妙法蓮華經玄贊 1.27

1.27

第四顯經品廢立者，案此經根本，秦姚興時，鳩摩羅什所翻二十七品，無〈提婆達多品〉。沙門道慧《宗齊錄》云：「上定林寺釋法獻，於于闐國得此經梵本，有此一品。瓦官寺沙門法意，以齊永明八年十二月譯出此品，猶未安置《法華經》內。至梁末有西天竺優禪尼國沙門拘羅那陀，此云家依，亦云婆羅末陀，此云真諦，又翻此品，始安〈見寶塔〉後。復有燉煌沙門竺法護，於晉武之世譯《正法華》，其〈提婆達多品〉亦安在〈見寶塔品〉後。」什公本無之者，古傳解云：䓗嶺已西多有此品，已東多無，什公既在龜茲故無此品。若爾，法獻於于闐國如何得此品？于闐亦在䓗嶺東故。又有解云：塔品命持，而持品應命言勢相接，而忽間以天授，則文勢疎斷，什公恐末葉多惑所以刪之。若爾即取捨真文並由羅什，刪繁好醜併在一人，斯為未可。釋道安以翻經者多略經文，乃作五失三不易云：「結集之羅漢兢兢若此，末代之凡夫平平若是。改千代之上微言，同百王之下末俗，豈不痛哉！」故〈天授品〉梵本皆有。又〈天授品〉顯已重法為床以求，經力勢大龍宮涌出，經威速疾龍女道成，讚勸於人，何不此後即有〈持品〉？但知梵本有之，而什公本闕，隨本翻譯故無此品，既非以東西判定，亦不可義越刪之，但是什公梵本差脫，邊國訛鄙多脫錯故。又此經中〈囑累品〉安在〈神力品〉後者，古有解言：什公善得經意，所以不安經末置在前者，〈囑累品〉中令分身佛各還本土，若安經末則至說經竟始令分身各還本土，未還已前此土猶淨，妙音來日何事被誡於此土中勿生下劣之想。又下方涌出既普稽首分身，東土妙音不應獨頂禮多寶，觀音奉珠不應但為二分，分身諸佛何過不蒙。又〈囑累〉一品既明付囑，〈藥王〉等品受命弘宣，以此而推不應居後，所以什公安於前也。上來所說乍雖可爾，窮其旨趣理有八違：一眾本相違難。晉時竺法護所譯《正法華》，及隋時崛多、笈多二人所添《法華》中，此〈囑累品〉並安在經末。二論經相違難。《法華論》中說修行力略有七種：一持力，〈法師品〉、〈安樂行品〉、〈勸持品〉示現。二說力，〈神力品〉示現。三行苦行力，〈藥王品〉示現。四教化眾生行苦行力，〈妙音品〉示現。五護眾生諸難力，〈觀世音品〉、〈陀羅尼品〉示現。六功德勝力，〈妙莊嚴王本事品〉示現。七護法力，〈普賢菩薩品〉及後品示現。既言護法力〈普賢〉及後品示現，明知〈囑累〉令居經末；若不爾者，〈普賢品〉後更有何品？又〈神力品〉後即明〈藥王〉，餘皆依次，故知〈囑累〉合在經終。三諸教不同難。餘經囑累並在經終，何故此經獨在前說？四二事乖角難。若以令分身佛還此土便穢，妙音來日故被誡者，〈囑累品〉中亦令多寶塔還，何故觀音奉珠猶為二分？五兩命不齊難。若分身多寶並各遣還，何故分身即還，多寶佛塔猶在？若言命多寶塔還可如故，但是閉塔者，若爾；何故《正法華》云可還本土？六塔無還處難。又分身諸佛，釋迦命去初即言歸，多寶佛塔迄至經終更無還處。七淨穢有殊難。又以妙音被誡便非淨土，故知分身各已還國者，分身佛集之日，何故各命侍者手捧蓮華並詣靈山，持散佛上變淨土時，諸山皆無通為佛國，五道亦盡，何有靈山詣佛持散？又文殊海會將至此間，預在靈山忽有華現。八眾喜乖情難。又〈囑累品〉令分身佛還塔時不去，若非經末方囑累者，阿修羅等皆大歡喜何太早生？既非聞法寶以喜生，乃是見客佛去以歡喜慰，深成可怪；但是先放神力故現淨土，由此土本穢恐妙音兼見本土穢相而生譏毀，所以被誡，非妙音至、分身已還而土唯穢，如雖淨土還見靈山，變不唯淨兼見穢故，上見下故，何因不許二佛同坐妙音致禮？觀世音奉珠禮贈此二化主，別意不通餘佛，只如〈天授品〉中文殊龍宮而出，獨禮塔中二世尊足，是時分身未還本土，文殊于時不禮分身，故知歸奉意別，何得例使通歸？故知〈囑累〉合在經終，歡喜奉行並居彼故。又〈觀音普門品〉本皆無頌，或有安者後人添足，俗每疑云：若佛說者，云何頌言「具足妙相尊，偈答無盡意」，此乃經家結集為偈。如《勝鬘經》云：「即生此念時佛於空中現」等，從前偈後乘便為偈以生後偈，中間文短長行不便，理亦應通。又有疑云：若佛說者何故偈云呪咀諸毒藥還著於本人，豈佛世尊返害生命？昔亦致惑曾問先師慈音妙大雲義，大師勘梵本既具此頌，正云梅怛剌耶末那，應言慈意非慈音也。故定有之。又有無失，乃是應宜而為調伏，如巧獵師善取罷熊；亦如良醫善用反藥，初雖有損後必為益，非後為損而初益之。有頌既不乖宗，設無亦何違理？又隋時所添經中，莊嚴幢菩薩問無盡意，觀音名所由？無盡意菩薩遍觀觀音過去願海，告莊嚴幢而說於偈。若爾，云何偈言世尊妙相具？我今重問彼具足妙相尊偈答無盡意，文既相違，故知差舛。又彼經〈藥草喻品〉加其後半，論釋兩喻破執乘一，彼說乘同，日光為喻，《正法》、《妙法》兩經俱無，論又不解四從三逆，有爽通途無順成理，彼經又以〈陀羅尼品〉安在〈神力品〉後，違二本經及論次第。又云：〈富樓那〉及〈法師〉二品初皆脫少。既無誠文，理難依信。又云：合有二十七品，以〈天授品〉與〈寶塔〉同品，四本違三，寔為未可。

Fourth, explaining the omission and establishment of the chapters of the sūtra: Investigating the origin of this sūtra, in the time of Yao Xing of the Qin, the translation by Kumārajīva had twenty-seven chapters and lacked the Devadatta Chapter. The Record of the Southern Qi by the Śramaṇa Daohui states: 'Shi Faxian of Upper Dinglin Temple obtained a Sanskrit manuscript of this sūtra in Khotan, which contained this one chapter. In the twelfth month of the eighth year of the Yongming era of the Qi, the Śramaṇa Fayi of Waguan Temple translated this chapter out, but it had not yet been placed within the Lotus Sūtra. Toward the end of the Liang, the Śramaṇa Kulanātha—here translated as Jiayi ("Relying on Family"), also called Paramārtha, here translated as Zhendi ("True Truth")—from the Western Indian state of Ujjayinī again translated this chapter and first placed it after the "Apparition of the Jeweled Stūpa." Furthermore, the Dunhuang Śramaṇa Zhu Fahu translated the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka during the reign of Emperor Wu of the Jin, and its Devadatta Chapter was also placed after the chapter on "Apparition of the Jeweled Stūpa."' Regarding the absence of it in Venerable Kumārajīva's version, an ancient tradition explains: West of the Congling Mountains, this chapter was mostly present; east of them, it was mostly absent. Since Kumārajīva was in Kucha, he lacked this chapter. If so, how did Faxian obtain this chapter in Khotan? For Khotan is also east of the Congling Mountains. There is another explanation stating: The Stūpa Chapter gives the command to uphold, and the Upholding Chapter answers the command; their rhetorical force is continuous, but suddenly interposing Devadatta interrupts the contextual momentum. Fearing that later generations would have many doubts, Kumārajīva excised it. If so, then the acceptance