[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) › [法華玄贊義決](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1724) › 1.79 # 法華玄贊義決 1.79 法華玄贊義決 1.79 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.79](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1724.1.79) 明經品得名中有二：初釋品名不同，後明得名。名不同者，《正法華經》云光瑞品、方便品、應時品、信樂品、藥草品、授聲聞決品、往古品、授五百弟子決品、授阿難羅云決品、藥王如來品、七寶塔品（提婆達多品入寶塔品內）、勸悅品、安行品、他地涌出品、如來現壽品、行福事品、勸明品、歎法師品、常被輕慢品、如來神足行品、藥王菩薩品、妙吼菩薩品、光世音普門品、總持品、淨復淨王品、樂普賢品（末云佛說此品時，如恒河沙億百千菩薩眾，皆悉總持即盡之也）、屬累品。釋品癈立中，〈屬累〉若在〈藥王品〉前，乃有八違。有為十證〈屬累〉令在〈藥王品〉前，令還妙故證，但云化佛使還本土，多寶佛塔未遣還故。二不言佛讚證，〈藥王品〉中但云塔讚。三妙音開敬證，涌出遍禮分身，妙音但禮二佛。四穢土非淨證，化佛未去，此猶令淨，妙音來日何為被呵。五問佛來不證，云多寶如來來聽法不？既不見多寶，明塔已閉。六欲見多寶證，若未閉塔，二佛同坐，自應觀見，何須請見？七請見唯聞證，既唯聞聲，不言見佛，明知已閉。八敬塔非佛證，二佛同坐，應禮二尊，何故但言禮多寶塔？九二分不齊證，化佛若是未還，何以不齊奉施？十無別分身證，若〈藥王品〉下猶有化佛，何無文證？以此十證〈屬累〉不令在後，應廣如彼說。敬尋斯說，理奧文通。然義有千途，今者翻歸舊轍，上德既以十證《屬累》令有於先，若爾有十不可，是故〈屬累〉還令經末。一令還如故證不可，非言如故，但令塔閉不遣還國，《正法華》云：多寶世尊七寶講堂佛之塔廟還復，故處迹不可言。經本有別唯一佛說，又不同小，見聞異故。二不言佛讚證不可，〈藥王菩薩本事品〉云：多寶如來在七寶塔中，讚言善哉善哉，雖開寶塔佛無在中，今言多寶在寶塔中讚言善哉，不言塔讚，云非佛讚證不可言。三妙音關敬證不可，以下方涌出遍禮分身、妙音不禮，即證已去；亦應文殊不禮，分身已去。〈提婆達多品〉亦云：至二世尊所修敬已畢往智積所，不言遍禮，豈化佛去？故為不可。四穢土非淨證不可，若以妙音被誡土還穢者，亦應化佛使往靈山出應非淨，若云雖云諸山據本相說、談土實淨，妙音見穢類亦如是。若云雖變淨土靈山尚存故不為例者，靈山非穢變淨猶存，既土石山如何得在？故言在者據初時說。如文殊從海涌出，猶言詣耆闍崛山，時會並以昇空詣山欲何所為？故雖詣空寶塔，據本尚言詣山處地遣使持華詣山，故知據本非淨，土內可有耆山。下文云：時我及眾僧，俱出靈鷲山，亦據本處說。若云經云唯留此會眾，亦留人山者，不爾，眾令聞法本為可留，山不聞經留之何益？故云穢土非淨證不可。五問佛來不證不可，何者？文殊請見妙音，釋迦如來云多寶如來可為汝等而現其事，時多寶佛告妙音言，善男子來，文殊師利欲得相見。來承佛召，如何假問？問者為傳佛言，故經云淨華智佛問訊世尊。又問多寶如來來聽法不？非妙音自問，故為不可。六欲見多寶證不可，若云二佛同坐即令俱見，何須請佛？我今欲見多寶佛者，菩薩下人、如來上果，加被令見可得覩尊，若未加被即不得見，希望佛加故請欲見。且妙音將至，文殊尚請佛加，妙音既現，處因得見，要須佛力，故雖同坐請已方見，非是請見即證塔閉，故為不可。七請見唯聞證不可，若以請見，經但稱云讚、不說見身，即明不見多寶；亦文殊請見妙音，經不讚妙音來至、文殊得見，文殊亦應真不覩妙音。若已請見，來即得見，何須說者？妙音請見當即見，何要文中說得見？故為不可。八敬塔非佛證不可，何者？若以妙音敬塔不云敬佛，即證塔閉，亦應普賢來日不言敬塔，塔亦應無，不得言塔比時已去，文無遣塔之處，雖不敬塔不妨塔有，不言敬佛何妨見佛。又如塔開之後一切總在虛空，文殊海會云詣靈山，豈可不知佛在寶塔？以本山故言詣山，以本在塔故云敬塔，非不詣空及親禮佛。又如俗云謹書足下，未必安於脚膝下，但是敬辭，此亦應爾。又准《正法華》，觀音奉瓔，一分奉釋迦牟尼，一分奉多寶如來，不言奉塔，明塔未閉妙音得見；今言唯閉，故為不可。九二分不齊證不可，若以多寶但為二分，不奉化佛，明無化佛，亦應龍女但奉釋迦，多寶亦應以去。又文殊不禮多寶，多寶不無；觀音不奉分身，何得即云以去？禮敬齊故，故為不可。十無別分身證不可，設下經文不說化佛，何癈措在，如〈藥王品〉下不言聲聞，聲聞豈即非有？若以〈普賢品〉中說有，即證現有聲聞，唯《正法華》等〈屬累〉既在經末，明知化佛亦有，文義須說可即說之，文義不須何為強說？故不可。 > In explaining the origin of the titles of the chapters of the sūtra, there are two parts: first, explaining differences in the chapter titles; second, explaining their derivation. As for the differences in titles, the Zheng fahua jing gives: 'Light and Omen Chapter', 'Expedient Means Chapter', 'Timely Response Chapter', 'Faith and Joy Chapter', 'Medicinal Herbs Chapter', 'Conferring Prediction on Śrāvakas Chapter', 'Past Events Chapter', 'Conferring Prediction on the Five Hundred Disciples Chapter', 'Conferring Prediction on Ānanda and Rāhula Chapter', 'Bhaiṣajyarāja Tathāgata Chapter', 'Seven-Jeweled Stūpa Chapter' (the 'Devadatta Chapter' is included within the 'Treasure Stūpa Chapter'), 'Exhortation and Joy Chapter', 'Peaceful Practices Chapter', 'Emerging from Another Ground Chapter', 'The Tathāgata's Lifespan Manifest Chapter', 'Practicing Meritorious Deeds Chapter', 'Exhortation and Clarification Chapter', 'Praising the Dharma Master Chapter', 'Constantly Being Despised Chapter', 'The Tathāgata's Supernormal Actions Chapter', 'Bodhisattva Bhaiṣajyarāja Chapter', 'Bodhisattva Gadgadasvara Chapter', 'Universal Gate of Avalokiteśvara Chapter', 'Dhāraṇī Chapter', 'King Śubhavyūha Chapter', 'Delight in Samantabhadra Chapter' (at the end it says: when the Buddha spoke this chapter, as many bodhisattva assemblies as hundreds of thousands of koṭīs of sands of the Ganges, all attained dhāraṇī, which concludes it), and 'Entrustment Chapter'. In explaining the retention or omission of chapters, if the 'Entrustment' \[Chapter\] is placed before the 'Bhaiṣajyarāja Chapter', there are eight contradictions. Some cite ten proofs to place 'Entrustment' before the 'Bhaiṣajyarāja