[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [翻譯名義集](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131) › 7.139 # 翻譯名義集 7.139 翻譯名義集 7.139 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [7.139.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131.7.139.1) 【方便】什曰：「智度雖以明照為體，成濟萬行，比其功用，不及方便為父。 梵音中有父義。 方便有二種：一、解深空而不取相受證，二、以實相理深莫能信受。 要須方便誘引群生，令其漸悟，方便義深而功重，故為父也。 」《淨名疏》云：「方是智所詣之偏法，便是菩薩權巧用之能。 巧用諸法，隨機利物，故云方便。 」荊溪云：「《法華疏》中，為顯實故，分為三釋：謂法用、及門、并祕妙也。 今此廢二，但取法用者，門論趣入，祕妙開權。 今未開權，故缺後釋。 不取門者，菩薩可入，二乘缺之。 於菩薩中，且約當分，復置傳入，故且不云，據理亦合。 用門一意以當分入，與法用同，故且唯用。 法用一意又通祕教，亦可具足用彼三意，論《法華．方便品》。 」儒詩六義，以思無邪為指歸。 釋教五時，開佛知見是究竟。 誠一化之高會，真諸佛之宗極，似太虛而含眾色，若渤澥以納群流。 由是管窺義天，䗍酌法海，粗研味乎真詮，豈塵露于達士。 初辨品題，次論品義。 初辨品題者，經云：「諸佛法久後，要當說真實。 」文既屏其方便，題應號為真實，安以權名而立今品？ 如將縣額以牓州門。 又佛起定，即自唱言：「諸佛智慧，甚深無量。 」此乃雙歎權實。 先達遂云：「此華不有則已，有則華果雙含； 此經不說則已，說則權實雙辨。 」經既雙明權實，題那單標方便？ 由此疑興，先達相繼，共立七義，以伸題意。 一，權有顯實之功。 法王初化，機緣未熟，隱實施權，權掩於實。 靈山妙唱，普會權乘，決了聲聞法，是諸經之王。 彼祕被開，於今成妙，此權既有顯實之功，故結集家號〈善權品〉。 二，名偏義圓。 若標真實，則違方便。 今品權名雖偏，其實法體圓具，乃彰權實之雙美。 三，名體俱不轉。 此有四句：一名轉體不轉，如云正直捨方便，但說無上道。 乃至第四，名體俱不轉，如云我等今者真是聲聞。 名不轉故，名〈方便品〉。 四，顯開權絕待。 《法華》開權顯實，權外無實。 法用能通，當體祕妙。 若標真實，但成相待，為彰絕待之功，號〈方便品〉。 五，彰詮迷之教。 祖云：自非今經，誰肯歎此詮迷之教？ 由指迷染之心，即是自行方便。 則知此權，大有詮迷之力。 六，施開一致。 昔時所施，既施即實之權。 今日所開，還開權即是實，乃見施開之不二也。 七，揀異昔經。 《淨名》報恩，雖皆立方便之名，既是體外之權，豈同今品同體方便。 自昔所說，不出此七。 先師謂舊觀縷，義失至當。 自立附文、原意二義，以伸品題：一、附文者，經家立品附文旨趣，總別須分。 何哉？ 五字首題，法則權實總標，喻乃華果雙舉。 所以三周開顯本迹二門，一部之文，並皆不出權實之法。 今品若更雙立權實之目，則與總題無異。 二、原意者，言者所以在意，此經開權顯實，意在於權。 故云過去諸佛，以無數方便，種種因緣，種種譬喻，而為眾生演說諸法，是法皆為一佛乘故。 非權無以明實，故令機緣，即於權法以曉真實，故曰不指所開，無由說實，具述施權，意在開也。 故記主釋開方便，門示真實相云。 示，謂指示，指其見實之處。 且見實之處在何？ 在前偏權方便。 今日說此方便有真實相，此既即實之方便，乃異昔經之方便，故得祕妙之名。 是故經家題名方便。 纔言方便，即是真實。 故身子疑云：「何故殷勤稱歎方便？ 」則知方便，真開權之總號，誠顯實之大名矣！ 或者問曰：「今由開權稱方便者，《淨名》既未開權，安稱方便？ 既稱方便，權何不開？ 」答：「彼經言方便者，疏云：『此品正明助佛闡揚，善巧權謀，隨機利物，令入慧起根，故名方便。 雖言方便，機緣當座，烏知所證，亦方便焉。 』故昔方便之名，權未開矣。 > \[Expedient Means (upāya)\] \[Kumāra\]jīva said: "Although the perfection of wisdom has clear illumination as its essence and accomplishes the myriad practices, when comparing its function, it does not equal expedient means as the father. In the Sanskrit sound, it contains the meaning of 'father.' There are two kinds of expedient means: first, understanding profound emptiness without grasping at marks to realize realization; second, because the principle of the real mark is profound and none can believe and accept it, one must rely on expedient means to entice and guide the multitude of living beings, causing them to awaken gradually. Because the meaning of expedient means is profound and its merit weighty, it is the father." The Commentary on the Vimalakīrti says: "'Expedient' (fang) is the partial phenomenon to which wisdom arrives; 'means' (bian) is the bodhisattva's ability to skillfully apply it. Skillfully employing all phenomena to benefit beings according to their capacities is therefore called expedient means (fangbian)." Jingxi said: "In the Commentary on the Lotus Sūtra, in order to reveal the real, it is divided into three explanations: namely, as dharmic function, as a portal, and as secret and wonderful. Now, setting aside the two and taking only dharmic function: the portal discusses entering into, and secret-and-wonderful opens the provisional. Since the provisional has not yet been opened here, the latter explanation is omitted. The portal is not taken because bodhisattvas can enter it, while the two vehicles lack it. Among bodhisattvas, taking it provisionally according to their proper station, indirect entry is further set aside, so it is not spoken of for now, though based on principle it also accords. Using the single meaning of portal to enter according to one's proper station is identical to dharmic function, so for now only \[dharmic function\] is used. The single meaning of dharmic function also penetrates the secret teaching; one can also fully use those three meanings to discuss the 'Expedient Means' chapter of the Lotus Sūtra." The six principles of Confucian poetry take 'having no depraved thoughts' as their guiding aim. The five periods of the Buddhist teaching take 'opening the Buddha's knowledge and vision' as the ultimate. Truly, it is the exalted assembly