妙法蓮華經玄贊 10.349

10.349

贊曰：第三挍量持名功德勝劣。有四：一問，二答，三成，四結。本論挍量六十二恒河沙佛，此經復云「六十二恒河沙菩薩」。此有二解：一云，經是論錯。菩薩、菩薩而為比挍，何得以佛比量菩薩？只如《十輪經》中但以地藏比量彌勒、文殊、觀音，亦不比量諸佛。若不爾者，應佛功德少於菩薩。二云，依論亦無爽。觀音久已成佛，不捨菩薩行故示為菩薩，何得不比如來？只如觀音成佛，功德國土勝無量壽，一切佛身豈勝劣耶？故知但是勸信之語。雖經比挍菩薩，論解設比諸佛，亦無過咎。二俱無失。論解成中有二釋：一信力，二畢竟知。信力有二：一求我身如觀音，畢竟信故。謂求我六十二億恒河沙佛身與觀音，信心無異，所求聖數多少雖殊，功德無別，因心等故。二者生恭敬心。如彼功德，我亦畢竟得故。謂如彼觀音身久已成佛，故智慧功德。我六十二億恒河沙佛亦畢竟得此諸佛功德，信佛菩薩功德不異故。此二是信力。初不觀境多少勝劣但信心等，後觀境多少雖殊、功德無別，恭敬信心亦無有二，故福無別。第二畢竟知者，決定知法界故。此由觀音已得畢竟知法界，故與佛無異。能證法界平等無二，故成福等。法界即法性，入初地菩薩能證一切佛菩薩等平等身故，平等身者謂真如法身。況十地滿，是故受持觀世音名，與六十二億恒河沙佛功德無別。不爾，菩薩豈勝佛耶？且將爾許讚勸發心。《十輪經》第一卷說：「假使於彌勒、妙吉祥、觀自在、普賢之類而為上首，殑伽沙等諸大菩薩，於百劫中至心歸依稱名，念誦禮拜供養求諸所願，不如有人於一念頃至心歸依、稱名念誦、禮拜供養地藏菩薩，求諸所願速得滿足。」又復如是末代眾生於諸有緣所宜聞故，所以偏讚。不爾菩薩亦應勝佛、等位菩薩應有勝劣。

The Commentary says: The third [section] compares the superior and inferior merit of upholding the names. It has four [parts]: first, the question; second, the answer; third, the justification; fourth, the conclusion. The base treatise compares sixty-two Ganges-sands of buddhas, whereas this sūtra says 'sixty-two Ganges-sands of bodhisattvas.' There are two explanations for this. The first says that the sūtra is correct and the treatise is mistaken. Bodhisattvas are compared with bodhisattvas; how could one use buddhas to compare with a bodhisattva? Just as in the Daśacakra-sūtra, Kṣitigarbha is only compared with Maitreya, Mañjuśrī, and Avalokiteśvara, not with the various buddhas. Were it not so, the merit of a buddha would be less than that of a bodhisattva. The second says that following the treatise is also not wrong. Avalokiteśvara attained buddhahood long ago, but not abandoning the bodhisattva practice, he manifests as a bodhisattva; why could he not be compared to a tathāgata? Just as when Avalokiteśvara attains buddhahood, his merit and land will surpass those of Amitāyus, yet how could the bodies of all buddhas be superior or inferior? Therefore we know this is merely an expression to encourage faith. Although the sūtra compares bodhisattvas, even if the treatise's explanation compares buddhas, there is no fault. Neither is mistaken. In the treatise's explanation of the justification, there are two interpretations: first, the power of faith; second, definitive knowledge. The power of faith has two [aspects]: First, seeking to make one's own person like Avalokiteśvara, out of definitive faith. That is to say, in seeking to make one's person like the sixty-two billion Ganges-sands of buddhas, one's faithful mind is no different from [that toward] Avalokiteśvara; although the number of sages sought differs in amount, the merit is not distinct, because the causal minds are equal. Second, giving rise to a mind of reverence. Just as that [bodhisattva has] merit, I too shall definitively attain it. That is to say, just as that body of Avalokiteśvara attained buddhahood long ago, possessing wisdom and merit, so I too, like the sixty-two billion Ganges-sands of buddhas, shall definitively attain the merit of these buddhas, because one has faith that the merit of buddhas and bodhisattvas is not distinct. These two are the power of faith. The first does not look at whether the object is many or few, superior or inferior, but only that the faithful mind is equal; the second looks at the fact that although the objects differ in amount, their merit is not distinct, and the reverent, faithful mind also has no difference; therefore, the blessings are not distinct. As for the second, definitive knowledge: this is because one definitively knows the dharma realm (dharmadhātu). Because Avalokiteśvara has already attained definitive knowledge of the dharma realm, he is no different from a buddha. Because he is able to realize that the dharma realm is equal and non-dual, the blessings are established as equal. The dharma realm is simply the dharma-nature (dharmatā). A bodhisattva who enters the first stage is able to realize the equal body of all buddhas, bodhisattvas, and others; the equal body means the tathatā dharmakāya. How much more so when the ten stages are completed! Therefore, upholding the name of Avalokiteśvara has no difference in merit from [upholding the names of] sixty-two billion Ganges-sands of buddhas. Were it not so, how could a bodhisattva surpass a buddha? One simply uses such praise to encourage them to generate the mind [for awakening]. The first fascicle of the Daśacakra-sūtra says: 'Even if one were to take Maitreya, Mañjuśrī, Avalokiteśvara, and Samantabhadra as foremost, and for a hundred kalpas with utmost sincerity take refuge in, recite the names of, chant, bow down to, and make offerings to such great bodhisattvas equal to the sands of the Ganges, seeking the fulfillment of all wishes, it would not equal a person who in a single thought-moment with utmost sincerity takes refuge in, recites the name of, chants, bows down to, and makes offerings to Kṣitigarbha Bodhisattva, seeking the fulfillment of all wishes, who will quickly obtain complete satisfaction.' Furthermore, it is because sentient beings of the latter age ought to hear this according to their respective affinities; for this reason [the text] specifically praises him. Were it not so, bodhisattvas would also surpass buddhas, and bodhisattvas of equal stages would have superiority and inferiority.