or rejection of genuine scripture would depend entirely on Kumārajīva, leaving the pruning of redundancies and the assessment of merit and flaw to a single person, which is unacceptable. Shi Dao'an, considering that translators often abridged the scriptural texts, composed the 'Five Losses and Three Difficulties,' stating: 'The arhats who compiled [the canon] were so cautious, while the ordinary people of later generations are so casual! Altering the subtle words of over a thousand generations to match the vulgar tastes of later kings—is this not lamentable!' Therefore, the Sanskrit manuscripts all possess the Devadatta Chapter. Furthermore, the Devadatta Chapter reveals [the Tathāgata's] having valued the Dharma so much as to make his body a bed to seek it, the great power of the sūtra springing forth from the dragon palace, and the swift majesty of the sūtra through the dragon girl's attainment of the Way, praising and encouraging people. Why should the Upholding Chapter not immediately follow this? One simply knows that Sanskrit manuscripts possessed it, whereas Kumārajīva's manuscript was deficient, and translating according to his manuscript resulted in the absence of this chapter. It is neither to be determined by east or west, nor is it permissible that it was arbitrarily excised due to its meaning; rather, it was merely an omission in Kumārajīva's Sanskrit manuscript, for the rustic texts of frontier kingdoms often had omissions and errors. Furthermore, concerning the Entrustment Chapter being placed after the Supernatural Powers Chapter in this sūtra, an ancient explanation says: Kumārajīva well comprehended the intent of the sūtra; he did not place it at the end of the sūtra but positioned it earlier because, in the Entrustment Chapter, the emanated buddhas are commanded each to return to their own lands. If it were placed at the end of the sūtra, only after the preaching of the sūtra ended would the emanations each be commanded to return to their own lands. Before they returned, this land would still be pure; why, then, when Gadgadasvara was to arrive, was he admonished not to give rise to thoughts of inferiority regarding this land? Moreover, since those who welled forth from below universally bowed their heads to the emanations, Gadgadasvara from the eastern land should not have bowed his head solely to Prabhūtaratna; and when Avalokiteśvara offered the pearls, he should not have divided them into only two portions—what fault did the emanated buddhas commit that they did not receive any? Furthermore, since the single chapter of Entrustment explains the entrustment, and the chapters such as Bhaiṣajyarāja receive the command to propagate, deducing from this it should not stand at the end; hence Kumārajīva placed it earlier. Although what was stated above may seem plausible at first glance, an exhaustive investigation of its principles reveals eight contradictions: First, the contradiction with multiple manuscripts. In the True Lotus translated by Zhu Fahu during the Jin, and in the additions to the Lotus by both Gupta and Jñānagupta during the Sui, this Entrustment Chapter is placed at the end of the sūtra in both cases. Second, the contradiction between the treatise and the sūtra. The Treatise on the Lotus Sūtra explains the power of cultivation as briefly having seven kinds: 1. The power of upholding, manifested in the Dharma Master Chapter, Chapter on Ease of Practice, and Chapter on Encouraging Upholding. 2. The power of expounding, manifested in the Chapter on Supernatural Powers. 3. The power of practicing austerities, manifested in the Bhaiṣajyarāja Chapter. 4. The power of teaching and transforming sentient beings through the practice of austerities, manifested in the Gadgadasvara Chapter. 5. The power of protecting sentient beings from various calamities, manifested in the Avalokiteśvara Chapter and Dhāraṇī Chapter. 