法華經義記 4.31

4.31

「爾時長者即作是念，此舍已為大火所燒」以下竟「諍出火宅」，是第四明長者用三車救子得譬，即譬上〈方便品〉中第四尋念過去佛所行方便力十一行，明如來用三乘化得眾生。但上譬本中本有兩段，初有十行偈正明如來用三乘化得眾生，第二「從久遠劫來」下一偈釋疑。今不為釋作譬，唯為正用三乘化得眾生作譬。但上正用三乘化中本有四段：第一用三乘擬宜，第二見三乘人機，第三為說三乘教，第四「便有涅槃音及以阿羅漢，法僧差別名」一行，明三乘人受行。今此譬中亦具足為上四段，於譬上擬宜中本有三，第一「尋念過去佛所行方便力我今所得道亦應說三乘」此一行名見教擬宜，第二「作是思惟時」下四行半明諸佛讚歎，第三「舍利弗當知」下一行明釋迦歸命諸佛也。今者唯為第一作譬，略不為下二作譬也。今言「爾時長者即作是念，此舍已為大火所燒」下竟「得免斯害」，先明長者用三車擬宜，但指用三乘擬宜猶未為說也。「我及諸子若不時出必為所焚」者，凡有兩解，傳印法師云：「我化道所及之人，故言我及諸子。」今雲法師云：「如來化道有被物之功，呼之為父，眾生稟教生善，即是子義，眾生若使遂留住三界斷絕善根，無紹繼之能，即是子死之義，如來化功於此眾生斷，即是父死之義，我及之言其意如此也。」就此擬宜中有二：一者從初說我今當說設方便，先明不見教，即為〈方便品〉中尋念過去佛所行方便力作譬也。二者「令諸子等得免斯害」者，正明擬宜即為〈方便品〉中「我今所得法亦應說三乘」作譬也。「父知諸子先心各有」下訖「情必樂著」，是第二明長者知諸子等宿好之心，此即譬上〈方便品〉中第二「復作是念我出濁惡世如諸佛所說我亦隨順行」，明如來見三乘人機。然此是小乘機，那得言先有此機耶？若言二萬億佛所于時已曾受大乘化，呼此為先心者，于時眾生有大乘之善，若爾者是即先心有大乘之志，那得言先心有小乘善機？解釋者言：「此則與所習感應相應。何者？今日感佛之善，從原身以來、有善以來，皆盡感聖，然原身以來諸善皆有習因之力感未來習果，然過去習因之善亦有值小乘教于時生狹心之善，亦曾值大乘教生廣心之福，自有值小生廣，自有值大生狹。然此諸善因皆作習因感未來習果，然未來諸善若有漏善、若無漏善、若狹心善、若廣心福，皆是習果。又過去若狹心善舉體為未來廣心善作習因，亦舉體為未來狹心善作習因，亦舉體為未來無漏善作習因，亦舉體為未來有漏善作習因，昔日有廣心善亦如此。夫習因習果本是同性相招，雖復廣狹之殊、漏無漏別，至於為善之義其理莫異，是故習因習果互得相關。若據今日大乘善習果望昔日者，是習因此則大乘宗有先心所好。若據今日狹心善望昔日者，昔日一切諸善皆是習因，此則今日小乘善宗有先心所好。今言先心正在於此。然因果多途非可一類，若以同性相招即習因習果能致樂受，即是報因報果感見聖人，即是感應因果。有人言未來善感正言曾有之善已生何假聖應？今所習不然。夫感應理微非麁心所見，一念生善能感習果，時非緣不發，是故曾有之善正招習果，又傍感聖人為生果之緣。若言未來習果能感聖者，亦應未來樂受能招於大，善感樂果果在未來，亦應善感習果果在未來，未來習果既感聖，亦應未來樂受能感於大。若果報無有感大之力，亦應習果無有感聖之功。至於此難實覺難通，而苟執未來其理不可，故知報因之力正感樂受，傍招於大為樂受之緣，亦何異習因之力正感習果，傍感聖之功為其生果之緣耶？」