of an entire teaching, the genuine supreme ultimate of all Buddhas: like empty space embracing all colors, like the vast sea receiving the myriad streams. Therefore, peeping at the heaven of principle through a tube, ladling the ocean of Dharma with a snail shell, I have roughly savored the true exposition; how could it merely be dust and dew to an attained master? First, we distinguish the chapter title, and next, we discuss the chapter's meaning. First, distinguishing the chapter title: the sūtra says, 'After a long time, the Buddhas' Dharma must certainly state the truth.' Since the text dispenses with expedient means, the title should be named 'The Real'; why establish the present chapter under a provisional name? It is like hanging a county plaque over the gate of a prefecture. Furthermore, when the Buddha arose from samādhi, he proclaimed of himself: 'The wisdom of the Buddhas is extremely profound and measureless.' This praises both the provisional and the real together. Preceding masters then said: 'If this flower does not exist, that is all; but if it exists, flower and fruit are both contained. If this sūtra is not preached, that is all; but if it is preached, both provisional and real are distinguished together.' Since the sūtra clarifies both the provisional and the real together, why should the title single out 'Expedient Means' alone? From this doubt arose, and preceding masters in succession collectively established seven meanings to unfold the intention of the title. First, the provisional has the merit of revealing the real. When the King of the Dharma first taught, the conditions and capacities were not yet mature; he concealed the real and applied the provisional, the provisional obscuring the real. In the wonderful proclamation at Vulture Peak, he universally gathered the provisional vehicles, definitively settling the śrāvaka Dharma as the king of all sūtras. That secret having been opened, it becomes wonderful today. Since this provisional has the merit of revealing the real, the compilers named it the 'Good Expedients Chapter.' Second, the name is partial while the meaning is complete. If 'The Real' were designated, it would contradict expedient means. Although the provisional name of the present chapter is partial, its real dharmic essence is completely equipped, thus manifesting the mutual beauty of the provisional and the real. Third, neither the name nor the essence changes. Here there are four propositions: the first is that the name changes while the essence does not change, as in 'honestly casting aside expedient means, speaking only of the unsurpassed path'; down to the fourth, where neither the name nor the essence changes, as in 'we now are true śrāvakas.' Because the name does not change, it is named the 'Expedient Means Chapter.' Fourth, manifesting the opening of the provisional as non-dual. The Lotus Sūtra opens the provisional and reveals the real; outside the provisional there is no real. Dharmic function can penetrate, and its essence itself is secret and wonderful. If it were designated 'The Real,' it would only constitute relative opposition; to manifest the merit of the non-relative, it is titled the 'Expedient Means Chapter.' Fifth, manifesting the teaching that expounds delusion. The Ancestor said: 'Were it not for this sūtra, who would deign to praise this teaching that expounds delusion?' Because pointing out the deluded and defiled mind is itself the expedient means of one's own practice, one knows that this provisional has great power to expound delusion. Sixth, application and opening are identical. What was applied in the past was an expedient that is itself the real. What is opened today is opening the expedient as being none other than the real; thus one sees the non-duality of application and opening. Seventh, distinguishing it from past sūtras. Although the Vimalakīrti and the Repaying of Kindness both establish the name of 'expedient means,' since they are provisionals external to the essence, how could they compare with the identical-essence expedient