6. The power of superior merit, manifested in the Chapter on the Past Deeds of King Śubhavyūha. 7. The power of protecting the Dharma, manifested in the Samantabhadra Bodhisattva Chapter and the subsequent chapter. Since it states that the power of protecting the Dharma is manifested in Samantabhadra and the subsequent chapter, it is clearly known that Entrustment should reside at the end of the sūtra; if this were not so, what other chapter would follow the Samantabhadra Chapter? Moreover, Bhaiṣajyarāja immediately follows the Chapter on Supernatural Powers, and the rest all follow in sequence; hence it is known that Entrustment ought to be at the end of the sūtra. Third, the inconsistency with various teachings. In other sūtras, the entrustment is always at the end of the sūtra; why should this sūtra alone speak it before? Fourth, the conflict between two matters. If, due to commanding the emanated buddhas to return, this land became defiled so that Gadgadasvara was admonished upon his arrival, then the Entrustment Chapter also commanded the stūpa of Prabhūtaratna to return; why did Avalokiteśvara still divide the offered pearls into only two portions? Fifth, the inequality of the two commands. If both the emanations and Prabhūtaratna were dispatched to return, why did the emanations immediately return while the stūpa of Prabhūtaratna remained present? If it is said that commanding the stūpa of Prabhūtaratna to return meant that it could remain as before, only that the stūpa was closed—if so, why does the True Lotus state that it may return to its own land? Sixth, the difficulty of the stūpa having no place to return. Furthermore, when Śākyamuni commanded the emanated buddhas to depart, they immediately said they were returning; whereas for the stūpa of Prabhūtaratna, up to the end of the sūtra, there is no place to which it returns. Seventh, the distinction between purity and defilement. Furthermore, if it is held that because Gadgadasvara was admonished it was no longer a pure land, and thus one knows that the emanations had each returned to their countries: on the day when the emanated buddhas assembled, why did they each command their attendants to hold lotuses in their hands, go together to Vulture Peak, and scatter them over the Buddha? When the pure land was transformed, all the mountains were absent, and everywhere became a buddha-field, the five destinies being completely ended; how could there be a Vulture Peak to approach the Buddha and scatter [flowers]? Moreover, when Mañjuśrī's ocean assembly was about to arrive here, flowers suddenly manifested in advance at Vulture Peak. Eighth, the rejoicing of the assembly being contrary to emotion. Furthermore, the Entrustment Chapter commanded the emanated buddhas to return, but they did not depart at the time of the stūpa; if it were not that the entrustment occurred at the end of the sūtra, why would the asuras and others have given rise to great joy so prematurely? Since their joy did not arise from hearing the treasure of Dharma, but rather was rejoicing and consoling at seeing the guest buddhas depart, this is profoundly bizarre. It was merely that the supernatural powers had been displayed earlier so that the pure land appeared; because this land was originally defiled, it was feared that Gadgadasvara would concurrently see the defiled appearance of this native land and generate disparagement, which is why he was admonished. It was not that when Gadgadasvara arrived, the emanations had already returned and the land was purely defiled. Just as, despite being a pure land, Vulture Peak was still seen, the transformation was not purely pure but concurrently showed defilement, because the above sees the below. Why should it not be permitted that Gadgadasvara paid homage to the two buddhas seated together? Avalokiteśvara offering pearls to present as gifts to these two leaders of