法華玄義釋籤 19.15

19.15

次「身子」下別比決，中三：初正此決，次「彼以」下明比決意，三「但此」下結歸本文疑多請倍之意。初文又二：初斥古師云法華請者唯小，次「又彌勒」下救《法華》不及菩薩疑請。於中又二：先引齊，次「又本門」下明勝意。初云《法華》中彌勒求決於文殊，《華嚴》中解脫月請釋疑於金剛藏，若據二處菩薩互為賓主，並是深位是則似齊，故云「若為有異」，二處會主雖即釋迦、舍那不同，但是衣纓少殊內身不別。次文者，一往雖然，所請之法、所被機緣不無同異，華嚴兼別，法華純圓。又十方諸佛皆是舍那分身，而經中不說，亦是以權而覆於實，是故須此比決令勝。於中又三：初總明請人說者所說法勝，次「若彼」下別明眷屬勝，三「又彼」下明化主勝。初文者，《法華》本門是佛說佛法，與《華嚴》中加於菩薩說菩薩法，不無同異，如此優劣，佛旨難思。故大師自云：若較其優劣，恐失佛旨，佛旨但在誘物契真，但能被教門不可一概。所以復云：此法華經開權顯實、開迹顯本，如斯兩意永異餘經；請倍疑多復異諸教，故迹門三止四請，本門四請三誡。次文中言「不無疎密」者，知識疎、發心密，知識可互相成益，發心則師位不移，故知知識之言，覆此發心之事，顯覆不等疎密何疑？第三意者，彼十方說法，法同人同被加者同，是則化主、眷屬並以一身無量身互為主伴同而不同，一身多身一多自在，而覆其分身之說，但云主伴相關。設彼一身多身，但云法同名同，彼一華臺立一化主，華臺相去其量叵量，今以八方土田滿中諸佛，凡集幾許華臺佛耶？舉例而知塵數亦爾。比決意者，彼華嚴佛何殊法華，已如前說，餘並如文。及疏文中，廣以十義辨於同異。

Next, the specific comparative determination from 'Śāriputra' onward has three parts: first, properly making this determination; next, from 'that [text] uses' onward, explaining the intent of the comparative determination; third, from 'only this' onward, concluding by returning to the original text's meaning of numerous doubts and doubled requests. In the first text there are two parts: first, refuting ancient teachers who said that the requesters in the Lotus Sūtra were only Hīnayāna; next, from 'also, Maitreya' onward, rescuing the Lotus Sūtra from the doubt that it is inferior to the bodhisattva requests. In that there are also two parts: first, adducing their equality; next, from 'furthermore, the origin gate' onward, explaining the sense of superiority. First, it is said that in the Lotus Sūtra Maitreya seeks resolution from Mañjuśrī, and in the Avataṃsaka Vimukticandra requests the resolution of doubt from Vajragarbha; if one relies on the bodhisattvas in the two places serving mutually as host and guest, both are in deep stages and thus appear equal, which is why it says 'how could there be any difference?'. Although the hosts of the assemblies in the two places are distinct as Śākyamuni and Vairocana, this is merely a slight difference in robe and regalia, with no difference in the inner body. As for the next text: although that is so at first glance, the Dharma requested and the capacities addressed are not without similarities and differences: the Avataṃsaka includes the Separate [Teaching], whereas the Lotus Sūtra is purely perfect. Moreover, the Buddhas of the ten directions are all emanations of Vairocana, yet the sūtra does not state this; this is also using the provisional to cover the real. Therefore, this comparative determination is necessary to establish its superiority. In this there are also three parts: first, generally explaining that the persons requesting, the speakers, and the Dharma preached are superior; next, from 'if that' onward, specifically explaining that the retinue is superior; third, from 'also, that' onward, explaining that the transforming host is superior. As for the first text: the origin gate of the Lotus Sūtra is the Buddha preaching the Buddha-dharma, which, compared to empowering bodhisattvas to preach bodhisattva-dharma in the Avataṃsaka, is not without similarities and differences; regarding such superiority and inferiority, the Buddha's intent is difficult to fathom. Therefore the Great Master himself said: if one compares their superiority and inferiority, one fears losing the Buddha's intent; the Buddha's intent lies solely in guiding beings to accord with the real, and as long as they can receive the doctrinal gate, one cannot treat them uniformly. Therefore he also said: this Lotus Sūtra opens the provisional and reveals the real, opens the traces and reveals the origin; these two meanings are eternally distinct from the other sūtras. Having doubled requests and numerous doubts is also distinct from the various teachings; thus the trace gate has three stoppages and four requests, while the origin gate has four requests and three admonitions. In the next text, the statement 'not without distance and closeness' means: good friends are distant, while the aspiration for enlightenment is close; good friends can mutually benefit one another, but in the aspiration for enlightenment the status of teacher cannot be displaced. Thus we know that the term 'good friends' conceals this matter of the aspiration for enlightenment; since revelation and concealment are unequal, what doubt can there be regarding distance and closeness? As for the third meaning: there, in preaching the Dharma in the ten directions, the Dharma is identical, the persons are identical, and those receiving empowerment are identical; thus the transforming host and the retinue both use one body and immeasurable bodies to serve mutually as host and companion, being identical yet not identical. One body and many bodies enjoy unhindered mastery between one and many, yet it conceals the explanation of emanation bodies, merely saying that host and companion are interrelated. Even if there are one body and many bodies, it merely says the Dharma is identical and the names are identical. There, on a single flower calyx a single transforming host is established, and the distance between flower calyces is immeasurable; now, filling the lands in the eight directions with Buddhas, how many calyx Buddhas are assembled in all? Knowing by analogy, dust-mote numbers are also like this. As for the intent of the comparative determination: how is that Buddha of the Avataṃsaka different from the Lotus Sūtra? This has already been explained above; the rest accords with the text. And in the commentary, ten meanings are extensively used to distinguish similarities and differences.