therefore preached the three gates to purify their three defilements. When the three defilements are extinguished, the three purifications are also forgotten; therefore he preached this sūtra. Now, preaching the three purifications is for the sake of stopping the three defilements; if defilement does not remain, purification likewise ceases. Thoroughly awakening to the fact that all dharmas in their fundamental nature are tranquil and have never been defiled or pure, one then enters the buddha-jñāna and goes directly to the bodhimaṇḍa.

1.34

Fifth, desiring to preach the Dharma gate of the three gatherings, he therefore preached this sūtra. Generally speaking of all sages providing teachings, there are altogether three gates: 1. the gate of gathering the deviant and returning to the correct; 2. the gate of gathering the different and returning to the identical; 3. the gate of gathering the cause and returning to the fruit. As for the gate of gathering the deviant and returning to the correct: before Śākya appeared in the world, there were generally two kinds of deviants: first, householders who gave rise to desire; second, renunciants of various views who were non-Buddhists. Both of these went against the correct Way, and therefore are termed deviant. Thus the "Chapter on Upāya" states: "By reason of desires, they undergo all manners of bitter suffering"—this refers to those who give rise to desire; "Entering the dense forest of wrong views, such as existence and nonexistence"—this refers to the various non-Buddhists. Down to the "Chapter on Parables," which states that giving rise to desire is likened to poisonous worms, and the various views are compared to evil spirits. The Tathāgata appeared in the world and gathered those two deviants, returning them to the correctness of the five vehicles. Among these two types of persons, those who had not heard the Dharma were brought to completion through the wholesome roots of humans and gods; those with the capacity of the three vehicles were gathered in through the Dharma of the three vehicles. Therefore he gathered those two deviants, returning them to the correctness of the five vehicles. As for the second, the gate of gathering the different and returning to the identical: if those who received the teaching, upon hearing the triyāna of the past, had suddenly awakened to the single Way, it would not have been necessary to preach the teaching of the Lotus Sūtra again. But those of dull faculties, though abandoning the two deviants, further clung to the five differences; now, desiring to gather these five differences together into the ekayāna, this is called the gate of gathering the different and returning to the identical. As for the third, the gate of gathering the cause and returning to the fruit: gathering the aforementioned five differences together into the ekayāna is merely the causal practice; now, desiring to have them cultivate the cause and realize the fruit, he preached the Tathāgata's two bodies, the true and the responsive: this is called the gate of gathering the cause and returning to the fruit. Prior to the Lotus Sūtra, there was only the first gate; since this sūtra harmonizes and unites the entirety of the teaching career, it fully possesses the three gates. However, clarifying these three gates is intended to provide access to the tranquil, wordless Way, enabling visitors of profound awakening to realize that this subtle extremity has never been deviant or correct—down to: how could it be cause and fruit? Therefore, of these three gates, there is no teaching they do not embrace, no principle they do not gather in; like space containing the ten thousand forms, like the ocean receiving the hundred rivers.

1.35

Sixth, desiring to preach the three kinds of wheels of Dharma, he therefore preached this sūtra. Speaking of the three kinds: first, the fundamental wheel of Dharma; second, the branch-and-leaf teaching; third, gathering the branches to return to the root. As for the fundamental wheel of Dharma: when the Buddha first attained the Way, at the assembly of the *Avataṃsaka*, he opened the Dharma gate of the single cause and single fruit purely for the sake of the bodhisattvas; this is called the fundamental teaching. But those of meager merit and dull faculties were incapable of hearing the single cause and single fruit; therefore, within the one Buddha vehicle, he made distinctions and preached three; this is called the branch-and-leaf teaching. For over forty years he preached the teaching of the triyāna to train and refine their minds; arriving at the Lotus Sūtra now, he was finally able to unite those three vehicles and return them to the single Way: this is the teaching that gathers the branches to return to the root.

1.36

Question:

1.37

Where in this sūtra is there a text on the three wheels?