transformation was a special intention not shared with the other buddhas. Just as in the Devadatta Chapter, when Mañjuśrī emerged from the dragon palace, he bowed solely at the feet of the two World-Honoured Ones in the stūpa; at that time the emanations had not yet returned to their native lands, yet Mañjuśrī did not bow to the emanations. Thus it is known that the intention of taking refuge and offering was specific; how could one generalizedly make it apply universally? Hence it is known that Entrustment ought to be at the end of the sūtra, because rejoicing and practicing respectfully both reside there. Furthermore, the Avalokiteśvara Universal Gateway Chapter originally lacked verses; where some have placed them, they were added by later people. The worldly often suspect: If spoken by the Buddha, how could the verses say, 'The Honoured One endowed with wondrous marks / answered Akṣayamati in verse'? This was versified by the compilers of the sūtra. Just as the Śrīmālā-sūtra states, 'Just as this thought arose, the Buddha appeared in the sky,' and so forth, taking advantage of the space between the preceding verse and the subsequent one to form a verse to introduce the subsequent verses, because the prose between them would be too brief and inconvenient; logically this should also be coherent. There is another suspicion: If spoken by the Buddha, why do the verses say that curses and various poisons 'revert to the original person'? Would the Buddha, the World-Honoured One, instead harm living beings? Formerly, having doubts about this, I asked my late master about the meaning of 'benevolent voice, wondrous great cloud.' The Great Master checked the Sanskrit manuscript, and since it indeed possessed this verse, it properly reads maitra-manas, which should be 'benevolent thought,' not 'benevolent voice.' Therefore, it definitely exists. Moreover, there is no fault in its presence: it is to subdue according to what is suitable, like a skillful hunter who is good at capturing an exhausted bear; or like a good physician who skillfully uses contrary medicine—though there is harm at first, there will certainly be benefit later; it is not that there is harm later while benefiting at first. Since having the verses does not conflict with the doctrine, even if they were absent, how would it violate the principle? Furthermore, in the sūtra added during the Sui, Bodhisattva Alaṃkāradhvaja asks Akṣayamati about the origin of Avalokiteśvara's name; Bodhisattva Akṣayamati universally contemplates Avalokiteśvara's ocean of past vows, addresses Alaṃkāradhvaja, and speaks the verses. If so, how could the verse say, 'The World-Honoured One endowed with wondrous marks / I now ask him again'? 'The Honoured One endowed with wondrous marks / answered Akṣayamati in verse' contradicts that text; hence it is known to be an error. Furthermore, that sūtra added the latter half to the Medicinal Herbs Simile Chapter, where the treatise explains the two similes as breaking the clinging to the vehicle being one, whereas that version speaks of the vehicles being identical, taking sunlight as a simile—which is absent in both the True Dharma and Wondrous Dharma sūtras; moreover, the treatise does not explain the four conformities and three contrarieties, which violates the standard path and conforms to no sound reasoning. That sūtra also places the Dhāraṇī Chapter after the Supernatural Powers Chapter, which contradicts the sequence of both sūtra versions and the treatise. It also says: The beginnings of both the Pūrṇa and Dharma Master chapters have slight omissions. Since there is no authentic text [supporting this], it is logically difficult to rely on and believe. It also says: Altogether there are twenty-seven chapters, combining the Devadatta Chapter with the Jeweled Stūpa into the same chapter; contradicting three out of four versions, this is truly unacceptable.