Chapter': First, the proof of ordering a return to the original state: it only says the emanated buddhas were ordered to return to their original lands, because the stūpa of Prabhūtaratna Buddha had not yet been sent back. Second, the proof of not mentioning the Buddha's praise: in the 'Bhaiṣajyarāja Chapter' it only mentions the stūpa's praise. Third, the proof of Gadgadasvara's exclusive reverence: those who welled up paid homage everywhere to the emanations, whereas Gadgadasvara paid homage only to the two buddhas. Fourth, the proof of the defiled land not being pure: if the emanated buddhas had not left, this \[land\] would still have been kept pure; why, when Gadgadasvara arrived, was he cautioned? Fifth, the proof of asking whether the Buddha came: it says, 'Has the Tathāgata Prabhūtaratna come to listen to the Dharma or not?' Since he does not see Prabhūtaratna, it is clear that the stūpa was already closed. Sixth, the proof of wishing to see Prabhūtaratna: if the stūpa had not yet closed, the two buddhas were seated together and he naturally should have seen him; why would he need to request to see him? Seventh, the proof of requesting to see and only hearing: since he only heard the voice and does not say he saw the Buddha, one clearly knows it was already closed. Eighth, the proof of revering the stūpa and not the Buddha: with the two buddhas seated together, he should pay homage to both Honoured Ones; why does it only say he paid homage to the stūpa of Prabhūtaratna? Ninth, the proof of the two portions not being equal: if the emanated buddhas had not yet returned, why were offerings not made equally to them? Tenth, the proof of no distinct emanated bodies: if emanated buddhas still existed below the 'Bhaiṣajyarāja Chapter', why is there no textual proof? With these ten proofs, they do not let 'Entrustment' remain at the end, which should be understood in detail as stated there. Examining this statement respectfully, its reason is profound and its text is coherent. However, interpretations have a thousand paths; now returning to the old tracks, since that exalted worthy used ten proofs to place 'Entrustment' earlier, there are likewise ten impossibilities against it; therefore 'Entrustment' should still be returned to the end of the sūtra. First, the proof of ordering a return to the original state is untenable: it does not say 'to the original state', but only orders the stūpa closed without sending him back to his country. The Zheng fahua jing says: the seven-jeweled lecture hall and the buddha stūpa-shrine of the World-Honoured One Prabhūtaratna returned to its original place, so the trace cannot be mentioned \[as departed\]. Different recensions of the sūtra have variations and are spoken only by one Buddha; moreover, it is not like the small \[vehicle\], because seeing and hearing differ. Second, the proof of not mentioning the Buddha's praise is untenable: the 'Chapter on the Ancient Deeds of Bodhisattva Bhaiṣajyarāja' says that the Tathāgata Prabhūtaratna from within the seven-jeweled stūpa praised, saying, 'Excellent, excellent!' Although when the jewel stūpa was opened the Buddha was absent inside, now it says that Prabhūtaratna praised from within the jewel stūpa saying 'Excellent!'; it does not say the stūpa praised, so the proof that it was not the Buddha's praise cannot be claimed. Third, the proof of Gadgadasvara's exclusive reverence is untenable: because those welling up from below paid homage everywhere to the emanations, while Gadgadasvara did not pay homage, this is cited as proof that they had already left; then Mañjuśrī also did not pay homage, so the emanations should also have already left. The 'Devadatta Chapter' also says: he arrived at