法華經義記 4.31

4.31

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?’