法華經義記 2.3

2.3

From "and asked Mañjuśrī, saying" down to the end of the verses is the second part, the formal question. In this there are also two [divisions]: first, from "and asked" down to the end of the fifty-four lines of verse is designated the formal question. Second, from "The Buddha emitted a single ray of light" downward, there are eight lines of verse, designated as the request for an answer. Furthermore, each of these two parts is divided into two. The two of the formal question are: first, the prose, which is a concise questioning; second, the fifty-four lines of verse that reiterate it in verse, which is an extensive questioning. The two of the second [part], the eight lines requesting an answer, are: first, from "The Buddha emitted a single ray of light" downward there are three lines of verse, which first bring forward the matter seen to formally request an answer. Second, from "The fourfold assembly joyfully looks up" there are five lines of verse, which resolve implicit objections and conclude the request. As for why the prose is called a concise explanation and the verse is said to be an extensive questioning: if one bases the meaning on the underlying principle, then the prose is extensive and the verse is concise. How is this known to be so? Because in the prose, each comprehensively asks about the two sets of six auspicious signs, both here and there, completely; whereas when it comes to the verse, each individual reiteration is incomplete. Now, taking the meaning in terms of the text, then the verse is extensive and the prose is concise. Why is that? Because in the verse the text is voluminous, whereas in the prose the text is brief. Now, within these two expositions, concise and extensive, each is again divided into two. The two of the prose are: first, from "and asked" down to "marks of supernormal powers," which asks comprehensively about the six auspicious signs in this world. Second, from "emitting a great light" down to "the adornment of the lands," which asks comprehensively why he has caused me to see the six auspicious signs of other lands. Within the questioning of the auspicious signs of other lands there are two: first, from "emitting a great light" downward explains the cause of the auspicious signs; second, from "fully seeing those Buddha lands" downward is the formal question. Now, within the extensive questioning, although there are fifty-four lines of verse, it is also divided into two: first, there are four lines of verse extensively reiterating the above question regarding seeing the auspicious signs in this world; second, from "The light from between his eyebrows" downward there are fifty lines of verse extensively reiterating the above question regarding seeing the auspicious signs of other lands. Now, these four verses reiterate only four kinds of auspicious signs, and do not reiterate the first and second auspicious signs. The first single verse reiterates the sixth, the emission of light; the next verse and a half reiterates the third, heaven raining four kinds of flowers; the next half-verse reiterates the fourth, the earth shaking; and the next single verse reiterates the fifth, the fourfold assembly rejoicing. Now, the first verse asks about the emission of light, designating the Buddha as the Guiding Teacher. However, the opening phrase, "For what reason," applies across all the auspicious signs. "Raining māndārava flowers," this line and a half now reiterates the raining of flowers above. Above there were four flowers; here it reiterates only two flowers, only the small white flowers and the small red flowers, reiterated in just half a line. The single line "The sandalwood-fragrant breeze" brings out the meaning, and is therefore subsumed under the raining of flowers. "And this world," half a verse, reiterates the earth shaking above. "At that time the four groups of the assembly," one verse, now reiterates the rejoicing of the fourfold assembly above. The comprehensive question above contained six kinds; here the verse specifically reiterates four kinds. However, it concisely omits reiterating the preaching of the *Sūtra of Innumerable Meanings*, and also concisely omits reiterating the entering into samādhi. There are two reasons for these omissions: first, conciseness of text; second, inappropriateness in the matter itself. How is this known to be so? While the Tathāgata was in the world, he never ceased to preach the Dharma to deliver people; why should one now suddenly ask further, saying: "For what reason was the *Sūtra of Innumerable Meanings* preached?" The Buddha, the World-Honoured One, is constantly in samādhi and completely sees all Buddha lands, not with dual characteristics; to suddenly ask again, "For what reason did he enter samādhi?"—this would be inappropriate in the matter itself, and therefore it is concisely not reiterated in verse.