華嚴一乘成佛妙義 1.8

1.8

於中有二：一明三種成佛能得人別、二出疾成佛人類不同。初中三成佛，能得之人或同或異。何者？且一人行寄信門故是行成佛，寄住等故即位成佛。此即理事即入佛，故名理成佛，是故同也。故疏四云：問：未知此舍那佛是何位中佛？答：若說信法即信中佛，餘位亦爾，准此知也。然理成佛通餘一切凡夫及非情等，故是異也。後明疾成佛類，總有四人：一依世界性等十世界身，輪王子現身成佛，如普莊嚴童子等。二者依天子身勝，從三惡道出，兜率天現身成佛。三者依閻浮提勝功德身，如善財等現身究竟普賢之行，後生即見佛。四者依《法華經》龍女之身南方成佛義，當留惑之身疾得成佛（《孔目》第四文也）。青丘記云（十）：現身成佛等者，問：普莊嚴童子逕二佛世界塵數劫修成佛，何故一生成佛？答：此人分段身即成佛，故一生成佛。問：以何文為證？答：藏師云：「一約位，十信終心勝進分後入十解即成佛果等。」解云：十信終心即成佛等，故知一生成佛。兜率天子□身成佛者，此人過去由聞經故，隨三惡道，而以彼善根身承小相光明，從地獄出生兜率天。此天身是解行身，此身即成佛，故一生成佛。又善財童子一生逕知識，遇即成佛也。龍女之身南方成佛者，此人亦依華嚴教則留惑得龍女身，即是身成佛，故云一生成佛。今案：此記意普莊嚴童子現身成佛是分段一生者，恣不順文。何者？案經文一期現身解一乘故，此則解行生中行相故。《五教》下卷云：又彼能於一念中化不可說不可說眾生，一時皆至離垢三昧前，餘念念中皆亦如是，乃至是此前三生中解行位內之行相也。分段生是通見聞等，故非此生也。問：且何此童子名普莊嚴？答：德周法界曰普，普德交飾為嚴。普之嚴、普即嚴，普嚴之童子、普嚴即童子。新本名大威光太子，今此本中太子名功德勝。今此童子，第三王子，二疏無釋，可勘餘文。父王及太子福分，此童子慧分，故為道器。問：何此王子名世界性輪王之子？答：疏第三云：此中世界性者，謂積世界成性。積性成海等，如上所引《智論》說。又此下文於世界海中有世界性，世界性中有一世界等，故知積成也。何故名性者，有二義：一望前諸界攝諸流類結成性，如久習成性等；二望後海等有為因義，故亦得名性。問：積界成性界亦因義，何不名性？答：無融結故，闕初義也。問：十世界中海，望於後亦積成餘界，何不名性？答：初積結攝已得性名，後開異義轉立別號，故不名性也。上引《智論》云：若依終教，如《智論》中以三千大千世界為一數，數至恒沙為一世界性，數此性復至恒沙為一世界海，數此復至恒沙為一世界種，數此復至無量恒沙為一佛世界所化分齊。又云：三千界外別有十世界性海輪圓分旋轉蓮須相，此等當萬子已去輪王境界。問：何如此普莊嚴童子當萬子已去輪王之子？答：已經文言二萬五千子，故知萬子已去輪王子。《刊定記》三有二釋：一云：言王子五百人，別本云二萬五千人者，案《瓔珞經》，金輪王千輻子，乃至第十地菩薩皆二萬子。釋曰：第十地菩薩亦現為王，當無二萬五千。案：喜見統領及未見波羅蜜善眼佛，前猶未至第二地，恐二萬五千誤也。二云：約教說異，理亦無失。今云：後順本疏，會初釋違文，云經彼約三乘故。疏云：問：涅槃中一切輪王皆定千子不增不減，何故中乃不同耶？答：彼是王四天下之輪王，約三乘說；此是王世界性之輪王，故寬細於彼。如白淨梵網等，以恒沙金輪王福所感，此約一乘，說不同也。今私案：經本疏所說太有道理。何者？夫人數，新古本共言三萬七千，亦同言人壽二小劫。言小劫者，基《法華疏》二云：即以日月年等為劫，故名為小。元曉和尚劫義云：《大論》云：時節歲無量名為小劫。既多時中在三萬餘夫人，何可無二萬餘子？故知與三乘人壽八萬歲時輪王出世全別。或問第二兜天子何位成佛答。

Within this there are two [parts]: first, explaining the difference in the persons capable of attaining the three kinds of attainment of Buddhahood; second, presenting the diversity of kinds of persons who swiftly attain Buddhahood. In the first [part], among the three attainments of Buddhahood, the persons capable of attaining them may be identical or different. Why is this? If one person's practice relies on the gateway of faith, it is the attainment of Buddhahood according to practice; if it relies on the abodes and so forth, it is the attainment of Buddhahood according to stage. Since this is the mutual identity and interpenetration of principle and phenomena entering into the Buddha, it is called the attainment of Buddhahood according to principle; therefore they are identical. Thus the fourth volume of the Commentary says: "Question: We do not yet know at what stage this [Vai]rocana Buddha is the Buddha? Answer: If one speaks of the Dharma of faith, he is the Buddha within faith; the other stages are also like this. One should understand in accordance with this." However, the attainment of Buddhahood according to principle extends to all ordinary beings, insentient beings, and so forth, so they are different. Next, explaining the kinds [of persons] who swiftly attain Buddhahood, there are four persons in total: First, relying on a body in the ten world-systems, such as world-natures, a wheel-turning king's prince attains Buddhahood in the present body, such as the boy Samantālaṃkāra (Pu Zhuangyan) and others. Second, relying on the superior body of a devaputra, emerging from the three wretched destinies, one attains Buddhahood in the present body in Tuṣita Heaven. Third, relying on a body of superior merit in Jambudvīpa, such as Sudhana and others, one fulfills the practice of Samantabhadra in the present body, and in the next life immediately sees the Buddha. Fourth, relying on the meaning of the dragon girl's body attaining Buddhahood in the south in the Lotus Sūtra, corresponding to a body that retains afflictions swiftly attaining Buddhahood (the text of the fourth fascicle of the Kongmu). The Cheonggu Record says (fascicle 10): Regarding attaining Buddhahood in the present body and so on, question: The boy Samantālaṃkāra traversed aeons as numerous as the dust motes of two Buddha-worlds cultivating to attain Buddhahood; why is this attaining Buddhahood in a single