金光明經文句 1.3

1.3

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.