the place of the two World-Honoured Ones, completed paying respects, and went to the place of Jñānaprabha, without mentioning paying homage everywhere; could the emanated buddhas have departed? Therefore it is untenable. Fourth, the proof of the defiled land not being pure is untenable: if Gadgadasvara being admonished means the land had returned to defilement, then when the emanated buddhas were sent to Mount Gṛdhrakūṭa, its manifestation should also not have been pure. If it is said: although it mentions the mountains, it speaks in accordance with their original characteristics, while in fact the land was pure, then Gadgadasvara seeing defilement is of the same category. If it is said: although the pure land was transformed, Mount Gṛdhrakūṭa still remained and therefore does not serve as an example; if Mount Gṛdhrakūṭa was not defiled and remained after being transformed into purity, since it is an earthen and rocky mountain, how could it remain? Therefore saying it remained is spoken in terms of the initial time. Just as Mañjuśrī welled up from the sea, it still says he went to Mount Gṛdhrakūṭa; when the assembly at that time had all ascended into empty space, what purpose was there in going to the mountain? Therefore, although he went to the jewel stūpa in space, in accordance with the origin it still says going to the mountain; sending an envoy with flowers to the mountain on the ground, one therefore knows that according to the origin it was not pure, and within the land Mount Gṛdhra could exist. Below the text says: 'At that time, I and the monastic assembly together came out of Mount Gṛdhrakūṭa'; this is also spoken according to the original location. If it is said: the sūtra says only this assembly was retained, and humans and mountains were also retained; it is not so: the assembly was to hear the Dharma, so originally they could be retained; the mountain does not hear the sūtra, what benefit is there in retaining it? Therefore the proof of the defiled land not being pure is untenable. Fifth, the proof of asking whether the Buddha came is untenable. Why? Mañjuśrī requested to see Gadgadasvara, and Śākyamuni Tathāgata said that the Tathāgata Prabhūtaratna could manifest this matter for you; then Prabhūtaratna Buddha told Gadgadasvara, 'Good son, come; Mañjuśrī wishes to meet you.' Having come upon receiving the Buddha's summons, how could there be a pretext question? The question was to transmit the Buddha's words; therefore the sūtra says: the Buddha Vimalasvaranirghoṣa inquired after the World-Honoured One, and also asked whether the Tathāgata Prabhūtaratna had come to listen to the Dharma or not. It was not Gadgadasvara's own question, therefore it is untenable. Sixth, the proof of wishing to see Prabhūtaratna is untenable: if it is said that the two buddhas being seated together immediately caused them to be seen together, why would one need to request the Buddha, saying, 'I now wish to see Prabhūtaratna Buddha'? The bodhisattva is of lower status and the Tathāgata is the supreme fruition; through empowering assistance one can see the Honoured One, but without empowering assistance one cannot see him; hoping for the Buddha's empowerment, he therefore requested wishing to see. Moreover, when Gadgadasvara was about to arrive, Mañjuśrī still requested the Buddha's empowerment; once Gadgadasvara manifested, being in the cause, seeing him necessarily required the Buddha's power. Therefore, although seated together, only after requesting did he see him; it is not that requesting to see proves the stūpa was closed, so it is untenable. Seventh, the proof of requesting to see and only hearing is untenable: if because he requested to see, the sūtra only speaks of praise