1.38

Answer:

1.39

The chapter ‘Faith and Understanding’ says: “The elder sat upon a lion seat, surrounded by his retinue, with precious things laid out”—this refers to the fundamental teaching of the Avataṃsaka. “Unable to call his son back, he therefore secretly dispatched two men, took off his fine robes and ornaments, and put on ragged and filthy clothes”—this refers to concealing the one and preaching the three, which means the branch teaching. Just as the wealthy elder knew his son’s disposition was low and inferior, and tamed his mind before teaching him the great wisdom, this refers to the teaching that gathers the branches back to the root. Furthermore, the ‘Parable’ chapter says that although that elder had strength in his body and hands, he could not use it, but only with earnest upāya urged and saved his sons from the disaster of the burning house, and afterwards gave each of them a great cart of rare jewels. The first phrase refers to concealing the root, the next phrase refers to giving rise to the branches, and the final phrase refers to gathering the branches back to the root; these are clear proofs of the three turnings of the wheel.

1.40

Question:

1.41

The first explains the root, and the latter explains gathering the branches back to the root; how do these two differ?

1.42

Answer:

1.43

In the past, both the southern regions and the north said: the Avataṃsaka is the ultimate teaching, while the Lotus Sūtra is an incomplete discourse. I now say this is not so. This sūtra explains that the initial ekayāna was unable to save the son, whereas the later clarification of the ekayāna was able to save the son. Although there is indeed a difference in the sense of being able and not being able, there is no difference at all between the initial and the later ekayāna. If the later preaching of the ekayāna, through which he was finally able to save the son, were an incomplete teaching, then the initial preaching of the ekayāna, through which he was unable to save the son, would also be an incomplete teaching. If the initial inability to save the son made it an incomplete teaching, then the buddhas, upon appearing in the world, would merely wish to transform sentient beings with an incomplete Dharma; this would contradict the original intention of the buddhas and violate the affection between father and son. Now I explain that the Lotus Sūtra and the Avataṃsaka have points of identity and points of difference. What is called identity is because they clarify the purity of the single path and the great wisdom of equality. The chapter ‘Emerging from the Earth’ says: “When these sentient beings first saw my body and heard what I preached, they immediately believed and accepted it, entering into the buddha-jñāna, except for those who had previously cultivated and studied the small vehicle; people such as these I now also cause to hear this sūtra and enter into the buddha-jñāna.” Buddha-jñāna is precisely the great wisdom of equality; therefore we know that the Avataṃsaka and the Lotus Sūtra are equally called the great wisdom of equality, and the knowledge and vision of the buddhas have no difference. What is called difference is briefly explained in five ways: First, the difference in the teacher who transforms. The teacher in the Avataṃsaka is mostly named Rocana, whereas the teacher in the Lotus Sūtra is called Śākyamuni. Furthermore, the Avataṃsaka was preached by a single buddha, whereas the Lotus Sūtra was preached with all his emanated buddhas universally gathered together; the Avataṃsaka was preached by bodhisattvas, whereas the Lotus Sūtra was preached by the Buddha himself. Second, there is a difference in the assemblies of disciples. The Avataṃsaka was preached for direct bodhisattvas, whereas the Lotus Sūtra was preached for people who turn from the small to enter the great. The Avataṃsaka was preached purely for bodhisattvas, whereas the Lotus Sūtra was preached mixedly for people of the five vehicles. The Avataṃsaka was preached suddenly for bodhisattvas, whereas the Lotus Sūtra was preached gradually for bodhisattvas. Third, the difference in time. The Avataṃsaka initially preached the ekayāna, whereas the Lotus Sūtra ultimately clarifies the final truth. Fourth, the difference in teaching approach. Directly preaching the great path of equality of the ekayāna without refuting anything is called the Avataṃsaka teaching; this sūtra refutes the stubborn adherence to the triyāna and only then enables them to return to the single culmination. Fifth, the difference regarding location. The Avataṃsaka was preached in seven locations and eight assemblies, whereas this sūtra was preached in one location and one assembly.

1.44

Question:

1.45

Does the Lotus Sūtra also have multiple locations and multiple assemblies or not?

1.46

Answer:

1.47

Because they were all on Gṛdhrakūṭa, there is only one location; yet in terms of earlier and later, there are altogether three periods of pure and defiled: the first part of the sūtra was preached in a defiled land; the second part of the sūtra, from the chapter ‘Seeing the Jewel Stūpa’ onward through ‘Entrustment’, was preached in a pure land; the single chapter on ‘Divine Powers’, in which the ten directions were joined into a single land, was preached combinedly in both pure and defiled; and starting from ‘Medicine King’ through the end of the chapter ‘Encouragement of Samantabhadra’, it was preached back in the defiled land.

