金光明經文句 1.3

1.3

此四卷文，總有十八品，舊來分割盈縮不同。江北諸師以初品為序，〈壽量〉下訖捨身為正，〈讚佛〉為流通。正文又三：〈壽量〉下是正說，〈四王〉下大誓護經，〈除病〉下大悲接物。江南諸師以初品為序，〈壽量〉下為正，〈四王〉下十三品為流通。真諦三藏分新文二十二品，初品為序，〈壽量〉下至〈捨身〉十九品為正，後兩品為流通。真諦釋云：「〈壽量〉明師果，〈懺〉、〈歎〉兩品明弟子因，〈授記〉是弟子果，〈除病〉是師因，〈四王〉下正論力用。前師果弟因既為正，後師弟因果何得為流通邪？」今師謂：分文本是人情。人情咸謂：序未辨道，流通歇末不得論師弟因果。是義不然，夫三段者不可杜斷隔絕，序本序於正通，序則有三義；正本正於序通，正亦三義；通本通於正序，通亦三義。上中下語皆善故。又眾生得道根性不定，何容序無滋味、流通歇末邪？既不歇末，說師弟因果亦應何妨？如序中說正，亦應無妨。流通中有正意，彌是督勵宣行，不乖經意。又《法華》中明，阿私仙是師因，持品授弟子果記，諸師咸判是流通。此有其例，於義無妨。與奪由人，不須苦執也。今從「如是我聞」入〈壽量〉，訖天龍集信相菩薩室，為序段；從「爾時四佛」下，訖〈空品〉，正說段；從〈四王品〉下訖經，流通段。序者，序將有利益。正者，正當機辨道。流通者，流名下注，通名不壅，欲使正法之水從今以注當，聖教筌[(ㄇ@(企-止))/弟]不壅於來世。經曰「上中下語皆善」，即此義也。疑者云：序分何得入正品中？眾經例爾。如《維摩》無序品，序在正說中；《大品》正說在序品中；《涅槃》序分入正品中。眾經皆然，不以為疑，何獨惑此？斯乃出經者意，為四佛斷疑孤然而起其文嶄絕，引序分安〈壽量〉中。今從義便，不得齊品分割也。序有三義：一次緒、二敘述、三發起。次緒者，居一部之初冠、眾說之首，故言次緒。敘述者，敘於方將、述於當益，故言敘述。發起者，發其信心、起於教也。一段經文含此三義，故題為序品。品者，梵語稱為跋渠，此為品也，品是類義。此中文句氣類相從，節之為跋渠。例如律中有篇聚、毘曇有犍度爾。從「如是」下，是次緒；從「是時如來」下，是敘述；從「其室自然廣博嚴事」下，是發起。次緒之序，舊云五事；地人開佛，是為六事。此經天龍集信相室，不聞前序、不聞後夢，亦得是同聞，亦得是非也。同聞眾少不次第（云云）。此之五六，亦名印定序，三世諸佛經，初皆安「如是」故。亦名通序，與諸經同。亦為通名，作本故。亦名經後序，結集者所置故。亦名經前序，遺囑令安故。亦名破邪序，對破外道阿漚故。亦名證信序，令聞者不疑故。天台師云：總此六說，都是四悉檀意也。諸佛諸經同，是世界悉檀也；經前經後為利來世，是為人悉檀也；對破外道，是對治悉檀也；信順無疑，是第一義悉檀也。舊解如名不異，是曰無非。阿難所傳文句似瀉水分瓶，與佛一種，故不異稱如；文下之理允當無謬，故無非曰是。略而言之，文如理是。肇師云：「如是者，信順之辭也。信則所聞之理會，順則師資之道成。」真諦三藏云：「如是者，決定也。數決定、理決定。佛說此經有若干文句，若多成增謗、若少成減謗，阿難傳之如瀉水，不多不少，故數決定。佛說無相之理不有不無，若有墮增、若無墮減，阿難傳之無增無減，故理決定。」龍樹解如是者，「信順之辭也。信者言是事如是，不信者言是事不如是。」此之四解，各據一悉檀意。舊解語總不顯文詮何等理為如？何等理為文所詮為是？既不顯了，只是世界悉檀意；肇師據信順是為人；三藏文理決定為對治；龍樹信順如是為第一義（云云）。今作通別二釋。佛如法相而說，阿難如聞相而傳，故言如也。佛如法相而解，阿難如海量而受，故言是也（云云）。別釋者，外曰阿漚稱吉，文乖其理故非如，理異其文故非是，不可見阿漚在初而中後皆吉也。文如其理故言如，理如其文故言是。今謂：三藏經初云如是，二諦各異故非如，理淺故非是。摩訶衍二諦相即故言如，理深故言是。今謂三人同聞而各解故非如，證入優劣故非是。唯菩薩所聞者為如，菩薩所到者為是。今謂離邊明中之文則非如，出二諦之外有中道則非是。文字性離即是於如故言如，一切法即佛法名之為是。初破邪明正，即三藏經如是。次破異明同，即通教經如是。次破淺明深，即別教經如是。次破離明中，即圓教經如是。此經既是方等，通被根性不同，作種種說無咎。觀心解者，觀與境冥故為如，境即正觀故為是。經言「如此觀者即是正觀，若他觀者名為邪觀。」即其義也。

In this text of four fascicles, there are eighteen chapters in all. Traditionally, division and partitioning have differed in length and arrangement. Masters north of the Jiang take the first chapter as the introductory section; from the "[Chapter on the] Span of Life" down through the "[Chapter on] Relinquishing the Body" as the main discourse; and the "[Chapter on] Praising the Buddha" as the transmission. The main discourse text is further threefold: from the "[Chapter on the] Span of Life" down is the main discourse; from the "[Chapter on the] Four Kings" down is the great vow to protect the sūtra; and from the "[Chapter on] Curing Diseases" down is great compassion taking in beings. Masters south of the Jiang take the first chapter as the introductory section; from the "[Chapter on the] Span of Life" down as the main discourse; and the thirteen chapters from the "[Chapter on the] Four Kings" down as the transmission. The Tripiṭaka [Master] Paramārtha divided the new text into twenty-two chapters: the first chapter as the introductory section, the nineteen chapters from the "[Chapter on the] Span of Life" down through the "[Chapter on] Relinquishing the Body" as the main discourse, and the final two chapters as the transmission. Paramārtha explained: "The '[Chapter on the] Span of Life' clarifies the Master's fruition; the two chapters on confession and praise clarify the disciples' cause; 'Bestowing Prediction' is the disciples' fruition; 'Curing Diseases' is the Master's cause; and from the '[Chapter on the] Four Kings' down properly discusses power and function. Since the Master's fruition and disciples' cause above are already the main discourse, how could the subsequent Master's and disciples' causes and fruitions be the transmission?" Now the Master [Zhiyi] says: Dividing texts