妙法蓮華經玄義 10.184

10.184

人以阿難等諸聲聞在《大品》會，復經《法華》會，終至《涅槃》會，故知《大品》、《法華》、《涅槃》應有淺深。義不必爾。何者？如阿難、迦葉，經《法華》會，若未聞說常，《涅槃》會中二人不在，何由得有常解流通《涅槃》？復次，舍利弗在佛涅槃前七日滅度，大目連為執杖外道所打，亦在佛前涅槃，皆不在雙林之會，豈可不得常解乎？即知法華中，已悟常竟，不假更聞。又舍利弗等諸聲聞，皆是如來影響，如《法華經》說：「知眾樂小法，而畏於大智，是故諸菩薩作聲聞、緣覺。」《涅槃》亦云：「我法最長子，是名大迦葉，阿難多聞士，能斷一切疑，自然能解了，是常與無常。」故知影響之人，在大則大，在小則小，何可就其人以定階漸也？又若從法華後入涅槃者，《法華經》中已明王宮非始，久來成道，何由涅槃中，方引道樹，始成執實為疑。故知為一段眾生，最後聞常者《涅槃經》；聞法華者，不假聞《涅槃》也。

People consider that because Ānanda and other śrāvakas were present in the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā assembly, then passed through the Lotus assembly, and finally arrived at the Nirvāṇa assembly, one knows there must be shallowness and depth among the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā, the Lotus Sūtra, and the Nirvāṇa Sūtra. The principle is not necessarily so. Why? Take Ānanda and Kāśyapa: having passed through the Lotus assembly, if they had not yet heard permanence expounded, then since neither was present in the Nirvāṇa assembly, how could they have attained an understanding of permanence to propagate the Nirvāṇa Sūtra? Furthermore, Śāriputra attained extinction seven days before the Buddha's nirvāṇa; Mahāmaudgalyāyana was beaten by the staff-bearing non-Buddhists and also entered nirvāṇa before the Buddha; neither was present at the assembly of the twin śāla trees—could they really have failed to attain the understanding of permanence? One thus knows that within the Lotus Sūtra they had already awakened to permanence completely, without need of hearing it again. Moreover, Śāriputra and the other śrāvakas are all shadow-reflections of the Tathāgata, as the Lotus Sūtra says: "Knowing that the multitude delights in minor teachings / and fears great wisdom, / for this reason the bodhisattvas / act as śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas." The Nirvāṇa Sūtra also says: "My eldest son in the Dharma / is named Mahākāśyapa; / Ānanda, the learned scholar, / can sever all doubts, / and naturally can understand / what is permanent and impermanent." Therefore we know that beings who act as shadow-reflections are great among the great, and small among the small; how could one determine stages and gradations based on those persons? Furthermore, if one entered the Nirvāṇa Sūtra after the Lotus Sūtra, since the Lotus Sūtra had already clarified that the royal palace was not the beginning and that he had attained the Way long ago, why in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra would someone newly cite the tree of awakening, clinging to it as the real beginning and raising doubts? Therefore we know that the Nirvāṇa Sūtra was for a particular group of sentient beings who were to hear of permanence at the very end; those who had heard the Lotus Sūtra had no need to hear the Nirvāṇa Sūtra.