means of the present chapter? What has been spoken of since old does not go beyond these seven. The former master considered that former views were excessively entangled and missed the mark. He independently established two meanings—'conforming to the text' and 'tracing the intention'—to unfold the chapter title: First, 'conforming to the text': when the compilers established the chapters conforming to the text, the general and the specific had to be distinguished. Why? In the five-character title, the Dharma generally designates the provisional and the real, while the metaphor brings up both flower and fruit. Therefore, throughout the three turnings opening and revealing the two gates of origin and trace, the entirety of the text does not go beyond the phenomena of the provisional and the real. If the present chapter were also to establish both headings of provisional and real, it would not differ from the general title. Second, 'tracing the intention': words exist for the sake of the intention. This sūtra opens the provisional and reveals the real, and its intention lies in the provisional. Thus it says that the past Buddhas, through countless expedient means, various causes and conditions, and various parables, expounded all phenomena for living beings, because these phenomena are all for the sake of the One Buddha Vehicle. Without the provisional, there is no way to illuminate the real; hence he causes capacities to understand the real precisely through provisional phenomena. Therefore it is said: without pointing to what is opened, there is no reason to speak of the real; by fully relating the application of the provisional, the intention lies in opening it. Thus the author of the commentary, explaining 'opening the portal of expedient means to show the aspect of the real,' says: 'To show' means to point out, pointing out the place where one sees the real. And where is the place where one sees the real? It is in the previously partial, provisional expedient means. Today, stating that these expedient means possess the real aspect, since these are expedient means that are themselves the real, they are distinct from the expedient means of past sūtras, and therefore receive the name of secret and wonderful. For this reason the compilers titled it 'Expedient Means.' The moment one speaks of 'expedient means,' it is itself 'the real.' Thus Śāriputra doubted: 'For what reason do you earnestly praise expedient means?' One knows from this that 'expedient means' is truly the general designation for opening the provisional, and truly the great name for revealing the real! Someone may ask: 'If it is called expedient means now because of opening the provisional, since the Vimalakīrti had not yet opened the provisional, why was it called expedient means? And since it was called expedient means, why was the provisional not opened?' The answer is: 'Regarding the mention of expedient means in that sūtra, the commentary states: "This chapter properly clarifies aiding the Buddha in proclamation, skillful expedients, and benefiting beings according to their capacities, causing them to enter wisdom and give rise to roots; hence it is called expedient means. Although it speaks of expedient means, how could the capacities present in the assembly know what they realized to also be expedient means?" Therefore, in the past name of expedient means, the provisional had not yet been opened.' > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ### [7.139.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131.7.139.2) 」次論品義者，吾祖預釋品題，乃立法用、能通、祕妙三種方便，今先通示，然後別解。 且通示者，此三方便，初二從昔教，後一屬今經。 初名法用者，疏曰：「方者，法也； 便者，用也。 法有方圓，用有差會。 三權是矩是方，一實是規是圓。 」記云：「初約能用三教得名，法是所用，用是能用，雖法之與用，俱通四教，但有方圓差會之殊，故方便之稱，從權立名。 權不即實，故對昔辨，成體外權，非今品意。 文中舉圓，即屬真實，相對來耳。 」二名能通者，疏云：「又方便者，門也。 門名能通，通於所通。 方便權略，皆是弄引，為真實作門，真實得顯，功由方便，從能顯得名。 」記曰：「次第二釋，權屬能通，三教亦得名為方便。 然雖不即以能為圓，作遠詮故，所詮之圓，亦帶能詮為方便故。 故知並非今品意也。 」又云：「今以三詮一，三為一實作詮，故三名能詮，是則前之三教，教行人理，悉為能詮。 」又云：「不破不即，從權入實，故得修名。 若於爾前，二味三教，利根菩薩，有顯露得； 兩教二乘，唯祕密得。 由得入故，即稱為門。 」三名祕妙者，疏云：「方者，祕也； 便者，妙也。 妙達於方，即是真祕。 點內衣裏無價之珠，與王頂上唯有一珠，無二無別； 指客作人是長者子，亦無二無別。 