1.48

Question:

1.49

Among the three kinds of wheels of the Dharma, how many does the Lotus Sūtra possess?

1.50

Answer:

1.51

To speak provisionally: the Avataṃsaka is the fundamental wheel of the Dharma; after the Avataṃsaka and before the Lotus Sūtra is the branch teaching; and this sūtra belongs to gathering the branches back to the root. However, the Lotus Sūtra concludes a whole era of transformation and encompasses both sudden and gradual, so it fully possesses the three turnings of the wheel. Yet these three turnings of the wheel are all conventional names and marks preached for the sake of sentient beings within that which is free of names and marks; the path of quiescent cessation has never had three, nor is it not three, having no reliance whatsoever.

1.52

Seventh, it is because he wished to resolve the two kinds of doubts of the śrāvakas and bodhisattvas that he expounded this sūtra. The two kinds of doubts of the śrāvakas: first is the old doubt, as Śāriputra said: “We equally entered the nature of phenomena; why did the Tathāgata deliver us with the small vehicle Dharma?” and also said: “I wished to ask the World-Honoured One whether this was a loss or not a loss, and for more than forty years I have constantly harboured this doubt”—this refers to the old doubt. When it is said, “Upon first hearing what the Buddha preached, my mind was greatly alarmed and doubtful,” this is the new doubt. As for the old doubt of the bodhisattvas: in the past they received the teaching of the triyāna, and having clung to the principle as being threefold, they either doubted they would regress and fall back to the stage of the two vehicles, or doubted they would advance and accomplish the buddha path. As for their present doubt: they doubt that what the Buddha preaches contradicts the past and the present—if he preached three in the past, he should not clarify one now, and if he explains one now, he should not have preached three in the past. When these two kinds of persons, the great and the small, heard this sūtra preached, both doubts were brought to rest. Therefore the ‘Upāya’ chapter says: “When the bodhisattvas hear this Dharma, their net of doubts is completely removed; the twelve hundred arhats shall all likewise become buddhas.”

1.53

Question: There is textual evidence for both the new and old doubts of the śrāvakas; from what text do the new and old doubts of the bodhisattvas arise?

1.54

Answer: In Śāriputra’s three requests, it says that the bodhisattvas seeking buddhahood number around eighty thousand who wish to hear the complete path; you should know that bodhisattvas also have doubt.

1.55

Question:

1.56

The eighty thousand great beings were all dharmakāya bodhisattvas; how could they have had this doubt?

1.57

Answer:

1.58

Śāriputra adopted an expedient practice to guide real persons, and the dharmakāya bodhisattvas condescended to identify with new learners; therefore there is no fault.

1.59

Question:

1.60

How do the doubts of bodhisattvas and śrāvakas differ?

1.61

Answer:

1.62

The śrāvakas considered themselves ultimate, but hearing that they were not ultimate, doubt arose for this reason. Bodhisattvas did not have this doubt, but only had the two kinds of doubt mentioned above; this is the difference.

1.63

Question:

1.64

What benefit is there in resolving doubts?

1.65

Answer:

1.66

If doubts were not resolved, śrāvakas would have no progress on the path, and bodhisattvas would have a path of retreat. Now, opening the gate of upāya and showing the real mark resolves the doubts of both the great and the small, so that bodhisattvas have no path of retreat and śrāvakas have progress on the path; therefore the benefit of this sūtra is profound.

1.67

Eighth, it is because he wished to preach the Dharma of the Middle Way that he preached this sūtra.

1.68

Question:

1.69

How is it known that he wished to preach the Middle Way?

1.70

Answer:

1.71

At the beginning of each of the two cycles of preaching, he emitted ūrṇā-raśmi from between his eyebrows, neither upward from his crown nor downward from his feet. Emitting light from between his eyebrows indicates that the teachings of both cycles clarify the Dharma of the Middle Way. The first cycle clarifies the purity of the single path, and the purity of the single path is precisely the Middle Way; the second cycle clarifies the single dharmakāya, and the single dharmakāya is also the Middle Way. Yet the dharmakāya has no duality; names are established according to the meaning. Therefore we know that both cycles clarify the Middle Way.