is fundamentally a matter of human opinion. Human opinion uniformly holds that the introductory section does not yet delineate the Way, and the transmission is a declining remnant in which causes and fruitions of master and disciple cannot be discussed. This view is not correct. As for the three divisions, they cannot be rigidly severed and separated: the introductory section fundamentally introduces the main discourse and transmission, so the introductory section possesses three meanings; the main discourse fundamentally centers the introductory section and transmission, so the main discourse also has three meanings; the transmission fundamentally transmits the main discourse and introductory section, so the transmission also has three meanings. This is because words that are good in the beginning, middle, and end are all good. Furthermore, sentient beings' capacities for attaining the Way are unfixed; how could the introductory section be without savor and the transmission be a declining remnant? Since it is not a declining remnant, what harm could there be in explaining the causes and fruitions of master and disciple? Just as explaining the main discourse within the introductory section is also unobjectionable. When the transmission contains the intention of the main discourse, it all the more spurs on and encourages dissemination, without contradicting the purport of the sūtra. Moreover, in the Lotus Sūtra it is explained that the Ṛṣi Asita is the master's cause, and the Chapter on Holding the Sūtra bestows the prediction of fruition upon the disciples, yet the various masters all judge this to be the transmission. There is precedent for this, so in terms of meaning there is no problem. Acceptance and rejection lie with people; one need not rigidly cling [to either]. Now, taking from "Thus have I heard" into the "[Chapter on the] Span of Life," down to the assembly of devas and nāgas at the chamber of Ruciraketu Bodhisattva, as the introductory section; from "At that time the four Buddhas" down through the "Chapter on Emptiness" as the main discourse section; and from the "Chapter on the Four Kings" down through the end of the sūtra as the transmission section. "Introduction" means introducing benefits that are to come. "Main" means properly delineating the Way in response to capacities. "Transmission" means: flowing (liu) denotes pouring downward, and passing through (tong) denotes being unblocked—wishing to cause the water of the true Dharma to pour from the present into the future, so that the fish-trap and snare of the sagely teaching are not blocked in future generations. When the sūtra states that "the words are good in the beginning, middle, and end," it is this meaning. The doubter asks: How can an introductory section enter into a main chapter? The various sūtras have precedents for this. For instance, the Vimalakīrti has no introductory chapter, and the introduction is in the main discourse; the main discourse of the Large Prajñāpāramitā is in the introductory chapter; and the introductory section of the Nirvāṇa enters into the main chapter. All sūtras are like this and are not doubted; why be confused only by this? This was the intention of the one who brought forth the sūtra: because the four Buddhas severing doubt arose abruptly and its text was discontinuous, he drew the introductory section and placed it within the "[Chapter on the] Span of Life." Now, following the convenience of the meaning, one cannot partition them strictly chapter by chapter. An introduction has three meanings: first, sequential