法華經義記 3.36

3.36

「舍利弗若我弟子自謂阿羅漢」，此下是第四簡真偽敦物信心，所敦之者已是外凡夫也。就此簡真偽敦信中自有兩段：第一正簡真偽，第二從「除佛滅後」以下，正明敦物信心。此兩段中各自有三重，第一正簡真偽有三重者：第一明非真，第二明是偽，第三出真羅漢形釋也。今者第一「若我弟子自謂得阿羅漢辟支佛者」，初此明非真也。「又舍利弗」以下，第二正明此人是偽。何者？言非真。今者正明是偽，羅漢是增上果，而伊實自未得羅漢果自謂言得，此則於增上法中生慢，故言增上慢。「所以者何」此下是第三出真羅漢例釋上偽，若有實得羅漢，不信此開三顯一同歸之法，無有是處。當知實得羅漢者，在五便中時早已解方便善是同歸，而汝上言得羅漢不解同歸者，當知此人非真羅漢。「除佛滅度後」此下是第二正敦物生信，亦有三重者：第一正敦物生信，第二釋敦信之意，第三釋物疑心也。第一言「除佛滅度後」，佛既滅度，前佛已過後佛未出，於此中間若有人，只於無佛前世中修行得羅漢，百千時都無有佛為此羅漢說法華道萬善同歸者，此人容可不解，正是敦物令信。言佛若在世可得為汝說同歸之理，佛若滅度誰當為汝說此法華同歸之法？汝今可及佛在世，生信樂之心受持同歸之法，此是就教為說。若就理而談，不問有佛無佛皆自然解也。于時物情於中由自不肯信，自言佛雖滅度，佛弟子自解法華，於佛滅度後自當為我說此同歸之法。是故第二從「所以者何」以下，佛即釋此執，言所以勸汝及佛在世信受者何？正言佛滅度後惡世多難，如是《法華》有能受持讀誦者，是人難得。為此義故，令汝今日信受也。但物情於中猶未肯信佛，若言滅度後受持此經為我說法甚難得者，我當自入無餘涅槃。是故第三「若遇餘佛」以下，佛即釋此疑，言若遇餘佛於此法中便得決了，此意正言若人得羅漢果竟，要聞如來說此《法華》知萬善同歸，然後得入涅槃，若不聞說法華同歸，終不得入涅槃。若阿羅漢不值今日釋迦說《法華》者，於未來世中要值遇餘佛，於此法華教中得聞萬善同歸方得入涅槃，無有中間入涅槃者。物情只聞佛此語仍信受，若如此我等即時信受，何假待餘佛方信受，使羅漢當自外凡中有不肯信者相與信受也。

"Śāriputra, if my disciples claim of themselves that they are arhats": below this is the fourth [part], distinguishing the genuine from the false to urge faith in beings; those being urged are already external ordinary persons. Within this distinguishing of the genuine from the false to urge faith, there are two passages: first, directly distinguishing the genuine from the false; second, from "except after the Buddha's extinction" below, directly urging faith in beings. Within these two passages there are three levels each. The first, directly distinguishing the genuine from the false, has three levels: first, explaining that they are not genuine; second, explaining that they are false; third, setting forth the characteristics of a genuine arhat to explain it. Now, the first, "If my disciples claim of themselves to have attained the status of arhat or pratyekabuddha": this first explains that they are not genuine. From "Furthermore, Śāriputra" below, the second directly explains that this person is false. Why? It was said that they are not genuine; now it directly explains that they are false. Arhatship is a superior fruit, but he himself has not actually attained the fruit of an arhat, yet claims of himself to have attained it; this is giving rise to pride toward a superior state, hence it is called overweening pride. From "Why is this?" below is the third, setting forth the precedent of a genuine arhat to explain the falsity above: if someone has truly attained arhatship and does not believe in this teaching of unfolding the three and revealing the one in universal convergence, there is no such place. One should know that one who has truly attained arhatship has already understood, while still within the five expedients, that expedient goodness is of universal convergence. As for what you said above about attaining arhatship without understanding universal convergence, one should know that this person is not a genuine arhat. From "except after the Buddha's extinction" below is the second, directly urging beings to give rise to faith, which also has three levels: first, directly urging beings to give rise to faith; second, explaining the intention behind urging faith; third, resolving beings' doubts. First, saying "except after the Buddha's extinction": once the Buddha has passed into extinction, the previous Buddha has already passed and the future Buddha has not yet appeared; if in the interim someone practices and attains arhatship in a world prior without a Buddha, and throughout hundreds of thousands of times there is no Buddha at all to preach the *Lotus* Path of the universal convergence of myriad goods for this arhat, this person might possibly not understand. This is precisely urging beings to make them believe. It says that if the Buddha is in the world, he may preach the principle of universal convergence for you; if the Buddha passes into extinction, who will preach this *Lotus* teaching of universal convergence for you? You should now, while the Buddha is still in the world, give rise to a mind of faith and joy to receptively uphold the teaching of universal convergence; this is stated with respect to the teaching. If discussed with respect to principle, regardless of whether a Buddha is present or absent, it is naturally understood. At that time, the inclinations of beings still refused to believe, saying to themselves: 'Although the Buddha passes into extinction, the Buddha's disciples will naturally understand the *Lotus*, and after the Buddha's extinction they will naturally preach this teaching of universal convergence for me.' Therefore, second, from "Why is this?" below, the Buddha immediately resolves this clinging, saying: 'Why do I exhort you to believe and accept it while the Buddha is still in the world? Precisely because after the Buddha's extinction, the evil world will have many difficulties, and one who can receptively uphold, read, and recite such a *Lotus* is a person hard to find.' For this reason, he causes you to believe and accept it today. But the inclinations of beings were still not willing to believe the Buddha, [thinking]: 'If it is said that after extinction, those who receptively uphold this sūtra and preach the Dharma for me are very hard to find, I shall enter nirvāṇa without remainder by myself.' Therefore, third, from "if they encounter another Buddha" below, the Buddha immediately resolves this doubt, saying that if they encounter another Buddha, they will thereupon attain decisive understanding in this Dharma. The meaning of this is precisely that if a person attains the fruit of an arhat, he must hear the Tathāgata preach this *Lotus Sūtra* and know the universal convergence of myriad goods, and only then can he enter nirvāṇa; if he does not hear the preaching of the *Lotus* universal convergence, he can never enter nirvāṇa. If an arhat does not encounter Śākyamuni preaching the *Lotus* today, in a future life he must encounter another Buddha, and upon hearing the universal convergence of myriad goods within this *Lotus* teaching, only then can he enter nirvāṇa; there is no such thing as entering nirvāṇa in the interim. Hearing these words of the Buddha, the inclinations of beings thereupon believed and accepted them: 'If this is so, we should believe and accept it right now; why bother waiting for another Buddha before believing and accepting it?' This caused those arhats and external ordinary persons who were unwilling to believe to mutually believe and accept it together.