如斯之言，是祕是妙。 如經：『唯我知是相，十方佛亦然，止止不須說，我法妙難思。 』故以祕釋方，以妙釋便，正是今品之意。 」記云：「至第三釋，方乃三權，即是一實。 指此即實之權，方名今經方便。 」又云：「第三釋者，即今品意。 但前二釋，於昔但得名偏名門，祕而不說。 今開其偏門，即圓所也，故云祕妙。 顯露彰灼，故云真祕。 」或問：「妙樂記云：『即權而實，為所依體； 即實而權，為當體體。 』不審第三祕妙之名，為從所依立號？ 為從當體得名？ 」答：「此由當體，即所依體，故云彼祕被開，於今成妙。 又云：『第三文者，亦開前二，非能非所。 及以能通，並開成所。 所中善巧，名為方便。 』故妙方便，異於方法，及能通門。 又云：『故隔偏之圓，亦有體內方便，故名祕妙。 』祕妙之名，似同第三，然其意則別。 何者？ 第三乃以開顯為妙，此中乃以獨圓為妙。 此揀今昔，祕妙義異。 諦思吾祖，崇建三釋，若無初二，豈彰為蓮？ 故華以施權，苟缺第三，烏顯華開蓮現而顯實。 體遍一化，妙彰七軸。 非發總持，誰唱斯義？ 鑽仰堅高，嗟歎不足。 」次別釋者，若約部教，初二屬昔教，法用能通，皆異體權。 後一屬今經，祕妙方便，名同體權。 定此祕妙方便破顯之相。 先德彝訓，或定為所破，或執是所顯。 天竺一宗，論同體權，定為所破。 一據蓮華開喻，原佛出世，意為顯實。 由機未堪，權施昔教，此譬桃李華也。 及至《法華》，法既純圓絕妙，遂指蓮華而立三喻：一、為蓮故華，譬為實施權。 蓋四時未說施權，此名異體。 今《無量義》既言「從一清淨道，施出二三四」，收昔異體，為今同體。 權既從實而施，故譬為蓮故華。 第二、華開蓮現，此開初句之權華，乃顯次句之蓮實。 故〈五佛章〉中，各有開權、顯實二科。 開權是文敘昔教，以為顯實之所。 故《無量義經》之同體，為今《法華》之所破。 第三、華落蓮成，此譬廢權立實。 都廢序分即實之權，獨立正宗即權之實。 次憑權暫用義，權名權暫，用已還廢； 實名實錄，究竟指歸。 則知十隻之權，皆為所破。 如心意識既是事權，豈屬所顯矣！ 三、準祖師定解，如《輔行》云：「解同體之權髻，與實相之明珠。 」又《義例》云：「如引《法華》，部唯一實。 文敘昔教，以為所開。 」既云部唯一實，故同體權，為所破也（近人又謂：從名雖開，從義不開，如圓家破即法性之無明，例今品開即實之權耳）。 > Next, discussing the chapter's meaning: our patriarch, in explaining the chapter title beforehand, established three kinds of skill-in-means (upāya): method and function, ability to lead through, and secret and wonderful. Now, I shall first explain them generally and then explain them separately. First, regarding the general explanation: among these three kinds of skill-in-means, the first two pertain to the past teachings, and the latter one belongs to the present sūtra. The first is called 'method and function' (fǎyòng). The Commentary states: '"Method" (fāng) means standard (fǎ); "function" (biàn) means application (yòng). Standards have the square and the round; applications have variance and concordance. The three provisional \[teachings\] are the carpenter's square and what is square; the one real is the compass and what is round.' The Record says: 'First, it takes its name based on the three teachings that can be applied. Standard is that which is applied, and function is that which can apply. Although both standard and function pervade the four teachings, there are differences of square and round, variance and concordance; therefore, the title of skill-in-means is established from the provisional. Because the provisional is not identical to the real, when distinguished against the past, it constitutes external provisionality separate from the essence, which is not the intent of the present chapter. The mention of the round in the text simply belongs to the real, brought in by way of contrast.' The second is called 'ability to lead through' (néngtōng). The Commentary states: 'Furthermore, skill-in-means is an entrance (mén). An entrance is named for its ability to lead through, leading through to that which is reached. Provisionality and expedients are all inducements that serve as an entrance to the real; that the real is revealed is a merit derived from skill-in-means, so it is named after its ability to reveal.' The Record says: 'Next, in the second explanation, the provisional belongs to that which can lead through, and the three teachings can also be called skill-in-means. However, although it does not directly take what can \[lead through\] as the round, because it acts as a distant signifier, the round that is signified also carries the signifier as skill-in-means. Therefore, we know that neither is this the intent of the present chapter.' It also says: 'Now, using the three to signify the one, the three act as signifiers for the one real; thus, the three are named the signifiers. This means that the teachings, practices, persons, and principles of the former three teachings are all signifiers.' It also says: 'Neither destroying nor being identical, entering the real from the provisional, it thus obtains the name "cultivation". If before this, among the two flavors and three teachings, sharp-rooted bodhisattvas attained it overtly; the two vehicles of the two teachings attained it only secretly. Because they attained entry, it is called an entrance.' The third is called 'secret and wonderful' (mìmiào). The Commentary states: '"Method" (fāng) means secret (mì); "function" (biàn) means wonderful (miào). When the wonderful reaches the method, it is truly secret. Pointing out that the priceless jewel inside the inner garment is no different and no distinct from the single jewel upon the king's topknot; pointing out that the hired laborer is the elder's son is also no different and no distinct. Words such as these are secret and are wonderful. As the sūtra says: "Only I know this characteristic, / And so do the Buddhas of the ten directions. / Stop, stop! There is no need to speak; / My Dharma is wonderful and difficult to conceive." Therefore, explaining fāng as secret and biàn as wonderful is precisely the intent of the present chapter.' The Record says: 'Reaching the third explanation, the method is none other than the three provisionals being identical to the one real. Pointing to this provisional that is identical to the real is what is properly named skill-in-means in the present sūtra.' It also says: 'The third explanation is precisely the intent of the present chapter. However, in the first two explanations, in the past they could only be named the partial or named the entrance, kept secret and unspoken. Now, opening their partial entrance, it is identical to the locus of the round; thus it is called secret and wonderful. Openly displayed and brilliant, it is therefore called truly secret.' Someone asked: 'The Miaole ji states: "Being identical to the provisional yet real is the underlying essence; being identical to the real yet provisional is the essence of the thing itself." I do not know whether the third title of secret and wonderful is established from the underlying essence, or is named from the essence of the thing itself?' Answer: 'This is because the essence of the thing itself is identical to the underlying essence; hence it says that that secret having been opened, it becomes wonderful at present. It also says: "The third passage also opens the previous two, which are neither the agent nor the object. Together with the ability to lead through, they are both opened to become the object. The skillfulness within the object is named skill-in-means." Therefore, the wonderful skill-in-means is distinct from the method and the entrance that can lead through. It also says: "Therefore, the round that is separate from the partial also possesses internal skill-in-means, hence it is called secret and wonderful." The name secret and wonderful seems identical to the third, yet its meaning is distinct. Why? The third takes opening and revealing as wonderful, whereas here it takes the exclusively round as wonderful. This distinguishes between the present and the past; the meanings of secret and wonderful are different. Contemplating our patriarch's establishment of the three explanations: without the first two, how could the lotus flower be manifested? Thus, the flower is used to bestow the provisional; if the third were lacking, how could it be manifested that the flower opens, the lotus appears, and the real is revealed? The essence pervades the entire teaching of a lifetime; the wonder is displayed across the seven scrolls. Without awakening dhāraṇī, who could proclaim such a meaning? Drilling into it, looking up to its firmness and height, one can never sigh in praise enough!' Next, explaining separately: in terms of divisions and teachings, the first two belong to the past teachings; both method and function and the ability to lead through are external provisionals of different essence. The latter one belongs to the present sūtra; the secret and wonderful skill-in-means is called the internal provisional of identical essence. Determining the characteristics of refuting and revealing with regard to this secret and wonderful skill-in-means: the past masters' standard teachings either determined it to be that which is refuted, or held that it is that which is revealed. The Tianzhu lineage, discussing the provisional of identical essence, determined it to be that which is refuted. First, based on the metaphor of the opening of the