1.72

Question:

1.73

Why clarify the Middle Way?

1.74

Answer:

1.75

The Path has never been one-sided or middle; it is only to counter the former illness of one-sidedness that the middle is preached. Why is this so? In the past the Tathāgata preached the five vehicles in order to reveal that there are not five; since there are no five, there is also no non-five, and being inherently quiescent without reliance is called the Middle Way. The Middle Way is precisely the Wonderful Dharma. But when disciples receiving the teaching heard the past preaching of the five vehicles, they then formed divergent understandings of the five vehicles and thus fell into various extremes. Those who received the human and heavenly vehicle fell into the extreme of saṃsāra; those who sought the vehicle of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas fell into the extreme of nirvāṇa; those who studied the teaching of the Tripiṭaka fell into the small extreme; those who studied the Mahāyāna fell into the great extreme; and even, having received the differences of the five vehicles in the past, they fell into the extreme of difference; now hearing the ekayāna and forming an understanding of the ekayāna, they fall into the extreme of oneness. Now, shattering these various extremes so that the mind has no attachment is precisely the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkasūtra; therefore it is called the Middle Way.

1.76

Ninth, it is because he wished to reveal the mindfulness-of-buddha samādhi of the bodhisattvas that he preached this sūtra. Since the past, because the reality of the body and the true expedient had not yet been fully revealed, ordinary beings, followers of the two vehicles, and newly practicing bodhisattvas did not yet recognize the Buddha, and therefore did not understand how to be mindful of the Buddha, nor did they understand how to pay homage to the Buddha. Those who are mindful of the Buddha with an acquisitive mind merely hold in mind what is acquired and ultimately are not mindful of the Buddha; paying homage to the Buddha with an acquisitive mind is merely paying homage to what is acquired and is likewise not paying homage to the Buddha. Neither paying homage nor being mindful, the Buddha is not their teacher and they are not disciples. Now, having opened the expedient of the body and the reality of the body, they first understand paying homage and mindfulness, and are initially called teacher and disciples.

1.77

Question:

1.78

How is it that past listeners did not recognize the Buddha?

1.79

Answer: Although past attachments were many, they did not exceed three kinds: first, not recognizing that the origin is one and the traces are manifold; second, not recognizing that the origin is without arising and ceasing while the responsive function has arising and ceasing; third, not recognizing that Śākyamuni long ago realized the dharmakāya and did not achieve buddhahood at Gayā. In order to counter these three illnesses, he showed three kinds of teaching approaches: First, he universally gathered his emanated bodies to show that the origin is one and the traces are manifold, clarifying that both Śākyamuni and the buddhas of the pure lands are responsive traces, and that these pure and defiled [lands] are not themselves the dharmakāya; thus the dharmakāya is non-dual, while the trace bodies are not one. Furthermore, if one clings to responsive bodies being not one and the dharmakāya being non-dual, one also fails to avoid the two views and the acquisitive mind: that which responds without moving appears directly in the ten directions; since it responds without moving, and although responding is constantly quiescent, this responsive body is itself the dharmakāya. As the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] says: “My present body is precisely the dharmakāya, constantly quiescent yet responding.” Not losing the responsive body, it is dual yet non-dual; opening origin and traces, they are dual yet non-dual, never having been two bodies. Second, opening the stūpa and sitting together mutually manifests arising and ceasing. Since Prabhūtaratna’s cessation is not cessation, it reveals that although Śākyamuni arose, he did not arise; non-arising and non-ceasing is called the dharmakāya, and expedience proclaiming cessation is called responsive function. If one further says that the dharmakāya is inherently without arising and ceasing, while the sambhogakāya inherently has arising and ceasing, this again becomes the two views of arising-ceasing and non-arising-ceasing. Now it is explained that birth in the royal palace arose without arising; proclaiming cessation between the twin trees ceased without being lost. Therefore, while arising and ceasing are fully evident, there has never been any beginning or ending; being fully evident in arising and ceasing is responsive function, and never having had beginning or ending is called dharmakāya. Third, having accomplished buddhahood long ago in the past and not ceasing in the future is called dharmakāya; receiving prophecy from Dīpaṃkara and attaining the Path at Gayā are themselves the expedient body.