lifetime? Answer: This person attained Buddhahood in this very body of delimited Samsaric existence; therefore it is attaining Buddhahood in a single lifetime. Question: What text serves as evidence? Answer: Master Zang says: "First, in terms of stages, after the stage of superior advancement of the final mind of the ten faiths, entering into the ten understandings, one immediately attains the fruit of Buddhahood, and so on." The explanation states: At the final mind of the ten faiths one immediately attains Buddhahood, and so on; thus we know it is attaining Buddhahood in a single lifetime. As for the Tuṣita devaputra who attained Buddhahood in [this] body, this person, having heard the sūtra in the past, followed into the three wretched destinies, yet by relying on that body of wholesome roots, receiving the radiance of the minor marks, emerged from hell and was born in Tuṣita Heaven. This heavenly body is a body of understanding and practice; in this very body he attained Buddhahood, so it is attaining Buddhahood in a single lifetime. Furthermore, the boy Sudhana traversed spiritual friends in a single lifetime, and upon meeting them immediately attained Buddhahood. As for the dragon girl's body attaining Buddhahood in the south, this person also, relying on the Avataṃsaka teaching, retained afflictions and received a dragon girl's body, which is attaining Buddhahood in that very body; hence it is called attaining Buddhahood in a single lifetime. Now, I consider: What this Record means—that the boy Samantālaṃkāra attained Buddhahood in the present body as a single lifetime of delimited existence—is entirely unaligned with the text. Why? Examining the sūtra text, it was a single manifest lifetime understanding the One Vehicle; this, then, was the aspect of practice during a birth of understanding and practice. The lower fascicle of the Wujiao says: "Moreover, he was able in a single thought-moment to transform ineffably ineffable sentient beings, all at once causing them to reach the stage before the defilement-free samādhi, and in all remaining thought-moments it was likewise; up to, this is the aspect of practice within the stage of understanding and practice among the preceding three births." A birth of delimited existence pertains generally to seeing and hearing and so on; hence it is not this birth. Question: Why is this boy named Samantālaṃkāra (Pu Zhuangyan)? Answer: Virtue pervading the dharmadhātu is called 'samanta' (pu, universal); universal virtue mutually adorning is 'alaṃkāra' (zhuangyan, adornment). Adornment of the universal, the universal being the adornment; the boy of universal adornment, the boy who is universal adornment. The new translation names him Prince Mahāprabhāvabhāsa (Da Weiguang); in this present translation, the prince is named Puṇyābhyudgata (Gongde Sheng). The present boy is the third prince; the two commentaries offer no explanation, and other texts should be examined. The father king and crown prince correspond to the share of merit, while this boy corresponds to the share of wisdom; hence he is a vessel for the Way. Question: Why is this prince called the son of a wheel-turning king of world-natures? Answer: The third fascicle of the Commentary says: "World-nature here means accumulating worlds to form a nature. Accumulating natures to form an ocean and so forth, as explained in the Zhilun cited above. Furthermore, below this text, within a world-ocean there is a world-nature, within a world-nature there is a world, and so on; hence we know they are formed by accumulation." Why is it called a 'nature'? There are two meanings: First, looking back to the preceding worlds, it gathers the various kinds and condenses them to form a nature, just as prolonged habituation forms a nature; second, looking forward to the ocean and so forth, it functions as a cause; hence it may also be named a 'nature'. Question: If accumulating worlds forms a nature, worlds also have the meaning of being a cause; why are they not called a nature? Answer: Because they lack interfused consolidation; they lack the first meaning. Question: As for the oceans among the ten worlds, looking forward, they also accumulate to form other worlds; why are they not called natures? Answer: The initial accumulated condensation already obtained the name 'nature'; subsequently, opening different meanings, distinct designations were established in turn; hence they are not named natures. The Zhilun cited above says: "If we rely on the Final Teaching, as in the Zhilun, taking a great trichiliocosm as one unit of count, counting up to Ganges sands makes one world-nature; counting these natures again up to Ganges sands makes one world-ocean; counting these again up to Ganges sands makes one world-seed; counting these again up to immeasurable Ganges sands makes the scope of conversion of one Buddha-world." It also says: "Outside the trichiliocosm, there are separately the ten world-nature-ocean wheel-circle divisions, spinning lotus-filament marks; these correspond to the realm of a wheel-turning king with ten thousand sons or more." Question: How does this boy Samantālaṃkāra correspond to the son of a wheel-turning king with ten thousand sons or more? Answer: The sūtra text has already said twenty-five thousand sons; thus we know he is the son of a wheel-turning king with ten thousand sons or more. The third fascicle of the Kanding ji has two explanations: The first says: "Regarding the statement that there were five hundred princes, while another version says twenty-five thousand, examining the Yingluo jing, a gold wheel-turning king has one thousand spokes/sons, up to a bodhisattva of the tenth stage having twenty thousand sons. The explanation says: A bodhisattva of the tenth stage also manifests as a king, but would not have twenty-five thousand. I consider: Xijian was a ruler, and before seeing the Buddha Pāramitā-subocana, had not yet reached the second stage; I fear twenty-five thousand is an error." The second says: "Explained according to teachings, they differ; in principle there is no fault." Now we say: The latter accords with the root commentary, reconciling the former explanation's contradiction with the text by stating that that sūtra was according to the Three Vehicles. The Commentary says: "Question: In the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], all wheel-turning kings definitely have one thousand sons, neither increasing nor decreasing; why in this sūtra is it different? Answer: That refers to a wheel-turning king ruling the four continents, spoken according to the Three Vehicles; this refers to a wheel-turning king ruling world-natures, and therefore is broader and more subtle than that. Like the pure white Brahmā net and so on, produced by the merit of a wheel-turning king of Ganges sands; this is according to the One Vehicle, hence the statements are not the same." Now, I personally consider: What is stated in the sūtra and the root commentary is exceedingly reasonable. Why? As for the number of wives, both the new and old translations say thirty-seven thousand, and they also agree that human lifespan was two minor kalpas. Regarding 'minor kalpa', Kuiji's Commentary on the Lotus Sūtra, fascicle 2, says: "Taking days, months, years, and so forth as a kalpa, it is called minor." Venerable Wonhyo's 'Meaning of Kalpa' says: "The Dālun states: Immeasurable seasons, periods, and years are called a minor kalpa." Having dwelt for so long among more than thirty thousand wives, how could he not have more than twenty thousand sons? Therefore, we know this is completely different from a wheel-turning king appearing in the world when the human lifespan is eighty thousand years in the Three Vehicles. Someone asks: At what stage does the second, the Tuṣita devaputra, attain Buddhahood? Answer: