法華經義記 2.39

2.39

問者又言：「汝云昔日月燈明佛未說《法華》時先現瑞相，于時時眾既見瑞相亦復懷疑，于時應有騰疑作問者，亦應有引古證今答者；汝今既云昔日妙光是弘經之人，何不出昔日有問答者耶？」解者言：「昔日實自應有發問之人、答問之人，今日所以不出此人者，意即是如來教化道中所宜。若有出古事於今日有益者即便出之，若於今日無益者便不出之，不得一類；且自若使昔日答問人是妙光，妙光只是文殊，亦應言今日彌勒只是昔日德藏。何以故？今日既言補處大士彌勒作問，昔日亦應是補處大士德藏作問，而今日彌勒非是昔德藏，故知不出昔日發問人。若爾，文殊何必是昔日答問者也？」

The questioner further says: "You say that in the past, before Candrasūryapradīpa Buddha preached the Lotus Sūtra, he first manifested auspicious omens; at that time, when the assembly saw the auspicious omens, they also harbored doubts. At that time, there ought to have been one who raised doubts and posed questions, and there also ought to have been one who cited the past to substantiate the present and answered. Now, since you say that Varaprabha of the past was the person who propagated the sūtra, why not adduce that in the past there were questioner and respondent?" The commentator explains: "In the past, there certainly ought to have been a person who raised questions and a person who answered questions. The reason why these persons are not adduced today is that this accords with what is appropriate in the Tathāgata's way of converting and teaching. If adducing past events is beneficial for today, he then adduces them; if it is of no benefit for today, he then does not adduce them; they cannot be treated uniformly. Furthermore, even if the person who answered questions in the past was Varaprabha, and Varaprabha is simply Mañjuśrī, one should also say that today's Maitreya is simply Guṇagabhīra of the past. Why is that? Since it is said that today the mahāsattva in the stage of succession, Maitreya, posed questions, in the past it should also have been the mahāsattva in the stage of succession, Guṇagabhīra, who posed questions. Yet today's Maitreya is not the Guṇagabhīra of the past; therefore we know that he did not adduce the questioner of the past. If so, why must Mañjuśrī have been the respondent of the past?"