From “At that time the elder then had this thought: ‘This house is already burning with a great fire…’” down to “scrambled to get out of the burning house”, this is the fourth section, explaining the parable of the elder using the three carts to rescue his sons. This illustrates the fourth section in the “Expedient Means” chapter above, consisting of eleven verses on recalling the power of expedient means practiced by past Buddhas, which explains the Tathāgata using the three vehicles to convert beings. However, in the source text of the parable above, there were originally two sections: first, ten verses directly explaining the Tathāgata using the three vehicles to convert beings; second, one verse beginning with “Since long distant kalpas…” resolving doubts. Here, it does not provide a parable for resolving doubts, but only provides a parable for directly using the three vehicles to convert beings. In the source text above for directly converting with the three vehicles, there were originally four sections: first, tentative adaptation using the three vehicles; second, perceiving the capacity of the persons of the three vehicles; third, preaching the teaching of the three vehicles for them; fourth, one verse—‘Then there were the sound of nirvāṇa, and the distinct names of arhat, Dharma, and Saṅgha’—explaining the practice and reception by persons of the three vehicles. Now in this parable, it also fully corresponds to the four sections above. In the tentative adaptation above, there were originally three parts: first, this one verse, ‘Recalling the power of expedient means practiced by past Buddhas, the Path I have now attained should also be preached as the three vehicles’, which is called tentative adaptation upon seeing the teaching; second, four and a half verses beginning with ‘When I was having this thought…’ explaining the praise of the Buddhas; third, one verse beginning with ‘Śāriputra, you should know…’ explaining Śākya taking refuge in the Buddhas. Here, it only provides a parable for the first, omitting parables for the latter two. Now, from the statement ‘At that time the elder then had this thought: “This house is already burning with a great fire…”’ down to ‘can escape this harm’, it first explains the elder’s tentative adaptation using the three carts, but it merely indicates tentative adaptation using the three vehicles, not yet preaching it for them. As for ‘If I and my sons do not come out in time, we will surely be burned by it’, there are generally two interpretations. Dharma Master Chuanyin says: ‘It refers to those reached by my path of conversion; therefore it says “I and my sons”.’ Now Dharma Master Yun says: ‘The Tathāgata’s path of conversion has the merit of covering beings, so he is called “father”; beings receive the teaching and give rise to goodness, which is the meaning of “sons”. If beings were ultimately to remain in the three realms and cut off good roots, having no ability to continue the lineage, this is the meaning of the sons’ death. If the Tathāgata’s work of conversion were cut off regarding these beings, this is the meaning of the father’s death. The words “I and [my sons]” have this meaning.’ Within this tentative adaptation, there are two parts: first, from the beginning saying ‘I should now devise expedient means’, it first clarifies not yet having seen the teaching, which serves as the parable for ‘recalling the power of expedient means practiced by past Buddhas’ in the ‘Expedient Means’ chapter; second, ‘enabling the sons to escape this harm’ directly explains tentative adaptation, which serves as the parable for ‘the Dharma I have now attained should also be preached as the three vehicles’ in the ‘Expedient Means’ chapter. From ‘The father knew that the sons’ prior minds each had…’ down to ‘their feelings would surely take pleasure in them’, this is the second part, explaining that the elder knew the past inclinations of his sons. This illustrates the second part in the ‘Expedient Means’ chapter above: ‘Again having this thought: “I have appeared in an evil world of turbidities; as the Buddhas have spoken, I too will act in accordance.”’ It explains the Tathāgata perceiving the capacity of persons of the three vehicles. However, since this is the capacity for the Small Vehicle, how can it be said that they already had this capacity previously? If one says that they had already received conversion to the Great Vehicle at the place of two myriad koṭis of Buddhas, calling this the ‘prior mind’, then at that time beings possessed the goodness of the Great Vehicle; if so, their prior mind had the aspiration for the Great Vehicle, so how could it be said that their prior mind had a capacity for the good of the Small Vehicle? The commentator says: ‘This corresponds to the sympathetic resonance of habitual practice. Why? The goodness that resonates with the Buddha today, from the primordial body onward, ever since there was goodness, has completely resonated with the sages. However, all the goodness since the primordial body has the power of habitual cause that brings about future habitual fruition. Yet in the past, among the goodness of habitual cause, there was that which encountered the Small Vehicle teaching and then generated the goodness of a narrow mind, and there was also that which encountered the Great Vehicle teaching and generated the merit of an expansive mind. There were those who encountered the small and generated the expansive, and those who encountered the great and generated the narrow. Yet all these good causes act as habitual causes to bring about future habitual fruition. Whether future goods are contaminated goods or uncontaminated goods, narrow-minded goods or expansive merits, all are habitual fruitions. Furthermore, past narrow-minded good entirely serves as the habitual cause for future expansive-minded good, and also entirely serves as the habitual cause for future narrow-minded good, and also entirely serves as the habitual cause for future uncontaminated good, and also entirely serves as the habitual cause for future contaminated good. Past expansive-minded good is also like this. Habitual causes and habitual fruitions fundamentally attract each other by having the same nature; although there are distinctions between expansive and narrow, and differences between contaminated and uncontaminated, when it comes to the meaning of being good, their principle does not differ. Therefore, habitual cause and habitual fruition can be mutually interrelated. If viewed from the perspective of today’s Great Vehicle good habitual fruition looking back to the past, the past is the habitual cause; thus, in the Great Vehicle lineage there is that which was liked by the prior mind. If viewed from the perspective of today’s narrow-minded good looking back to the past, all past goods are habitual causes; thus, in today’s Small Vehicle good lineage there is that which was liked by the prior mind. What is meant here by “prior mind” lies precisely in this. However, cause and effect have many paths and cannot be categorized under a single type. If attracting by having the same nature, that is habitual cause and habitual fruition; being able to bring about pleasant feeling is retribution cause and retribution fruition; resonating to see sages is the cause and effect of sympathetic resonance. Some say: “If it is future good that resonates, since previously existing good has already arisen, why rely on a sage’s response?” What is practiced here is not so. The principle of sympathetic resonance is subtle and cannot be seen by a coarse mind. In a single thought, generating good can resonate with habitual fruition, but without conditions it does not arise when the time comes; therefore, previously existing good directly summons habitual fruition, and collaterally resonates with sages as the condition for generating the fruition. If one says that future habitual fruition can resonate with sages, then future pleasant feeling should also summon the great; good resonating with pleasant fruition has its fruition in the future, and likewise, good resonating with habitual fruition has its fruition in the future. Since future habitual fruition resonates with sages, future pleasant feeling should also resonate with the great. If karmic retribution has no power to resonate with the great, then habitual fruition should also have no efficacy to resonate with sages. As to this objection, it is indeed felt to be difficult to resolve, but rigidly clinging to the future is an untenable principle. Therefore, we know that the power of retribution cause directly resonates with pleasant feeling and collaterally summons the great as the condition for pleasant feeling—how is this any different from the power of habitual cause directly resonating with habitual fruition and having the efficacy of collaterally resonating with sages as the condition for generating its fruition?’