1.80

Question:

1.81

Śākyamuni long ago realized the dharmakāya; does the dharmakāya have long ago and recent?

1.82

Answer:

1.83

The dharmakāya has neither long ago nor recent; because the dharmakāya has neither long ago nor recent, one knows that awakening also has neither long ago nor recent. Why is this so? Awakening fundamentally awakens to the dharmakāya; since the dharmakāya has neither long ago nor recent, one knows that awakening also has neither long ago nor recent. If so, then Śākyamuni’s awakening long ago was in reality without ‘long ago’; you should know that present recent awakening is also without ‘recent’. Therefore we know that distant awakening is also without ‘distant’; hence we know that recent and distant are non-dual, dual yet non-dual, without losing ancient and modern.

1.84

Question:

1.85

Why are only these three meanings clarified?

1.86

Answer:

1.87

With respect to Śākyamuni’s sambhogakāya, these three must be present. First, the dharmakāya is non-dual, and the trace bodies are not one; yet it is not known whether the non-dual body has arising and ceasing or is without arising and ceasing. Therefore he next clarifies that the dharmakāya is without arising and ceasing, while the sambhogakāya has arising and ceasing. Although he clarifies that the dharmakāya is without arising and ceasing and the sambhogakāya has arising and ceasing, it is not known whether Śākyamuni newly realized the dharmakāya or realized the dharmakāya long ago. Therefore, thirdly, he clarifies long ago and recent. All buddhas mostly possess the former two meanings, whereas Śākyamuni fully possesses all three clauses.

1.88

Question:

1.89

How do the three bodies distinguish expedient and real?

1.90

Answer:

1.91

The dharmakāya is solely real and not expedient; the nirmāṇakāya is solely expedient and not real; the sambhogakāya has two propositions: First, internally it corresponds with the dharmakāya, and so is named the sambhogakāya. Since the dharmakāya is permanent, the sambhogakāya is also permanent; this sambhogakāya is real and not expedient. Hence the Nirvāṇa Sūtra says: 'That which all buddhas take as their teacher is what is called the Dharma. Because the Dharma is permanent, all buddhas are also permanent.' Second, externally it responds to great spiritual capacities by achieving buddhahood in a pure land, and so is named the sambhogakāya. This sambhogakāya is expedient and not real. Hence the seven-fascicle Suvarṇaprabhāsa states: 'The two bodies of sambhoga and nirmāṇa exist as conventional designations and are not real; arising and perishing thought-moment by thought-moment, they are therefore called impermanent.' This is its proof. Once one recognizes these three meanings, one thereby recognizes the Buddha; therefore, one's present buddha-mindfulness samādhi will redouble in benefit. Furthermore, combining these three kinds produces two meanings: the former two meanings clarify the expedient and real of the body, while the latter single meaning clarifies the expedient and real of the life-span. The Nirvāṇa Sūtra also clarifies the long life-span and the adamantine body. The reason it clarifies only these two is that sentient beings possess solely form and life-span; in accordance with them, it also clarifies these two.

1.92

Question:

1.93

The Pañcaviṃśati states, 'What is mindfulness of the Buddha? It is by having no recollection.' Since there is no recollection, how can there be mindfulness?

1.94

Answer:

1.95

When one realizes that sentient beings and the Buddha are originally non-dual, one does not see the Buddha as that which is recollected, nor sentient beings as that which recollects. Hence internal and external are both forgotten, and conditions and contemplation are both tranquil; therefore, it is called 'no recollection.'

1.96

Question:

1.97

The Pañcaviṃśati may well have such a passage, but where does the present sūtra clarify such mindfulness of the Buddha?

1.98

Answer:

1.99

The 'Life-span Chapter' states: 'The Tathāgata knows and sees the characteristics of the triple world as they truly are: there is no birth and death, no retreating or exiting, nor is there being in the world or passing into extinction; they are neither real nor unreal, neither such nor different, not as the triple world sees the triple world.' The triple world is precisely sentient beings; hence we know that sentient beings and the Buddha are non-dual. How could there be the meaning of an agent of mindfulness and an object of mindfulness? Therefore, the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā states: 'Between saṃsāra and nirvāṇa there is not the slightest difference.' The meaning of sentient beings and the dharmakāya is also like this. This is precisely the grand purport of the sūtras and treatises; one must rely upon this in paying homage and being mindful.

1.100

Tenth, wishing to distinguish as they truly are the retributions of sin and merit for sentient beings of the present and the future in the ten directions, he therefore preached this sūtra. If with a single word one slanders the Dharma or reviles a person who upholds the sūtra, one incurs a vast retribution of sin; with a single thought of sympathetic joy, one invites boundless merit. Why is this? The discussion of sin and merit arises from running contrary to or according with principle; since this sūtra expounds the real principle, trusting it yields much merit, while slandering it incurs heavy sin. An old commentary manuscript explained the causes and conditions for expounding the sūtra very extensively; here we briefly clarify ten headings.

1.101

Second, concerning the heading clarifying the central theme: from ancient times to the present, in clarifying the central theme and the essence, some say they are one, while others say they are different. As for those who say they are different: taking the teaching as the essence and the principle as the central theme, hence the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] in explaining the passage on the seven kinds of goodness says 'knowing the Dharma and knowing the meaning': 'knowing the Dharma' refers to the twelve divisions of scriptures; 'knowing the meaning' refers to the principle expressed by the teaching. Therefore, they take the teaching that is able to express as the essence of the sūtra, and employ the principle expressed as the central theme of the sūtra. As for those who say the central theme and essence are one: since the principle expressed is the central theme of principle, the text capable of explaining it turns back to explain the central theme; therefore, central theme and essence are non-dual. Now we clarify that unity and difference are used according to the occasion; what is prized is attaining awakening, for the meaning is not fixed. In the past in Kuaiji, there were altogether thirteen traditions that composed explanations of the central theme of the Lotus Sūtra. Now we briefly clarify those currently prevalent, of which there are three explanations: The first says that the cause of the myriad goods is taken as the central theme of this sūtra. Why is this? Although the text of this sūtra has seven scrolls, its theme culminates in the ekayāna; this is precisely the cause. Hence 'vehicle' has the meaning of conveying outward: it conveys practitioners from cause to effect; upon reaching the effect, there is no further progression, and for this reason it is not a vehicle. As the Pañcaviṃśati states, 'This vehicle exits the triple world and abides within sarvajñā.' The Dàzhìdù lùn explains these words, saying, 'When the vehicle reaches bodhi, its name transforms to sarvākārajñatā.' Hence we know that the cause is taken as the vehicle. The Śrīmālādevīsūtra states, 'Above the buddha-effect, there is no longer any matter of preaching the ekayāna Dharma.' Thus we know that the effect is not a vehicle.

1.102

Question:

1.103

The early portion of this sūtra clarifies the approach of cause, while the later portion distinguishes the approach of effect; why do you exclusively take the causal vehicle as the central theme?

1.104

Answer:

1.105

The later section distinguishes the effect in order to accomplish the preceding cause; by practicing the cause of the ekayāna, one attains the effect of the life-span. Therefore, it brings up the effect to accomplish the cause, taking the cause as the central theme.

1.106

Second, some say that this sūtra takes the effect as its central theme. Why is this? If one wishes to recognize the central theme of a sūtra, one should observe the sūtra's title. The title saying 'wondrous Dharma' means that the Tathāgata's numinous wisdom is its essence: smelting and refining dust and dross until all defilements are utterly exhausted, it is therefore called 'wondrous'; in motion, serving as a norm for beings, it is precisely why it is termed 'Dharma.' From the causal stage onward, coarse phenomena have not yet been exhausted, so it cannot be called 'wondrous.' Since the virtues of the effect are taken as the wondrous Dharma, the virtues of the effect are taken as the central theme of the sūtra. Thus Śākyamuni initially raised his mysterious voice to praise the buddha-wisdom as extremely profound, and Prabhūtaratna commended it as good, praising the great wisdom as impartial; these are its proofs. Third, some say that this sūtra fully takes the cause and effect of the ekayāna as its central theme. Hence the early portion clarifies the cause of the ekayāna, and the later section clarifies the effect of the ekayāna. Borrowing the lotus flower as an analogy: if this flower does not exist, that is all; but if it exists, the flower and fruit are both contained. If this sūtra were not expounded, that would be all; but once expounded, cause and effect are both distinguished.

