念佛三昧寶王論 3.25

3.25

問曰：「華者事也，理在何焉？信之與毀，交報在何？」對曰：「華即理也，色即空也。信之報者，《悲華經》云：『昔有王子，名無所畏，手持蓮華，上寶藏佛。佛言：「汝以蓮華，印於虛空，今與汝號，名虛空印，當來成佛，世界名蓮華，佛號蓮華尊，汝是也。」』國土及佛，皆約昔日所獻蓮華而為號者，欲令明識行因感果之義也。何乃沮檀度之獻華，而欲別遵之無相哉？毀之報者，《大方廣總持經》說：『昔有一比丘名淨命，住於正見，持華供養；又一比丘名法行，住於邪見，坐得四禪，常說空宗般若最勝，謗淨命法師云：「淨命所受諸華，不持供養，而自受用。」坐此一言，於六萬世，常無舌根，乃至成佛，猶居五濁。彼何人耶？即釋迦是也。佛言：「少聞之人，於我法中，作二說者，命終之後，隨於地獄，多百千劫。若以惡眼，視發菩提心人，得無眼報；以惡口，謗發菩提心人，得無舌報。」』若唯修一般若波羅蜜得菩薩者，往昔迦尸迦王行菩薩行，時捨所愛身頭、目、髓、腦。爾時此王豈無智慧哉？則知六波羅蜜應具足修，執一非餘，是為魔業。安得棄獻華之檀波羅蜜，而以惡取空，僭易於般若真無相哉？無舌之報，自貽伊咎。如來所以自引昔非，欲令眾生不覆車於前轍耳。一華若此，一切土、木形像，竹、帛諸經，剃髮僧、尼，住持三寶，戒定慧學，無論福田及非福田，悉可敬之，一切皆入真實三業供法界海中，有何不可？而欲略之哉！《法華偈》云：

A question asks: "Flowers are phenomena; where is the principle in them? Where lies the reciprocal retribution of having faith versus slandering?" I replied: "Flowers are themselves the principle; form is itself emptiness. Regarding the retribution of faith, the Karuṇāpuṇḍarīka Sūtra says: 'Long ago, there was a prince named Abhaya, who held a lotus flower in his hands and offered it to Ratnagarbha Buddha. The Buddha said: "Because you have imprinted the lotus flower upon empty space, I now grant you the name Ākāśamudrā. When you become a buddha in the future, your realm will be named Padmā, and your buddha name will be Padmottama—you are that one."' Both the land and the buddha were named according to the lotus flower offered in the past, in order to make clearly understood the principle that practicing the cause produces the fruit. Why then discourage the presentation of flowers of the dāna-pāramitā, wishing instead to adhere separately to signlessness? Regarding the retribution of slander, the Mahāvaipulya Dhāraṇī Sūtra states: 'Long ago there was a monk named Śuddhamati who abode in right view and held flowers in offering; there was another monk named Dharmācāra who abode in wrong view, had attained the four dhyānas through sitting, and constantly claimed that the emptiness doctrine of prajñā was supreme. He slandered the Dharma Master Śuddhamati, saying: "The flowers Śuddhamati receives are not used for offerings, but for his own enjoyment." Due to this single remark, for sixty thousand lifetimes he was constantly devoid of the tongue-faculty, and even upon attaining buddhahood he still resided in the five corruptions.' Who was that person? It was Śākyamuni himself! The Buddha said: 'People of little learning who make two different assertions within my Dharma will, after death, fall into hell for many hundreds of thousands of kalpas. If with evil eyes one looks upon a person who has given rise to the bodhicitta, one will receive the retribution of having no eyes; if with an evil mouth one slanders a person who has given rise to the bodhicitta, one will receive the retribution of having no tongue.' If one could become a bodhisattva merely by cultivating the single prajñāpāramitā, then when in the past King Kāśi practiced the bodhisattva conduct, he relinquished his beloved body, head, eyes, marrow, and brain. At that time, did this king lack wisdom? Thus we know that the six pāramitās should all be fully cultivated; to grasp one and reject the rest is māra's work. How could one cast aside the dāna-pāramitā of offering flowers, and through an ill-conceived grasp of emptiness arrogantly despise the true signlessness of prajñā? The retribution of having no tongue brings calamity upon oneself. The Tathāgata cited his own past fault precisely because he wished sentient beings not to overturn their carts in the same old ruts. A single flower being like this, so too with all images of clay and wood, sūtras on bamboo and silk, tonsured monks and nuns, the presiding Triple Jewel, and the trainings in morality, calm, and discernment—regardless of whether they are fields of merit or not, all are worthy of veneration. For all to enter the ocean of offerings to the dharmadhātu through the true three karmas—what could be objectionable about this? Why should one wish to omit it? The Saddharmapuṇḍarīka verse says: