妙法蓮華經文句 3.23

3.23

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.