翻譯名義集 7.139.3

7.139.3

余觀先德破同體權，一、迷立喻，二、昧開權。 初、迷立喻者，為蓮故華。 如大師云：「為十妙故，開出十麁。 」如為蓮故華，此約法體，用在於昔，皆屬麁法。 云何一概以為蓮故華？ 俱喻妙法，乃見能譬，立喻淆混。 其次、所況為實施權，始自《華嚴》，終乎《般若》，皆是隔歷三諦，俱為《法華》之實，而施四時三教之權，故名為實施權。 若獨以此句，喻《無量義經》，則彰所喻，法缺略矣。 二、昧開權者，四時三教，體外化他，機未純淑，覆權言實，故非究竟，屬異體麁。 至今方指昔未真實，執教偏情既遣，即知當體本妙。 開此化他之法，全是自行之權。 權實不二，乃名同體。 故祖師云：「既顯實已，全權是實，不可謂之權非究竟。 」況祖師云：「誰肯以三界有漏識心，而為佛所稱讚。 既佛所讚，安非所顯。 」次定所顯者，南屏一宗，皆謂世尊疇昔久轉法輪，所化之機既雜，所施之教不一。 雖說三教，不言此是即實之權； 雖演圓乘，未云斯是即權之實。 權實各逗，大小相隔，是故昔教名異體權。 後會靈山，宣妙《法華》，開昔隱祕之法，為今微妙之教，權實圓融，故名同體。 法既麁妙相即，佛化事理俱圓。 若為所破，乃成開妙。 故記文云：「第三釋者，即開前二，非能非所，及以能通，並開成所。 」可證祕妙，非所開矣！ 其如蓮華三喻，《輔行》等文，復有五師，消釋義異：一云對論、自論有殊。 若約偏圓相對，異體是所破，同體是所顯。 例前三教三惑須斷，圓教三惑不斷。 就圓自論，須斷四十二品。 故同體權，亦屬所破。 今謂偏圓對論，前三名權，圓教屬實，那得對論？ 却以圓教名同體權，不須破耶？ 又今開權顯實，開偏是圓，正當偏圓對論，反以蓮華三喻，謂之圓教自論，破同體權，却顯今經都無開權之力乎？ 二云機情佛意。 機情雖開異體，佛意即是同體。 今謂誇節唯在今經，佛意非適今也。 據此祖意，對機開顯，雖局《法華》，原佛密意，俱遍四時。 是則機情佛意，正約昔說。 若約昔義，以斷今經，其猶欲至湖南，面行塞北，其心雖切，路愈遠矣。 三云法本自妙，麁由物情。 雖開異體之權，其實法體本自微妙，即是同體。 今謂如記主云：「但開其情，理自復本。 」又云：「開何所開？ 即彼能覆。 」既但破能覆之情，奚嘗開所迷之法？ 四云約開竟說，以《輔行》解同體之權髻，既點迹門流通之經，此約已開異體，成同體竟。 今謂〈安樂行品〉，文雖在後，喻乃顯前。 特點正宗，開麁顯妙，斯言無旨，徒虛語耳。 五云同體為所開者，意彰異體亦不可破。 此語孟浪，吾驚怖其言，猶河漢而無極也。 今覈昔人，由昧山家諸部文義，致論開權，詞繁理寡。 今鱗比諸文，令氷解凍釋，殊塗同歸。 初釋喻，舊辨蓮華，或專喻妙，或兼比麁（餘華對辨，則蓮華俱妙。 就蓮自分，華亦兼麤）。 今究所喻既有權實，乃顯能喻亦通麁妙。 今先分所喻權實，後辨能喻麁妙。 分權實者，提挈綱要，大有五義：一、因果，二、九一，三、今昔，四、真俗，五、本迹。 初，因果分者。 以十界中，前七如是屬因，是權； 果報二如是為實。 二，九一分權實。 《妙玄》云：「餘華麁，喻九法界十如是因果。 此華妙，喻佛法界十如是因果。 」三，約今昔分者。 以昔為權，將今為實。 故《妙玄》云：「一為蓮故華，譬為實施權； 雖說種種道，其實為佛乘。 」四，約真俗分者。 空智照真為實，假智照俗為權，中智雙照為亦權亦實，中道雙亡為非權非實。 故妙樂云：「以對昔故，須為四句。 通論大綱，法相雖爾，別論今品，唯在第三，亦權一半，名〈方便品〉。 」五，約本迹分者。 如私序云：「指久遠之本果，喻之以蓮； 會不二之圓道，譬之以華。 」權實雖通五義，今唯約界，及與部教，以論開權矣。

I observe that when past worthy masters refuted the expedient [means] of identical essence, they first were confused about establishing the metaphors, and second were ignorant regarding the opening of the expedient. First, as for their confusion about establishing the metaphors: [regarding] 'the blossom for the sake of the lotus'—as the Great Master said, 'For the sake of the ten subtleties, he unfolded the ten coarsenesses.' If [we take] 'the blossom for the sake of the lotus' as referring to the essence of dharmas, their application lay in the past, and so they all pertain to coarse dharmas. How could one indiscriminately take 'the blossom for the sake of the lotus' as entirely metaphorical of the subtle Dharma? This shows that the metaphorical vehicle and the establishment of the metaphors were muddled. Next, regarding the illustrated [meaning], 'for the sake of the real applying the expedient': from the Avataṃsaka at the beginning to the Prajñā at the end, these all involve the gradual separation of the three truths; all are for the sake of the real of the Lotus Sūtra, applying the expedients of the four periods and three teachings, hence called 'for the sake of the real applying the expedient.' If one solely uses this phrase to serve as a metaphor for the Sūtra of Immeasurable Meanings, then it reveals that the illustrated dharma is incomplete. Second, as for their being ignorant regarding the opening of the expedient: the four periods and three teachings are external to the essence and transform others; because the capacities were not yet pure and mature, [the Buddha] concealed the real to speak the expedient, so they were not ultimate and belonged to the coarse of different essence. Only now does [the Sūtra] point out that the past was not yet the real; once the biased sentiments clinging to the teachings are eliminated, one immediately knows that the inherent essence is originally subtle. When this dharma of transforming others is opened, it is entirely the expedient of his own practice. The non-duality of the expedient and the real is what is called 'identical essence.' Therefore, the ancestral master said: 'Once the real has been revealed, the