妙法蓮華經文句 4.8

4.8

二、明有聲聞、無聲聞者，光宅定有實行聲聞，若言無實，權何所應。開善解無實行聲聞，引《勝鬘》「三乘初業不愚於法」，外凡已知一乘，寧有二乘猶執小果？經明有者權也，此二家偏執，乖經失義；若定有者，經那言無聲聞弟子但化諸菩薩？若定無者，誰入化城？亦無三可會，權何所引？若言實有為權所引者，亦應實有三藏佛，復為權三藏佛所引；若實無此佛，但有權佛者，何意不許但有權聲聞、無實聲聞耶？此義不例，實有斷界內惑者，呼此為實，而權者應之。何處有斷界內惑佛，而有權佛應此佛？今明有無不可偏執，若從長者實智往觀則無客作人，若就窮子根性則便自謂作人。《法華論》有四種聲聞：一、決定；二、上慢；三、退大；四、應化。前二未熟不與授記，後二與記。若依今經應有五：一、久習小，今世道熟，聞小教證果，如《論》是決定聲聞；二、本是菩薩積劫修道，中間疲厭生死，退大取小，《大品》稱為別異善根，佛且成其小道為說小教，齊教斷結取果，是退大未久習小來近，理應易悟，如《論》是退菩提聲聞；三、以此二故，諸佛、菩薩內祕外現，成就引接令入大道，如《論》是應化聲聞；四、若見權實兩種能出生死，欣樂涅槃，修戒定慧，微有觀慧未入似位薄有所得，謂是證果，此名未得謂得、未證謂證，如《論》即是增上慢聲聞；五者、大乘聲聞，以佛道聲令一切聞，若從決定退菩提兩種，即有聲聞，若從大乘理無灰斷永住化城，終歸寶所。實者既爾，則無有權，故無聲聞。若增上慢者，既未入位則非實，又非應化，則非權。若得此意，有無冷然，何須苦諍？復次秪就大乘聲聞復論有無，若權作應化，外現小迹內隱大德，則謂無大乘聲聞；若從自行發迹顯本，則言有大乘聲聞。今開三顯一正意，為決定退大聲聞令成大乘聲聞，自行既立即能化應聲聞，若得此意則達有無也。

Second, concerning the clarification of whether there are or are not śrāvakas: [Master] Guangzhai held that there are definitely śrāvakas of real practice; for if one says there are no real ones, to what would the expedient correspond? [Master] Kaishan understood that there are no śrāvakas of real practice, citing the Śrīmālādevī-sūtra: 'Those at the initial stage of practice in the three vehicles are not deluded about phenomena'—if ordinary people outside [the path] already know the One Vehicle, how could those of the two vehicles still cling to the lesser fruit? Where the sūtra speaks of their existence, it is an expedient. Both of these masters held one-sided views, conflicting with the sūtra and losing its meaning. If they definitely exist, why does the sūtra say that there are no śrāvaka disciples and that [the Buddha] teaches only bodhisattvas? If they definitely do not exist, who entered the transformed citadel? Nor would there be three to unite, so what would the expedient be guiding? If one says that real ones exist and are guided by the expedient, then there should also be a real Buddha of the Tripiṭaka who is guided by an expedient Buddha of the Tripiṭaka. If there is no such real Buddha, but only an expedient Buddha, why not accept that there are only expedient śrāvakas and no real śrāvakas? This reasoning does not form a parallel: there are real beings who have severed defilements within the triple world; we call these 'real', and the expedient ones respond to them. Where is there a Buddha who severs defilements within the triple world to whom an expedient Buddha would respond? Now, we clarify that one must not hold a one-sided view on existence and non-existence: if viewed from the Elder's real wisdom, there is no hired laborer; yet looking at the impoverished son's own disposition, he regards himself as a hired laborer. The Upadeśa on the Lotus Sūtra identifies four kinds of śrāvakas: first, the determined; second, the arrogant; third, those who have regressed from the Mahāyāna; fourth, the transformed manifestations. The first two have not matured and are not given prophecies, while the latter two are given prophecies. If based on the present sūtra, there should be five: first, those who practiced the lesser [vehicle] long ago, whose path has matured in this life so that hearing the lesser teaching they realize the fruit—these, as in the Upadeśa, are the determined śrāvakas; second, those who were originally bodhisattvas cultivating the path for accumulated kalpas, but grew weary of birth-and-death along the way, regressing from the Mahāyāna to take the lesser [vehicle]—the Pañcaviṃśati calls these 'distinct wholesome roots'; the Buddha provisionally completed their lesser path by preaching the lesser teaching for them, severing bonds and attaining the fruit according to that teaching; having regressed from the Mahāyāna, they have not practiced the lesser for long, so in principle they should be easy to awaken, and as in the Upadeśa, these are the śrāvakas who regressed from bodhi; third, on account of these two [types], Buddhas and bodhisattvas who conceal [greatness] within and manifest [the lesser] outwardly, perfecting and guiding them into the Great Path—these, as in the Upadeśa, are the transformed śrāvakas; fourth, those who, seeing that both the expedient and the real can transcend birth-and-death, delight in nirvāṇa and cultivate morality, concentration, and wisdom; having a slight contemplation of wisdom but having not yet entered the stage of resemblance, they make a slight attainment and claim it is the realization of the fruit—this is called claiming to have attained what one has not attained and claiming to have realized what one has not realized, and as in the Upadeśa, these are the overweeningly arrogant śrāvakas; fifth, the Mahāyāna śrāvakas, who cause all to hear by means of the voice of the Buddha path. If viewed from the two types—the determined and those who regressed from bodhi—then śrāvakas exist. If viewed from the Mahāyāna, in principle there is no reducing the body to ashes and extinguishing consciousness to dwell forever in the transformed citadel; they ultimately return to the place of jewels. Since the real is thus, there is no expedient, and hence no śrāvakas. As for the overweeningly arrogant, since they have not entered the stages, they are not real; nor are they transformed manifestations, so they are not expedient. If one grasps this meaning, existence and non-existence become crystal clear—why strive in bitter dispute? Furthermore, taking solely the Mahāyāna śrāvakas, we may again discuss existence and non-existence: if viewed as expediently making transformed manifestations, outwardly displaying the lesser traces while inwardly concealing great virtues, then one says there are no Mahāyāna śrāvakas; if viewed from their own practice, revealing the origin from the traces, then one says there are Mahāyāna śrāvakas. Now, the primary intent of opening the three and revealing the one is to enable the determined śrāvakas and those who regressed from the Mahāyāna to become Mahāyāna śrāvakas; once their own practice is established, they can expediently transform as śrāvakas. If one grasps this meaning, one comprehends existence and non-existence.