妙法蓮華經文句 3.23

3.23

從「時有菩薩名曰妙光」下，第三，明曾與當同。此文為六：一、從「時有菩薩」者，是因人同；二、從「爾時日月燈明佛從三昧起」者，是說法名同；三、從「六十小劫」者，是時節同；四、從「說是經已於梵魔沙門」者，是唱滅同；五、從「時有菩薩名曰德藏」者，是授記同；六、從「便於中夜」者，明滅後通經同。今初，云何因人同？昔佛定起，因妙光菩薩說經，今佛定起，因身子聲聞說經，此云何同？瑤師云：「因者因託，付傳一乘之經，非直對告之人也。」彼佛對告何必是妙光？如今對告身子，身子未必能有宣通，因託宣通莫若妙光，如今因委莫若文殊，今佛不歎者，往佛何必歎也？文殊引往佛歎妙光者，正明可因託耳。又舊以藥王為所因人者，亦可爾，但引往證今，小不類耳。或言，因文殊釋疑，得起定說經，此對不便。今明不爾，經文自云因妙光正說，而作因託流通之解，又取藥王為例，此乃公抗佛語，何關釋經？昔因妙光、今因身子，正是所因人同。昔佛八子師於妙光，如來起定對告妙光，又付託妙光；今佛子羅云亦師身子，佛從定起亦對告身子，迹門竟又付託身子，今古孱齊更若為勝此，而近棄身子遠取藥王？疑者言：「妙光是菩薩，身子是聲聞，云何是同？」昔事已彰譚為菩薩，今事未發道是聲聞，比及發迹，身子是大菩薩，非同何謂？昔妙光垂迹，何必不作聲聞？特是文殊巧說，方便隱顯耳。

From the line, "At that time there was a bodhisattva named Varaprabha," onward, thirdly, it explains the correspondence between the past and what is to come. This text has six parts: 1. From "At that time there was a bodhisattva," this is correspondence of the person who serves as the catalyst; 2. From "Then the Buddha Candrasūryapradīpa arose from samādhi," this is correspondence of the title of the Dharma preached; 3. From "sixty minor kalpas," this is correspondence of the duration of time; 4. From "Having preached this sūtra, before Brahmā, Māra, and śramaṇas," this is correspondence of the proclamation of nirvirṇa; 5. From "At that time there was a bodhisattva named Guṇagupta," this is correspondence of the conferral of prophecy; 6. From "Then in the middle of the night," this explains correspondence of transmitting the sūtra after extinction. Now, as for the first, how are the persons who serve as catalysts correspondent? When the former Buddha arose from samādhi, he preached the sūtra on account of the Bodhisattva Varaprabha; when the present Buddha arose from samādhi, he preached the sūtra on account of the śrāvaka Śāriputra. How are these correspondent? Master Yao said: "'Catalyst' means entrustment, entrusting the transmission of the sūtra of the One Vehicle, not merely the person directly addressed." Why must the one directly addressed by that Buddha have been Varaprabha? Just as [the Buddha] now directly addresses Śāriputra, but Śāriputra may not necessarily be able to propagate and transmit it, for entrustment and propagation none is better than Varaprabha, just as for entrustment today none is better than Mañjuśrī; if the present Buddha did not praise [him], why must the past Buddha have praised [him]? That Mañjuśrī cited the past Buddha praising Varaprabha precisely clarifies that he could be entrusted. Furthermore, the older view taking Bhaiṣajyarāja as the person who serves as catalyst may also be acceptable, but when citing the past to verify the present, it is somewhat dissimilar. Some say: on account of Mañjuśrī resolving doubt, [the Buddha] was able to arise from samādhi and preach the sūtra—this pairing is unsuitable. Now we clarify that this is not so: the sūtra text itself states that on account of Varaprabha he preached correctly, yet they produce the interpretation of entrustment and propagation, and moreover take Bhaiṣajyarāja as an analogy—this is outright resistance to the Buddha's words, and what relevance does it have to explaining the sūtra? The past being on account of Varaprabha and the present being on account of Śāriputra is precisely the correspondence of the persons who serve as catalysts. The former Buddha's eight sons took Varaprabha as their master, the Tathāgata arose from samādhi to directly address Varaprabha, and also entrusted it to Varaprabha; the present Buddha's son Rāhula also takes Śāriputra as his master, the Buddha arose from samādhi and also directly addressed Śāriputra, and having finished the trace gate he also entrusted it to Śāriputra. Present and past correspond so closely, how could anything surpass this, so why discard Śāriputra close at hand and take Bhaiṣajyarāja far away? Doubters say: "Varaprabha was a bodhisattva, while Śāriputra is a śrāvaka—how can they be correspondent?" The former event being already manifest, it is discussed as a bodhisattva; the present event being not yet revealed, he is called a śrāvaka. By the time the traces are revealed, Śāriputra is a great bodhisattva; if not correspondent, what would it be? When Varaprabha descended in traces in the past, why would he not necessarily have acted as a śrāvaka? It is merely Mañjuśrī's skillful explanation, with expedients concealing and revealing.