entirety of the expedient is the real; one cannot say that the expedient is not ultimate.' Moreover, the ancestral master said: 'Who would be willing to regard the conditioned mental consciousness of the three realms as praised by the Buddha? Since it is praised by the Buddha, how could it not be what is revealed?' Next, regarding determining what is revealed: the entire lineage of Nanping holds that in the past the Bhagavat turned the wheel of Dharma for a long time; since the capacities to be transformed were mixed, the teachings applied were not uniform. Although he expounded the three teachings, he did not say that these are expedients identical with the real; although he expounded the complete vehicle, he did not say that this is the real identical with the expedient. Expedient and real each accommodated [different listeners], and the Great and Small were separated; therefore, the former teachings are called expedients of different essence. Later, convening on Vulture Peak, he proclaimed the subtle Lotus Sūtra, opening the former hidden dharmas to make them the present subtle teachings, with expedient and real harmoniously integrated; hence it is called identical essence. Since the coarse and subtle dharmas are mutually identical, the Buddha's transforming activities in both phenomena and principle are complete. If it were that which is refuted, it would then constitute the opening of the subtle. Therefore, the commentary states: 'The third interpretation opens the previous two; neither the active nor the passive, as well as the active passage, are all opened to become the passive.' This can prove that the secret and subtle is not that which is opened! As for the three metaphors of the lotus blossom, in texts such as the Fuxing, there are moreover five masters whose interpretations of the meaning differ: The first says there is a difference between relative discussion and self-referential discussion. If considered in terms of the relative comparison between the biased and the complete, the different essence is what is refuted, and the identical essence is what is revealed. By analogy with the previous three teachings, the three delusions must be severed, whereas in the complete teaching the three delusions are not severed. In terms of the complete [teaching's] self-referential discussion, one must sever forty-two grades [of ignorance]. Therefore, the expedient of identical essence also belongs to what is refuted. Now I say: in the relative discussion of the biased and the complete, the former three are called expedient and the complete teaching belongs to the real; how could there be a relative discussion? Rather, can the complete teaching be termed an expedient of identical essence that does not need to be refuted? Furthermore, now opening the expedient and revealing the real, opening the biased to reveal the complete, is precisely the relative discussion of the biased and the complete; yet on the contrary, taking the three metaphors of the lotus blossom as the self-referential discussion of the complete teaching and refuting the expedient of identical essence—does that not instead manifest that the present sūtra has no power to open the expedient at all? The second says: the sentiment of the capacities and the Buddha's intention. Although the sentiment of the capacities opens the different essence, the Buddha's intention is itself the identical essence. Now I say: the distinctive excellence belongs solely to the present sūtra; the Buddha's intention did not begin only now. According to this ancestral meaning, although opening and revealing according to the capacities is confined to the Lotus Sūtra, the Buddha's original secret intention pervaded