and does not speak of seeing the body, thereby clarifying that he did not see Prabhūtaratna; then when Mañjuśrī requested to see Gadgadasvara, the sūtra does not praise Gadgadasvara's arrival or Mañjuśrī's seeing him, so Mañjuśrī also should not truly have seen Gadgadasvara. If having already requested to see, on arriving he immediately saw him, why would it need to be stated? When Gadgadasvara requested to see, he immediately saw him; why is it necessary for the text to say he got to see him? Therefore it is untenable. Eighth, the proof of revering the stūpa and not the Buddha is untenable. Why? If Gadgadasvara revering the stūpa without saying he revered the Buddha proves the stūpa was closed, then when Samantabhadra arrived it does not speak of revering the stūpa, so the stūpa also should not have existed; it cannot be said that the stūpa had already left by that time, for the text contains nowhere that sent the stūpa away. Although not revering the stūpa does not prevent the stūpa from existing, not speaking of revering the Buddha—how does that prevent seeing the Buddha? Furthermore, just as after the stūpa was opened everything was entirely in empty space, and Mañjuśrī's ocean assembly is said to have gone to Mount Gṛdhra, could he not know the Buddha was in the jewel stūpa? Because of the original mountain, it says going to the mountain; because of originally being in the stūpa, it says revering the stūpa; it does not mean not going to space and not paying homage to the Buddha in person. Again, just as worldly people say 'respectfully written beneath your feet', it is not necessarily placed under the knees and feet, but is merely a respectful expression; this should also be like that. Furthermore, based on the Zheng fahua, when Avalokiteśvara offered the necklace, one part was offered to Śākyamuni and one part to Prabhūtaratna Tathāgata, not mentioning offering to the stūpa, which shows the stūpa was not closed and Gadgadasvara was able to see him; now saying it was only closed is therefore untenable. Ninth, the proof of the two portions not being equal is untenable: if because Prabhūtaratna was only divided into two portions and not offered to the emanated buddhas, it shows there were no emanated buddhas, then the Nāga girl also offered only to Śākyamuni, so Prabhūtaratna should also have departed. Moreover, Mañjuśrī did not pay homage to Prabhūtaratna, yet Prabhūtaratna was not absent; Avalokiteśvara did not offer to the emanations, how can one immediately say they had departed? Because reverence is equal, this is therefore untenable. Tenth, the proof of no distinct emanated bodies is untenable: even if the sūtra text below does not speak of emanated buddhas, why should their presence be discarded? Just as below the 'Bhaiṣajyarāja Chapter' it does not mention śrāvakas, could śrāvakas therefore not exist? If because the 'Samantabhadra Chapter' speaks of their presence, it proves there were currently śrāvakas, then since the 'Entrustment' \[Chapter\] of the Zheng fahua and others is at the end of the sūtra, one clearly knows that emanated buddhas also existed. When textual sense requires speaking of it, it may be spoken; when textual sense does not require it, why forcefully state it? Therefore it is untenable. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.78](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1724.1.78) - [Next: 1.80](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1724.1.80) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1724.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1724~en-mt.1.79) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1724.1.79](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1724.1.79) · Pramāṇa