法華文句記 10.122

10.122

二云經論相違者，《法華論》云：「修行力有五」，第五護法力中云「如〈普賢勸發品〉及後品」，後品即指〈囑累品〉也。救曰：《論》亦人譯，擅指何疑？況《論》雖西來，譯時既在《正法華》後，秖是譯者順《正法華》故，《正經》在西晉時譯，《論》在後魏時譯，如隋笈多見《正法華．藥草喻》後有一長行偈頌，及〈囑累〉在後，便以《正經》添於品內，及移〈囑累〉在〈勸發〉後，餘無所云，遂使後人云「添品法華」。故知譯者不妨隨見，《妙》、《正》二本同一梵文，乍可信羅什而寢於法護，安得釋《妙》本專以《論》為憑？秀云：言「後品」者，是《普賢觀經》，以同是普賢發起令依經修觀。又言「後品」者，既其不出名目，則似經度不盡，若不爾者，何不云「及囑累品」但言後耶？此亦是一見。然準天台判為結經，不云「在勸發品後」。

Second, they say there is a contradiction between sūtra and treatise: The *Treatise on the Lotus Sūtra* says, "The powers of cultivation are five," and under the fifth, the power of protecting the Dharma, it says, "as in the 'Samantabhadra's Encouragement' chapter and the subsequent chapter." "The subsequent chapter" refers precisely to the "Entrustment Chapter." I rebut this: The *Treatise* was also translated by a person; why doubt an arbitrary reference? Moreover, although the *Treatise* came from the West, its time of translation was after the *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka*; it is simply that the translator followed the *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka*. The *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka* was translated during the Western Jin, whereas the *Treatise* was translated during the Later Wei. Just as Jñānagupta in the Sui saw that after the "Parable of the Medicinal Herbs" in the *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka* there was a prose and verse passage, and that "Entrustment" was at the end, he then used the *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka* to supplement the chapter and moved "Entrustment" to after "Encouragement," having nothing else to say on the matter, which led later people to call it the *Lotus Sūtra with Added Chapters*. Thus we know that translators may well follow their own perspectives. The *Wondrous Dharma* and *Saddharmapuṇḍarīka* share the same Sanskrit text; it is far better to trust Kumārajīva and set aside Dharmarakṣa—how can one, in explaining the *Wondrous Dharma* text, exclusively rely on the *Treatise*? Xiù says: The phrase "subsequent chapter" refers to the *Sūtra on the Contemplation of Samantabhadra*, because it is likewise initiated by Samantabhadra to induce cultivation of contemplation based on the sūtra. Furthermore, when it says "subsequent chapter," since it does not state the title, it seems the sūtra had not yet been fully translated; if it were not so, why did it not say "and the Entrustment Chapter," but merely say "subsequent"? This too is one perspective. However, Tiāntái determined it to be the concluding sūtra, and did not say "after the Encouragement chapter."