法華文句記 1.41

1.41

次「因緣」下，明一一別釋，於中初是因緣；次「若十方」下，是約教；次「若應機」下，是本迹；次「若尋」下，是觀心。初因緣者，初文正釋，始從如是終至而去，無非真實感應道交，故知今經感應妙也。《法華》已前小及鈍根一向無機，理是而迷故名雖近，機生未契故云不見。慈亘始末名善根力，事理不同故名為遠。無謀而會故云自通。故爾前感應妙道未交，諸部異同教主優劣、被物漸頓施設不同，一一無非感應意也。雖通名感應，顯益未周；雖通名四悉，淺深差別。若兼若獨盈縮不馴，來至《法華》方成一味。言無機者，反以昔無而釋今有。

Next, from “causes and conditions” onwards, it clarifies the distinct explanations of each, among which the first is causes and conditions; next, from “if ten directions” onwards, is according to the teachings; next, from “if responding to capacities” onwards, is origin and traces; next, from “if seeking” onwards, is contemplating the mind. Regarding the first, causes and conditions: the initial passage provides the direct explanation. From “thus” at the beginning to “departed” at the end, none is not the true mutual interaction of stimulus and response; therefore we know that the stimulus and response of the present sūtra are wondrous. Prior to the Lotus [Sūtra], the lesser and dull capacities entirely lacked receptivity; the principle is present yet they are deluded, so it is called “although near”; their capacity had arisen but was not yet attuned, so it says “not seen.” The compassion spanning beginning to end is called the power of good roots; because matter and principle are distinct, it is called “far.” Meeting without premeditation is called “naturally communicating.” Therefore, previously the wondrous path of stimulus and response did not interact; the differences among the various collections, the superiority and inferiority of the masters of the teachings, and the differences in the gradual or sudden accommodations applied to beings—each and every one was the intention of stimulus and response. Although generally called stimulus and response, the manifest benefit was not yet complete; although generally called the four siddhāntas, there were distinctions of shallow and deep. Whether combining or standing alone, expanding or contracting without uniformity, only upon arriving at the Lotus [Sūtra] do they become of a single flavor. Speaking of “lacking receptivity” uses past absence in contrast to explain present possession.