lotus flower: originally, the Buddha's appearance in the world was intended to reveal the real. Because faculties were not yet ready, he provisionally bestowed the past teachings; this is compared to the peach and plum blossoms. Arriving at the Lotus Sūtra, since the Dharma is purely round and peerlessly wonderful, he then pointed to the lotus flower to establish three metaphors: First, flowering for the sake of the lotus, which illustrates bestowing the provisional for the sake of the real. For during the four periods, bestowing the provisional had not yet been spoken of; this is called different essence. Now that the Sūtra of Innumerable Meanings says, "From the single pure path, two, three, and four are bestowed," it gathers the past different essence into the present identical essence. Since the provisional is bestowed from the real, it is compared to flowering for the sake of the lotus. Second, the flower opens and the lotus appears; this opens the provisional flower of the first phrase and reveals the lotus fruit of the second phrase. Therefore, in the "Section on the Five Buddhas," each has the two headings of opening the provisional and revealing the real. Opening the provisional means the text relates the past teachings to serve as the locus for revealing the real. Therefore, the identical essence of the Sūtra of Innumerable Meanings is what is refuted by the present Lotus Sūtra. Third, the flowers fall and the lotus is formed; this illustrates discarding the provisional and establishing the real. It completely discards the provisional identical to the real of the introductory section, and independently establishes the real identical to the provisional of the main body. Next, relying on the meaning of provisional temporary use: "provisional" means temporary, to be discarded again after being used; "real" means true record, the ultimate point of return. Thus one knows that the ten pairs of provisionals are all that which is refuted. Just as the mind, intellect, and consciousness are phenomenal provisionals, how could they belong to that which is revealed! Third, based on the patriarch's definitive explanation, as the Fuxing says: "Untying the provisional topknot of identical essence, and \[revealing\] the bright pearl of the true mark." Also, the Yili says: "As when citing the Lotus Sūtra, the division has only the one real. The text relates the past teachings to serve as that which is opened." Since it says the division has only the one real, therefore the provisional of identical essence is that which is refuted (Modern people also say: though opened according to name, it is not opened according to meaning; just as the perfect school refutes the ignorance that is identical to dharmatā, this parallels the present chapter opening the provisional that is identical to the real). > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ### [7.139.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131.7.139.3) 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, > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ### [7.139.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131.7.139.4) 次明能喻麁妙者，《玄義》序乎蓮華：一、為蓮故華，譬為實施權； 二、華敷譬開權，蓮現譬顯實； 三、華落譬廢權，蓮成譬立實。 當歷三喻，引而伸之。 且夫蓮華之喻，唱出今經，本況妙法。 而天台以初為蓮故華一句，既譬為實施權。 約此法體，用在昔時，華喻麁法。 故《妙玄》云：「又諸教權實未融，為權； 既融開權顯實，為實。 」由昔赴機，權掩於實，乃云異體。 由是今經破此偏情，乃云：雖說種種道，其實為佛乘。 世尊既談為實施權，吾祖遂立為蓮故華之喻。 據此說，在今經纔唱為實施權，利根便知此權即實。 由《無量義》，曾聞此權從實生故，已破異體之見，但未開顯。 鈍根須假第二句，華敷譬開權，蓮現譬顯實。 故曰：開方便門，示真實相。 記主釋曰：「指實為權，權掩於實，名方便門閉。 今指權為實，於權見實，名方便門開。 」此點法用能通，俱成祕妙。 三、華落譬廢權，蓮成譬立實。 又云：正直捨方便，但說無上道。 此由四時三教，當體祕妙，開已無外，麁法不存，義當於廢。 約法雖開廢同時，約喻乃先開後廢。 故分三句，彰始終之有序。 二、釋經云「開方便門，示真實相」。 昔人引證，開同體權，須曉祖師二處引用，疏證能通方便，此取門義，從前三教能通之門，入於圓所，故曰開方便門。 記主遂云：「於昔但得名偏名門，非謂於彼已明開門。 」若《玄義》中證開權者，既於方便即見真實，故以此證開權相焉。 三、釋《輔行》解同體之權髻，與實相之明珠。 由〈安樂行〉，約王賞賜，喻佛授道。 昔機與魔共戰，微有其功，但賜禪定解脫之法，如賞田宅。 《法華》大破魔網，至一切智，如王解髻明珠賜之。 昔時權掩於實，如髻覆珠，就機不知是權，喻異體閉。 今經赴機，指昔三教權法，全是祕妙方便。 故決聲聞之法，即是諸經之王。 經既以王喻佛，約佛開異體時，無非同體，故曰解同體之權髻矣。 四、釋《義例》「如引《法華》，部唯一實」。 文敘昔教，以為所開。 天竺引此部唯一實，證破同體。 今謂所敘麁法，既點為妙，權實相即，能所圓融，故謂《法華》唯一實耳。 五、釋科目。 〈五佛章〉門，皆有開權顯實二科。 前四則先開權，次顯實。 今佛乃先顯實，次開權。 天竺乃謂開權是文敘昔教，顯實乃破同體權。 今謂纔開權時，意已顯實。 