beginning; second, recounting; third, initiation. "Sequential beginning" means that it occupies the outset of the whole work, standing at the head of the various discourses; hence it is called sequential beginning. "Recounting" means recounting what is impending and narrating future benefits; hence it is called recounting. "Initiation" means inspiring their faithful mind and initiating the teaching. A single section of sūtra text contains these three meanings, which is why it is titled an introductory chapter. "Chapter" in Sanskrit is called varga; this means chapter (pin), and pin means "class" or "category." In this text, sentences of a kindred category follow one another, and dividing them forms a varga. It is like the sections and classes in the Vinaya, or the skandhas in the Abhidharma. From "Thus" downward is the sequential beginning; from "At that time the Tathāgata" downward is the recounting; from "that chamber naturally became vast, spacious, and adorned" downward is the initiation. Regarding the introduction of sequential beginning, traditionally five items are spoken of; the Dilun masters separated out the Buddha, making six items. In this sūtra, when the devas and nāgas gathered at Ruciraketu's chamber, they did not hear the prior introduction nor the subsequent dream; thus it may be considered being among those who heard together, or it may be considered otherwise. The audience who heard together was small and unsystematic (and so forth). These five or six are also called the seal of certainty introduction, because at the beginning of the sūtras of all Buddhas of the three times, "Thus" is always placed. It is also called the common introduction, because it is shared with all sūtras. It also serves as the common title, because it constitutes the basis. It is also called the post-sūtra introduction, because it was placed by the compilers. It is also called the pre-sūtra introduction, because the Buddha's testament instructed it to be placed. It is also called the heresy-refuting introduction, because it counteracts and refutes the non-Buddhist oṃ. It is also called the faith-certifying introduction, because it causes listeners not to doubt. Master Tiantai states: Synthesizing these six explanations, they are all the intention of the four siddhāntas. What is shared among all Buddhas and all sūtras is the worldly siddhānta; before and after the sūtra for the benefit of future generations is the individual adaptation siddhānta; counteracting and refuting non-Buddhists is the counteractive siddhānta; and believing, following, and being free of doubt is the ultimate truth siddhānta. The old explanation is: "thus" (ru) means non-different; "is" (shi) means without error. The sentences transmitted by Ānanda were like water poured from one vessel into another, of one single kind with the Buddha; thus non-different is called "thus." The principle beneath the text was entirely correct and unerring; thus without error is called "is." Put briefly, the text is thus, and the principle is correct. Master Sengzhao said: "'Thus is' is an expression of faith and compliance. When there is faith, the principle one hears accords; when there is compliance, the way of master and disciple is accomplished." The Tripiṭaka [Master] Paramārtha said: "'Thus is' means determination: determination of quantity and determination of principle. When the Buddha spoke this sūtra, it had a certain number of sentences: if more, it would constitute the slander of addition; if fewer, it would constitute the slander of reduction. Ānanda transmitted it like pouring water, neither more nor less; hence