all four periods. Thus, the sentiment of the capacities and the Buddha's intention are spoken precisely with reference to the past. If one relies on the past meaning to judge the present sūtra, it is like wishing to reach Hunan while facing toward and walking to the northern border: though one's mind is earnest, the road becomes ever more distant. The third says: the Dharma is originally subtle in itself; coarseness arises from the sentiment of sentient beings. Although opening the expedient of different essence, in fact the essence of the Dharma is originally subtle in itself, which is just the identical essence. Now I say: as the author of the commentary states, 'Merely open their sentiments, and the principle will naturally return to the origin.' And it also says, 'What is opened? That very thing which is capable of concealing.' Since he merely refutes the sentiment that is capable of concealing, how could he have ever opened the dharma that is the object of delusion? The fourth says: speaking with reference to what has already been opened; because the Fuxing interprets the topknot of the expedient of identical essence as already indicating the sūtra's trace gate of dissemination, this is spoken with reference to having already opened the different essence and completed the identical essence. Now I say: although the text of the 'Chapter on Peaceful Practices' comes later, the metaphor manifests earlier. It specifically points to the main body of the sūtra to open the coarse and reveal the subtle; these words lack a proper principle and are merely empty talk. The fifth says: the identical essence is what is opened, the intent being to reveal that the different essence also cannot be refuted. This statement is reckless; I am astonished and frightened by his words, which are boundless like the Milky Way. Now examining past masters: because they were ignorant of the meanings in the various texts of our Tiantai school, their discussions on opening the expedient have resulted in verbose words and scarce principle. Now I will arrange the various texts consecutively so as to resolve doubts like melting ice, bringing different paths to the same destination. First, explaining the metaphor: in ancient analyses of the lotus blossom, some exclusively used it as a metaphor for the subtle, while others also compared it to the coarse. (When compared with other flowers, the lotus blossom is entirely subtle; when distinguished within the lotus itself, the blossom also partakes of the coarse.) Now, examining what is illustrated, since it contains both the expedient and the real, it shows that the metaphorical vehicle also extends to both coarse and subtle. Now I shall first divide the expedient and the real of what is illustrated, and afterward distinguish the coarse and subtle of the metaphorical vehicle. In dividing the expedient and the real, grasping the key essentials, there are broadly five meanings: 1. cause and effect; 2. nine and one; 3. present and past; 4. ultimate and conventional; 5. original and trace. First, dividing by cause and effect: among the ten realms, the first seven 'suchnesses' belong to cause and are the expedient; the two 'suchnesses' of retributive effect are the real. Second, dividing expedient and real by nine and one: the Miaoxuan says, 'Other flowers, being coarse, serve as metaphors for the cause and effect of the ten suchnesses in the nine realms of existence. This flower, being subtle, serves as a metaphor for the cause and effect of the ten suchnesses in the Buddha realm.' Third, dividing according to present and past: taking the past as the expedient and taking the present as the real. Therefore, the Miaoxuan says, 'First,