法華經義記 5.5

5.5

「舍利弗如來復作是念」此下是第二，即合上誡勸兩家無機，亦有二：第一合言「若我但以神力」先合誡家無機，上言「父雖憐愍善言誘喻」也。第二「及智慧力捨於方便」以下追合勸家無機，就中自有二，此句正合無機，第二「所以者何」下釋無機之意，上言「復更思惟是舍唯有一門而復狹小，諸子幼稚未有所識」也。又見一家解有二重：第一「若我但以神力」以下竟「眾生不能以是得度」，正併合誡勸兩家無機；第二「所以者何」下併釋兩家無機之意也。「何由能解佛之智慧」，但此一句即是第三併合誡勸中兩家息化，上勸息化言「戀著戲處或當墮落為火所燒」，上誡息化言但「東西走戲視父而已」。

“Śāriputra, the Tathāgata further thought”: From here onward is the second, applying the lack of capacity in both the admonitory and exhortative aspects above, which also has two parts: first, the application stating “If I were only to use supernatural power,” which first applies the lack of capacity in the admonitory aspect, where it stated above “Although the father had pity and used good words to lure and instruct them.” Second, from “and the power of wisdom, discarding skilful means” onward retroactively applies the lack of capacity in the exhortative aspect; within this, there are two parts: this phrase directly applies the lack of capacity, and second, from “Why is this?” onward explains the reason for the lack of capacity, where it stated above “He further reflected: ‘This house has only a single door, and moreover it is narrow and small; the sons are childish and have no understanding.’” Furthermore, I have seen another school’s explanation that has two levels: first, from “If I were only to use supernatural power” down to “sentient beings cannot be delivered by this” directly combines the lack of capacity in both the admonitory and exhortative aspects; second, from “Why is this?” onward combines the explanation of the reason for the lack of capacity in both aspects. “By what means could they understand the Buddha’s wisdom?”: this single phrase is the third, combining the cessation of teaching in both the admonitory and exhortative aspects. Above, the cessation of teaching in the exhortation said “loving and clinging to their play places, they might fall down and be burned by the fire”; above, the cessation of teaching in the admonition merely said “running around and playing east and west, only looking at their father.”