妙法蓮華經文句 4.8

4.8

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.