法華經義記 6.26

6.26

「即勅使者」此下三行偈，頌第三喚子不得譬。上譬中本有三段，第一領勸擬宜與無機，第二領誡擬宜與無機，第三兩息化。今此三行亦頌三段，初三句頌第一，次一行一句頌第二，次一行頌第三也。今三句頌第一勸擬宜無機者，半行頌勸擬宜，次一句領無機。上擬宜中有二段，一者領作勸教，二者正領擬宜，今此半行唯頌領作勸教，上言「即遣傍人急追將還」也。不頌正領擬宜，上言「爾時使者疾走往捉」。「窮子驚喚」此一句，頌第二領勸無機。上無機中有二者，一有小，二無大。今言「窮子驚」三字，此即頌上有小機，上言「窮子驚愕」也。「喚」此一字頌無大機，上言「稱怨大喚我不相犯何為見捉」，明無大機也。「迷悶躄地」此下一行一句，頌上第二領誡擬宜與無機。上誡擬宜與無機中有二：一者正明擬宜，二者無機。今不頌領擬宜，唯頌領誡之無機。上無機中有二段，一者無大，二者有小。今者先頌有小，後頌無大。「迷悶躄地」此一句頌有小機，上言「轉更惶怖悶絕躄地」也。「是人執我必當見殺」此一行，正頌上無大機，上言「于時窮子自念無罪而被囚執此必定死」。「長者知子愚癡狹劣」此一行，頌第三併領息化。上息化中本有二，一者欲息化，二者正息化，今不頌第二正息化，唯頌第一欲息化。上欲息化中亦有二階，一者明欲息化，二者釋欲息化，上言「父遙見之而語使言，不須此人勿強將來」以下，思惟欲息化，今不頌也。唯頌第二釋欲息化之意，上言「所以者何？父知子志意下劣，自知豪貴為子所難」也。

"Immediately he ordered a messenger" and the three verses below versify the third parable, of summoning the son without obtaining him. Originally, in the parable above, there were three sections: first, understanding the tentative adaptation of exhortation and the lack of capacity; second, understanding the tentative adaptation of admonition and the lack of capacity; third, the cessation of both teachings. Now these three verses also versify the three sections: the first three lines versify the first, the next one verse and one line versify the second, and the next verse versifies the third. As for these three lines versifying the first—the tentative adaptation of exhortation and the lack of capacity—half a verse versifies the tentative adaptation of exhortation, and the next line understands the lack of capacity. In the tentative adaptation above there were two sections: first, understanding the making of the teaching of exhortation; second, properly understanding the tentative adaptation. Now this half verse only versifies understanding the making of the teaching of exhortation, where above it said, "He immediately dispatched a bystander to quickly pursue and bring him back." It does not versify properly understanding the tentative adaptation, where above it said, "At that time the messenger ran swiftly, went and seized him." As for this single line, "The poor son was alarmed and called out," it versifies the second, understanding the lack of capacity for exhortation. In the lack of capacity above there were two aspects: first, having [the capacity for] the small; second, lacking [the capacity for] the great. Now the three words "the poor son was alarmed" precisely versify having the capacity for the small above, where above it said, "The poor son was astonished and terrified." The single word "called out" versifies lacking the capacity for the great, where above it said, "He cried out in grievance and shouted loudly: 'I have not offended you, why am I seized?'" which explains lacking the capacity for the great. As for the one verse and one line below, "Fainting in confusion, he fell prostrate on the ground," they versify the second above, understanding the tentative adaptation of admonition and the lack of capacity. In the tentative adaptation of admonition and the lack of capacity above there were two aspects: first, properly explaining the tentative adaptation; second, the lack of capacity. Now it does not versify understanding the tentative adaptation, but only versifies understanding the lack of capacity for admonition. In the lack of capacity above there were two sections: first, lacking the great; second, having the small. Now it first versifies having the small, and afterward versifies lacking the great. This single line, "Fainting in confusion, he fell prostrate on the ground," versifies having the capacity for the small, where above it said, "He became even more frightened and terrified, fainted, and fell prostrate on the ground." This single verse, "This man who has seized me will surely put me to death," properly versifies lacking the capacity for the great above, where above it said, "At that time the poor son thought to himself: 'I am innocent and yet imprisoned; I shall surely die.'" As for this single verse, "The elder knew that his son was foolish and of narrow and inferior [capacity]," it versifies the third, collectively understanding the cessation of teaching. In the cessation of teaching above there were originally two aspects: first, intending to cease the teaching; second, properly ceasing the teaching. Now it does not versify the second, properly ceasing the teaching, but only versifies the first, intending to cease the teaching. In intending to cease the teaching above there were also two steps: first, explaining the intention to cease the teaching; second, explaining the reason for intending to cease the teaching. Where above it said, "The father saw him from afar and told the messenger: 'There is no need for this man; do not force him to come'" and so forth, contemplating the intention to cease the teaching, is not versified now. It only versifies the second, explaining the reason for intending to cease the teaching, where above it said, "Why is this? The father knew that his son's aspiration was inferior, and knew that his own nobility was difficult for the son [to bear]."