1.107

Question:

1.108

Is what is now clarified identical with the old [views], or is it different from the others?

1.109

Answer:

1.110

Now, observing the sūtras and treatises generally, one should open four distinct propositions: 1. refuting without adopting; 2. adopting without refuting; 3. both adopting and refuting; 4. neither adopting nor refuting. Concerning 'refuting without adopting': now it is neither identical with the old nor different from the old. Why is this? If one seeks the aforementioned meanings, they are untenable; one can neither be identical with them nor different from them. Since seeking the aforementioned meanings finds nothing to be grasped, with whom could one discuss identity and difference?

1.111

Question:

1.112

Why is seeking the above meanings untenable?

1.113

Answer:

1.114

Now, examining with three considerations, one immediately knows that the former meanings are flawed: First, broadly subsuming the three masters, they do not go beyond cause and effect, yet the treatise on right contemplation extensively refutes the cause and effect of the ten schools, and thus all cause and effect is untenable. Now we briefly set forth several headings to demonstrate the manner of their untenability: Since the three masters take the myriad goods as cause and the life-span as effect, is the effect of the life-span present within the cause of the myriad practices, or is there no effect? If there is an effect, then the cause lacks the capacity to produce an effect, and the effect lacks the function of requiting the cause. If within the cause of the myriad practices there is no effect of the life-span, then though one cultivates the myriad practices, an effect will never be produced. If without an effect in the cause of the myriad practices an effect is produced, then the myriad evils also lacking a buddha-effect should likewise produce a buddha-effect. Furthermore, the Pañcaviṃśati states, 'If one says that within the cause there is an effect, that within the cause there is no effect, that it both exists and does not exist, or that it neither exists nor does not exist, such a person slanders the Buddha, Dharma, and Saṅgha, is bound to Māra, and is Māra's retinue.' How could this be the meaning of cause and effect in the ekayāna? Moreover, that within the cause there is an effect, that within the cause there is no effect, that it both exists and does not exist, or that it neither exists nor does not exist are the doctrines of the Sāṃkhya, Vaiśeṣika, Kaṇāda, and Nirgrantha non-Buddhists; they are not the Buddhadharma. Even granting that cultivating the myriad practices is the cause and the life-span is the effect, does the cause of the myriad practices perish depending on the arising of the effect, or does it perish without depending on the effect? If it perishes depending on the arising of the effect, it is called permanence; if it perishes without depending on the effect, it is called annihilation. Since it is annihilation or permanence, cause and effect are untenable; what could be taken as the central theme of this sūtra? Moreover, since it is annihilation or permanence, it obstructs the wondrous Dharma of the ekayāna; how could an obstructing dharma be used as the central theme? Furthermore, if one says that a single thought of good continues in succession to the buddha-effect, does it continue after having perished, or does it continue without perishing? If it continues after having perished, there is that which can continue, but no object of continuation; if it continues without perishing, there is an object of continuation, but nothing that can continue. How could it continue to the buddha-effect? Examining it by sūtras and treatises, none of this cause and effect exists; with whom could there be identity or difference? Second: even granting that this cause and effect exists, they then claim that in principle there is this cause and effect, which constitutes having attainment. The sūtra says, 'For one who has attainment, there is neither path nor effect.' What could be taken as the central theme? Moreover, for one who has attainment, the sūtra says 'neither moving nor exiting'; it is not at all the meaning of the vehicle. How could it be used as the central theme of the sūtra? The Nirvāṇa Sūtra says, 'That which has attainment is called ignorance.' How could one use ignorance as the central theme of a sūtra of impartial great wisdom? 'That which has attainment is called the twenty-five states of existence.' How could one use the twenty-five states of existence as the central theme of a sūtra of myriad virtues?

