法華文句記 1.145

1.145

次出舊解，云大小名聞者，意云：名即己名、聞即他聞，所以名大故聞大、名小故聞小。今但依文故，破其無據。言「依文」者，但約所列多少以明所識多少。前列萬二千，又云眾所知識；後云二千，又無知識，縱以名聞用釋知識，後文全無，何小之有？況復大小一向無憑。初釋類中先通釋五字，次「釋論」下別釋四義，比丘合故。初通釋中五字通收諸有德者，所與之徒既標於大，豈唯異於下眾而已。於比丘中其例復多，四門三脫析體通智辨空之例，秖得且云高譽德行，何可具論？今云如貴類之班輩也。次別釋四義者，初「釋論」下別釋「與」字，初文即因緣釋。若於此七為四悉者，時處世界，戒是為人，心見對治，道脫第一義。若準前三，在昔教者則七義唯三，道脫等俱屬對治意也。圓教七一俱屬圓四，約教雖別究竟唯圓，雖七而同故七名一，一即共也。四教不同通在五味，具如諸經不可遍述，且準歎德在三藏教者，同感佛時、同鹿苑處、同別脫戒、同一切智心、同無漏正見、同三十七道、同有餘脫、為同聞人，入通序時已得記者，全成圓人七一故也。同妙感應時、同見妙依處、同得究竟戒、同證種智心、同無作正見、同圓實道品、同不思議脫，得授記已即同菩薩，安得復以聲聞歎德？豈結集者謬抑德耶？故知在四味時隨味而變，經家從本列在聲聞，故依本歎。若不仍本，焉知聲聞有權有實，實者得記知有所從，聞《法華》時大小別故，故約教判須通始終，故三教七，或本是三，或是轉入。初約三藏一七一者，生滅同故。通教二者，分利鈍故，利兼圓別，應云三七，且通總說同為一例。別云為無量者，自行化他橫豎皆四門，門門四悉入者不同。圓教一者，發心畢竟二不別故。說者應於四教細明，乃至教味先判後開。「若未」下一句約本迹釋，亦約體用論本迹耳。別無聲聞，但云藏、通，若通含別亦可論之，是則略也。又時處二事且約教論，故云三藏中時處且一；若從元初得道時處，或多人共處，略如今文；或多人多處，或一人多處，如《阿含》中多時處也。

Next, presenting the old explanation that speaks of great and small fame and renown: the meaning is that "fame" is one's own name, and "renown" is hearing by others; therefore, because the fame is great, renown is great, and because the fame is small, renown is small. Now, relying solely on the text, we refute it as groundless. "Relying on the text" means merely formulating the quantity known based on the quantity enumerated. Earlier, twelve thousand are enumerated, and it is also said that they are "known to the multitude"; later, two thousand are mentioned, yet there is no "known to the multitude." Even if fame and renown are used to interpret "known," in the later text it is completely absent, so what "smallness" could there be? How much more so when "great and small" are entirely without basis! In first explaining the class, [the Master] first explains the five characters generally; next, from "The Expository Treatise..." downward, he explains the four meanings separately, combining bhikṣus. In the initial general explanation, the five characters generally gather all those possessing virtue; since the company they are with is designated as "great," how could it merely distinguish them from the lower assembly? Among the bhikṣus, the examples are again numerous: the examples of the four gates, the three liberations, analyzing the physical, penetrating wisdom, and discerning emptiness can only provisionally be described as having high reputation and virtuous conduct; how could they be fully discussed? Now it says: like the ranks of noble peers. Next, in explaining the four meanings separately, first from "The Expository Treatise..." downward, the word "with" is explained separately; the initial text is the interpretation by causes and conditions. If these seven are treated as the four siddhāntas: time and place are the worldly; precepts are for persons; mind and views are therapeutic; the path and liberation are the supreme truth. If following the preceding three [teachings], when belonging to the former teachings, the seven meanings are only three, with the path, liberation, etc., all belonging to the therapeutic intent. In the perfect teaching, the seven unities all belong to the perfect four [siddhāntas]; although distinguished according to teaching, ultimately they are only the perfect; although seven, they are identical, hence the seven are called one, and "one" means "together." The differences among the four teachings are found throughout the five flavors, fully as in the various sūtras and cannot be universally described; tentatively following the praise of virtues in the Tripiṭaka teaching: sharing the time of stimulating the Buddha, sharing the place of the Deer Park, sharing the prātimokṣa precepts, sharing the mind of the knowledge of all phenomena, sharing the untainted right view, sharing the thirty-seven factors of the path, sharing remainder liberation—these constitute the persons who shared the hearing. Those who have already received predictions when entering the general preface completely become the seven unities of the person of the perfect [teaching]. Sharing the wondrous time of stimulus and response, sharing the perception of the wondrous environmental support, sharing the attainment of ultimate precepts, sharing the realization of the mind of knowledge of all modes, sharing the right view of non-action, sharing the path-factors of the perfect and real, sharing inconceivable liberation—having already received predictions, they are identical to bodhisattvas; how could they still be praised with the virtues of śrāvakas? Could the compiler have erroneously suppressed their virtues? Hence we know that during the four flavors, they transform according to the flavor; the sūtra master, following the origin, enumerates them among the śrāvakas, and therefore praises them according to the origin. If not retaining the origin, how could one know that śrāvakas have provisional and real? The real ones receive predictions and know their origin; when hearing the *Lotus Sūtra*, the great and small differ; therefore, judging according to teachings must encompass beginning and end. Thus the seven in the three teachings were either originally three or entered through conversion. First, regarding the Tripiṭaka teaching's single set of seven unities: because arising and perishing are identical. The shared teaching has two: because of distinguishing sharp and dull; the sharp encompasses both the perfect and the separate, so it should be called three sevens, but speaking generally they are taken as one case. The separate teaching is said to be immeasurable: because in practicing for oneself and converting others, horizontally and vertically there are four gates, and for gate after gate the four siddhāntas of those who enter differ. The perfect teaching has one: because the initial resolve and the ultimate end are not distinct. The speaker should clarify this in detail across the four teachings, and even for the teachings and flavors, first judge and then open them. The single sentence below, "If not yet...", explains in terms of origin and traces, also discussing origin and traces in terms of essence and function. In the separate teaching there are no śrāvakas, so it speaks only of the Tripiṭaka and shared teachings; if the shared includes the separate, it can also be discussed, but this is an abbreviation. Moreover, the two matters of time and place are tentatively discussed according to the teachings, which is why it says that in the Tripiṭaka time and place are tentatively one; if proceeding from the original time and place of attaining the path, either many people share one place, abbreviated as in the present text, or many people in many places, or one person in many places, like the multiple times and places in the *Āgamas*.