法華文句記 10.102

10.102

此品既前正引昔，當知〈不輕〉已有五品可以證因，後獲六根可以證果，故云「引證」。嘉祥具對今經上諸品文，以為七別：一者以上二品對今為三品功德，〈隨喜〉下、〈法師〉中、今為上也。二者對上二品為三世功德，〈隨喜〉現、〈法師〉當、今品過。三者對〈法師功德〉明果，今品辯因。四明眾生唯一乘故。五者上明佛記、今明菩薩。六者上明勸福、今明滅罪。七者引事以證六根。言三品者，〈隨喜〉容下，〈法師〉及此俱淨六根，豈分中上？況此尚有先謗墮獄。言三世者，〈隨喜〉乃指佛滅度後，〈法師〉現籍五種功成，〈不輕〉雖往明現生後。言因果者，俱淨六根，豈分二別？言一乘者，通於一部，豈唯此耶？唯對〈分別功德〉分佛菩薩記，此則可爾。言罪福者，今謗獲罪，信者得福，上文生謗豈無罪耶？〈隨喜〉中與陀羅尼菩薩共生一處，利根智慧豈唯福耶？言滅罪者，生謗墮獄此乃生罪，臨終根淨豈唯滅罪？〈法師〉中報陰現轉，何罪不滅？言引事以證六根淨者，何不云弘宣一句，必淨六根，為章所引不思本文。諸如此例不可具引，故略述之以生發見。故今更以六義說之。於中初一亦望今經前品，餘五皆以《法華》望前。一者上全弘經文，今略弘經意，故不讀誦但宣不輕。二者小典生信尚未為二因，今經或毀感六根清淨。三者諸經但明順化弘教，此品禮俗逆化通理。四者餘經所表權實尚隔，此品表聞莫非四一。五者諸經所表迹尚不周，此品兼表本迹二相。六者諸經上慢永言墮苦，此品即能信伏隨從。嘉祥七義非不一見，未有遠致，得此中意諸例可從。問為不輕謬有所記，見者悉云皆當作佛？為復末代弘者迷津？《法華論》云：「此菩薩知眾生有佛性，不敢輕之。」二《論》俱是天親而立性不同者，豈其相違？但申經文使各得教旨，若令一人著《論》，則使諸說咸同，不可所釋大乘盡用對法小義，故知彼《論》自申方等，所以迦葉自悲敗種，至法華會敗種還生，天親即以其《論》申之。若棄如來顯實之文，而滯菩薩弘權之教，偏執之愆莫大，謬申之過可知。

Since this chapter now explicitly cites the past, one should know that [the Bodhisattva] Never Disparaging already possessed the five stages to verify the cause, and subsequently attained the six sense faculties to verify the fruit; hence it is called "citing verification." Jiaxiang compares this chapter with the preceding chapters of this sūtra, positing seven distinctions: First, contrasting the preceding two chapters with the present one makes three grades of merit: "Joyful Acceptance" is lower, "Dharma Master" is middle, and the present chapter is upper. Second, contrasting it with the preceding two chapters makes the merit of the three time periods: "Joyful Acceptance" is the present, "Dharma Master" is the future, and the present chapter is the past. Third, contrasting it with the "Merits of the Dharma Master," which explains the fruit, the present chapter clarifies the cause. Fourth, it clarifies that sentient beings have only the One Vehicle. Fifth, above clarified the Buddha's prophecy, while here clarifies the bodhisattva. Sixth, above clarified encouraging blessings, while here clarifies eradicating sins. Seventh, citing events to verify the six sense faculties. Regarding the three grades: "Joyful Acceptance" may indeed be lower, but both "Dharma Master" and this [chapter] equally purify the six sense faculties—how could they be divided into middle and upper? Furthermore, here there is even falling into hell for previously slandering. Regarding the three time periods: "Joyful Acceptance" refers to after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa; "Dharma Master" presently relies on the five types [of practices] to accomplish merit; Never Disparaging, though past, clarifies the present life and subsequent [rebirths]. Regarding cause and fruit: both purify the six sense faculties—how could they be divided into two? Regarding the One Vehicle: it pervades the entire scripture—how could it be unique to this [chapter]? Only contrasting it with the "Distinction of Merits" to distinguish the prophecies of the Buddha and bodhisattvas is acceptable. Regarding sins and blessings: here, slander incurs sin and faith brings blessings; did slandering in the preceding text incur no sin? In "Joyful Acceptance," being born together in one place with dhāraṇī-bodhisattvas, possessing sharp faculties and wisdom—how could that be mere blessings? Regarding the eradication of sins: slandering and falling into hell creates sin; having the sense faculties purified at the verge of death—how could that be merely eradicating sins? In "Dharma Master," the retributive skandhas are transformed in the present—what sin is not eradicated? As for citing events to verify the purity of the six sense faculties: why not say that propagating a single phrase inevitably purifies the six sense faculties? Citing this for a section heading is failing to reflect upon the root text. Such examples cannot all be cited; hence, I have briefly stated them to stimulate insight. Therefore, I now explain it using six points of significance. Among them, the first also looks back to the preceding chapters of this sūtra, while the remaining five compare the *Lotus Sūtra* with preceding [teachings]. First, above fully propagated the sūtra text, while here it briefly propagates the sūtra's meaning; hence, instead of reading and reciting, he only proclaimed "never disparaging." Second, generating faith in the Hinayana scriptures does not yet constitute the two causes, whereas in this sūtra, even disparagement induces the purity of the six sense faculties. Third, other sūtras only clarify propagating the teaching through compliant conversion, whereas this chapter bows to the worldly, penetrating the principle through resistant conversion. Fourth, what other sūtras express still separates the provisional and the real, whereas what this chapter expresses and hears is none other than the four unities. Fifth, what other sūtras express does not yet encompass the traces, whereas this chapter concurrently expresses both aspects of origin and traces. Sixth, those with overweening pride in other sūtras are permanently said to fall into suffering, whereas in this chapter they are immediately able to faithfully submit and follow. Jiaxiang's seven points are not without a certain perspective, yet they lack profound scope; if one grasps the meaning herein, various interpretations may be aligned with it. Question: Did Never Disparaging mistakenly give a prophecy, saying to everyone he saw that they would all become buddhas? Or was it that propagators in the final age lost their way? The *Lotus Sūtra Commentary* says: "This bodhisattva knew that sentient beings possess the buddha-nature and did not dare to disparage them." Both treatises were composed by Vasubandhu, yet how could they contradict each other in establishing different natures? It is merely that each elucidates the sūtra's text so that each achieves the intent of its teaching. If one author composing treatises were forced to make all expositions identical, it would be unacceptable to interpret the Great Vehicle entirely using the Hinayana meanings of the Abhidharma. Thus we know that his other treatise elucidates the Vaipulya teachings—hence Kāśyapa lamented his own spoiled seed, yet at the Lotus assembly the spoiled seed sprouted again, and Vasubandhu elucidated this with his commentary. If one abandons the Tathāgata's text revealing the real and clings to a bodhisattva's teaching propagating the provisional, the fault of one-sided attachment could not be greater, and the error of misinterpretation is evident.