1.115

Question:

1.116

The Pañcaviṃśati and Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] may of themselves discuss having attainment and lacking attainment, but the Lotus Sūtra clarifies that bowing the head, raising a hand, or a single hair of good all lead to the realization of the buddha path; how could it exclude good with attainment as not being the ekayāna?

1.117

Answer:

1.118

Attainment and non-attainment are indeed the ultimate purport of the diverse sūtras and the profound reservoir of noble contemplation; they distinguish the root of gaining and losing, and reveal the partial and the correct in the Buddha's teaching. How could they fail to encompass the Lotus Sūtra? Furthermore, the text of this very sūtra itself distinguishes attainment and non-attainment. Now I briefly cite three passages: First, at the very opening of the main theme, it states: 'With innumerable upāyas I guide sentient beings, causing them to abandon all attachments.' Second, later in the 'Entrustment' [section], Pūrṇa praises the Buddha, saying: 'How extraordinary, World-Honoured One, that with wisdom and upāya you pluck out sentient beings' craving and attachment everywhere.' 'Craving and attachment everywhere' means attaching to the small and attaching to the great, attaching to the three and attaching to the one; hence we know that this sūtra properly clarifies non-attainment. Moreover, this sūtra extensively discusses quiescent extinction, as when it says, 'This Dharma cannot be demonstrated; the characteristics of words are quiescently extinct,' and again, 'All dharmas from the very beginning are ever of quiescently extinct characteristics.' The characteristic of quiescent extinction is simply another name for the dharmatā of non-attainment; one should not say that this sūtra determines that there is attainment. Third, one should reprove them using the text of this very sūtra: If one says that the vehicle is the cause, this meaning is not so. In lecturing on the Lotus Sūtra now, it is proper to take the Lotus Sūtra as evidence. The Lotus Sūtra makes clear that the three carts and the one cart are all the result; hence the 'Parable Chapter' states: 'Now these three carts are all outside the gate.' That is, the fruition-virtues outside the three realms are the carts. Therefore, the explanations that join the parable below all join them using fruition-virtues: it brings up nirvāṇa to join the goat cart, brings up natural wisdom to join the deer cart, brings up the wisdom of the four virtues of the Buddha-fruition to join the ox cart, and brings up the fruition-virtues of the great nirvāṇa to join the great cart; thus it says, 'All are caused to cross over into extinction through the extinction of the Tathāgata.' It also brings up the manifold virtues of the Buddha-fruition to join the great cart; thus it says, 'All are given the liberation and samādhis of the Buddhas.' Therefore it is called 'equally bestowing the great cart.' Thus we know that the three carts and the one cart are all the result-vehicle, not the cause-vehicle. Furthermore, this sūtra is entitled the 'Wondrous Dharma' (Saddharma): as for the Wondrous Dharma, among the Buddha's fruition-virtues none is not complete, and among encumbrances none is not exhausted; hence it is called 'wondrous.' In the cause, virtues are not yet complete and encumbrances are still unexhausted, so it is not called 'wondrous.' Thus one ought to take the result as the cardinal theme, and the cause is not the cardinal theme. Next, in questioning the second [position]: if one one-sidedly takes the Buddha-fruition as the vehicle, this too is not so. The children sought carts, and the Buddha thereupon bestowed carts; when the children obtained the carts, the children obtained the cause, and hence it says that riding this precious cart they go directly to the bodhimaṇḍa. Thus we know that taking the cause as the vehicle—how could it not be the vehicle? Furthermore, sūtras such as the Larger Prajñāpāramitā all clarify that the vehicle has the meaning of the cause; how can one one-sidedly use the result as the vehicle? Next, in refuting the third [position], that cause and result constitute the cardinal theme: this too is not so. The first section of this sūtra, from beginning to end, extensively discusses the fruition-virtues. Now I briefly cite three proofs: first, the opening of the theme briefly explains and praises the Buddha's wisdom as extremely profound; second, the extensive explanation opens the Buddha's knowledge and vision; third, Prabhūtaratna's confirmatory statement praises the equality of the great wisdom. Thus we know that the first section, from beginning to end, extensively discusses the fruition-virtues, and does not clarify the cause. Seeking to apply these various meanings, the interpretations of the three masters are all invalid; hence there is nothing with which to agree or differ.

First 118 of 421 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)

法華遊意 — Classical Chinese