但約說次第，開權言未顯實，顯實方曉開權。 立言垂範，遂分二科。 故法明講主云：「言無并出，語不頓施」，殊有旨哉！ 余慕法王之遺教，學而時習之，遂括古今之論，以究權實之道。 雖不足品藻淵流，庶亦無乖商搉。 編贈後賢，願開佛慧。 > Next, to clarify the coarseness and subtlety of the vehicles of metaphor: the \*Profound Meaning\* introduces the lotus: first, the blossom appearing for the sake of the lotus fruit represents deploying the provisional for the sake of the real; second, the blossoming of the flower represents opening the provisional, while the appearance of the lotus fruit represents revealing the real; third, the falling of the flower represents discarding the provisional, while the maturation of the lotus fruit represents establishing the real. One should traverse these three metaphors, elaborating and extending them. Now, as for the metaphor of the lotus flower, it was proclaimed by this sutra originally to compare to the subtle Dharma. Yet Tiantai took the first phrase, 'the blossom for the sake of the lotus fruit', to symbolize deploying the provisional for the sake of the real. In terms of this substance of the doctrine, whose application was in former times, the blossom symbolizes coarse teachings. Hence the \*Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra\* states: 'Furthermore, when the provisional and the real across the teachings are not yet integrated, that is the provisional; once they are integrated, opening the provisional and revealing the real, that is the real.' Because it previously accommodated capacities, the provisional obscured the real, and hence it is called 'different substance'. Therefore, this sutra breaks this biased attachment, declaring: 'Though various paths have been expounded, in truth they are for the Buddha Vehicle.' Since the Bhagavat spoke of deploying the provisional for the sake of the real, our patriarch consequently established the metaphor of the blossom appearing for the sake of the lotus fruit. According to this explanation, the moment this sutra proclaimed deploying the provisional for the sake of the real, those of sharp faculties immediately knew that this provisional is precisely the real. Because in the \*Sutra of Immeasurable Meanings\* they had already heard that this provisional arises from the real, their view of 'different substance' was already broken, yet it had not been opened and revealed. Those of dull faculties had to rely upon the second phrase: the blossoming of the flower represents opening the provisional, and the appearance of the lotus fruit represents revealing the real. Therefore it is said: 'Opening the gate of expedient means, demonstrating the aspect of the true reality.' The commentator (\*Zhanran\*) explained: 'Pointing to the real as the provisional, where the provisional obscures the real, is called the gate of expedient means being closed. Now pointing to the provisional as the real, seeing the real within the provisional, is called the gate of expedient means being opened.' This indicates that both 'dharma-utility' and 'capacity to penetrate' become secret and subtle. Third, the falling of the flower represents discarding the provisional, and the maturation of the lotus fruit represents establishing the real. It also says: 'Honestly abandoning expedient means, expounding only the unsurpassed path.' Because the three teachings of the four periods are, in their very substance, secret and subtle, once opened there is nothing outside them; coarse teachings no longer persist, which in sense corresponds to 'discarding'. In terms of the doctrine, opening and discarding are simultaneous, but in terms of the metaphor, opening comes first and discarding follows. Hence it is divided into three phrases, demonstrating the order of the beginning and the end. Second, explaining the sutra's phrase 'Opening the gate of expedient means, demonstrating the aspect of the true reality': Predecessors cited this as proof for opening the provisional of identical substance. One must realize that the patriarch cited this in two places. In the commentary, it proves the expedient means of 'capacity to penetrate'; here taking the meaning of a 'gate', one enters