determination of quantity. The Buddha spoke the principle of signlessness as neither existing nor non-existing: if existing, it falls into addition; if non-existing, it falls into reduction. Ānanda transmitted it without addition or reduction; hence determination of principle." Nāgārjuna explained "thus is": "It is an expression of faith and compliance. One who has faith says, 'This matter is thus'; one who lacks faith says, 'This matter is not thus.'" Each of these four explanations is based on the meaning of one siddhānta. The old explanation's words are general, not making clear what principle the text expresses as "thus," nor what principle expressed by the text is "is"; since it is not clear, it is merely the meaning of the worldly siddhānta. Master Sengzhao bases it on faith and compliance, which is individual adaptation. The Tripiṭaka Master's determination of text and principle is counteraction. Nāgārjuna's faith and compliance as "thus is" is the ultimate truth (and so forth). Now we provide two interpretations, common and distinctive. The Buddha spoke in accordance with the mark of dharmas, and Ānanda transmitted it in accordance with the mark of hearing; hence it is called "thus." The Buddha understood in accordance with the mark of dharmas, and Ānanda received it like the measure of the ocean; hence it is called "is" (and so forth). As for the distinctive interpretation: non-Buddhists say oṃ, calling it auspicious, but their text contradicts its principle, hence it is not "thus"; their principle differs from its text, hence it is not "is"—one cannot see oṃ at the beginning and regard the middle and end as all auspicious. When the text is like its principle, it is called "thus"; when the principle is like its text, it is called "is." Now we say: When the Tripiṭaka sūtras say "Thus is" at the beginning, because the two truths are each different, it is not "thus"; because the principle is shallow, it is not "is." In the Mahāyāna, because the two truths are mutually identical, it is called "thus"; because the principle is profound, it is called "is." Now we say: because the three vehicles hear together yet understand differently, it is not "thus"; because their realizations differ in excellence and inferiority, it is not "is." Only what the bodhisattva hears is "thus"; only what the bodhisattva arrives at is "is." Now we say: a text that clarifies the Middle by departing from the extremes is not "thus"; that there is a Middle Way existing outside the two truths is not "is." When the nature of words is detached, it is identical with the Thus; hence it is called "thus." When all dharmas are identical with the Buddhadharma, it is termed "is." First, refuting heresy to clarify orthodoxy is the "thus is" of the Tripiṭaka sūtras. Next, refuting difference to clarify identity is the "thus is" of the common teaching sūtras. Next, refuting shallowness to clarify depth is the "thus is" of the distinctive teaching sūtras. Next, refuting detachment to clarify the Middle is the "thus is" of the perfect teaching sūtras. Since this sūtra belongs to the vaipulya, it broadly accommodates differing faculties and natures, so there is no fault in making various explanations. As for the interpretation through the contemplation of the mind: because the contemplation is merged with the object, it is "thus"; because the object is identical with correct contemplation, it is "is." When the sūtra states, "One who contemplates in this way engages in correct contemplation; if one contemplates otherwise, it is called wrong contemplation," it is precisely this meaning.