翻譯名義集 7.139.3

7.139.3

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,