the realm of the perfect from the gate of capacity to penetrate of the previous three teachings, and therefore it is called 'opening the gate of expedient means'. The commentator then said: 'In former times it could only be called biased, called a gate; it did not mean that the opening of the gate was already made clear then.' But as for proving the opening of the provisional in the \*Profound Meaning\*, since within expedient means one immediately sees the true reality, he used this to demonstrate the mark of opening the provisional. Third, explaining the \*Fuxing\*'s interpretation of the provisional topknot of identical substance and the bright jewel of the true aspect: According to the 'Chapter on Peaceful and Joyful Practice', the king bestowing rewards symbolizes the Buddha imparting the path. Formerly, when the capacities fought against Māra and achieved slight merit, he merely bestowed upon them the teachings of dhyāna concentration and liberation, like rewarding them with fields and houses. When the \*Lotus Sutra\* thoroughly breaks through Māra's net and reaches all-knowledge, it is like the king untying the bright jewel from his topknot and bestowing it upon them. In former times, the provisional obscured the real, just as the topknot covered the jewel; from the standpoint of their capacities, they did not know it was provisional, which symbolizes the closure of 'different substance'. Now this sutra, accommodating capacities, points out that the provisional dharmas of the former three teachings are entirely secret and subtle expedient means. Therefore, it determines that the teaching of the śrāvakas is itself the king of all sutras. Since the sutra uses the king to symbolize the Buddha, in terms of when the Buddha opens the 'different substance', there is nothing that is not of 'identical substance'; hence it says 'untying the provisional topknot of identical substance'. Fourth, explaining the \*Yili\*'s statement: 'As citing the \*Lotus Sutra\*, the section consists solely of the one real.' The text recounts the past teachings as that which is opened. Tianzhu cited this 'section consists solely of the one real' to prove the refutation of identical substance. We now say that the coarse dharmas recounted, having been indicated as subtle, are such that the provisional and real are mutually identical, and the capable and the object are completely interfused; therefore it says that the \*Lotus Sutra\* consists solely of the one real. Fifth, explaining the section rubrics: In the chapters on the five Buddhas, there are two headings: opening the provisional and revealing the real. For the first four \[Buddhas\], they first open the provisional and next reveal the real. Now, for our Buddha, he first reveals the real and next opens the provisional. Tianzhu claimed that opening the provisional is the text recounting the past teachings, while revealing the real is refuting the provisional of identical substance. We now say that the moment the provisional is opened, the real is already intentionally revealed. But in terms of the sequence of exposition, when opening the provisional it has not yet explicitly stated the real, and only when the real is revealed does one understand the opening of the provisional. In setting down words to bequeath a model, two headings were consequently divided. Thus Lecturer Faming said: 'Words do not issue simultaneously; speech is not dispensed all at once.' How deeply meaningful this is! Admiring the bequeathed teachings of the Dharma King, I have studied and constantly practiced them, thereby gathering the discourses of past and present to investigate the path of the provisional and the real. Though insufficient to appraise their deep currents, I hope it does not deviate from reasoned inquiry. Compiled to present to future worthies, may it open the Buddha's wisdom. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131~en-mt.7.139.1) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131.7.139](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.2131.7.139) · Pramāṇa