法華文句記 10.124

10.124

四云二事乖角者，分身若還此土復穢，準妙音被誡故知土穢，〈囑累〉中亦令多寶還歸，觀音不應施寶分二，分二即多寶未還，遣去既同不應乖角。救曰：秖由未還故寶分二，是故但云「一分奉多寶佛塔」，而不云「奉多寶佛」，故知事畢者去、有緣者住，於理何傷？若多寶在分身不合散者，經文但云「塔可如故」，如故秖是依初還閉；令初身散，即云「各還本土」，故知雖即令其塔還，聽餘經故塔閉而在，如塔未開時，但云多寶「於寶塔中出大音聲」。又云四眾聞寶塔中所出音聲，大樂說云「於其塔中發是音聲」。又佛告大樂說「是寶塔中有如來」等，故塔未開，大眾但云「多寶如來於寶塔中」；次塔開已，大眾皆云「見二如來在寶塔中」。若塔閉後，如〈藥王品〉末云「多寶如來於寶塔中」，妙音至此但上釋迦瓔珞以申問訊，次方問云「此久滅度多寶如來，在寶塔中來聽法不？」仍對釋迦申彼佛問云「安隱堪忍久住不？」當知塔閉住而未去。又云「唯願世尊示我令見」，豈二佛並坐乃云請見？又多寶佛於寶塔中告妙音言，秖云「汝為供養釋迦」等，不云「分身」，豈分身矚目而不供養？又妙音欲還但云「供養釋迦及多寶塔已」，不云「見佛」；到彼見淨華宿王，但云「供養釋迦及多寶塔」，亦不云「見多寶如來及以分身」。又文殊來時即云「頭面敬禮二世尊足」，囑累之後全無此文，故塔已閉、分身已散。若分身在，觀音施寶理應供養，不應但二。

Fourth, they say that two matters are in conflict: If the emanation [buddhas] returned, this land would become defiled again, and based on Gadgadasvara being cautioned, we know that the land was defiled; in the "Entrustment," Prabhūtaratna is also told to return, so Avalokiteśvara should not have divided the jewels into two portions. If divided into two portions, it means Prabhūtaratna had not yet returned; since both were dispatched to depart, they should not be in conflict. I rebut this: It is precisely because he had not yet returned that the jewels were divided into two portions; therefore it only says, "offered one portion to the stūpa of Prabhūtaratna Buddha," and does not say "offered to Prabhūtaratna Buddha." Hence we know that those whose tasks were completed departed, while those with conditions remained; what harm is there to reason? If it were argued that while Prabhūtaratna remained, the emanation [buddhas] should not have been dismissed: the sūtra text merely says "the stūpa may be as before," and "as before" simply means returning to its initial closed state; whereas to dismiss the original emanations, it says "each return to your own lands." Thus we know that although the stūpa was told to return, because it was listening to the remainder of the sūtra, the stūpa was closed but remained. Just as before the stūpa was opened, it only says that Prabhūtaratna "emitted a great voice from within the precious stūpa." It also says that the fourfold assembly heard the sound emitted from within the precious stūpa, and Mahāpratibhāna said, "From within that stūpa this sound was issued." Furthermore, the Buddha told Mahāpratibhāna, "In this precious stūpa there is a Tathāgata..." and so forth. Thus before the stūpa was opened, the great assembly only said, "Prabhūtaratna Tathāgata is within the precious stūpa"; next, after the stūpa was opened, the great assembly all said, "We see two Tathāgatas in the precious stūpa." After the stūpa was closed, as at the end of the "Bhaiṣajyarāja Chapter," it says, "Prabhūtaratna Tathāgata within the precious stūpa." When Gadgadasvara arrived here, he merely offered neck ornaments to Śākyamuni to convey inquiries, and only then asked, "Is this Prabhūtaratna Tathāgata, long since extinct, within the precious stūpa, coming to listen to the Dharma?" He then conveyed that Buddha's inquiry to Śākyamuni, saying, "Are you in comfort and health, able to endure, and dwelling long?" You should know that the stūpa was closed and remained, not having departed. It also says, "I only wish that the World-Honoured One would show him to me, that I may see him"; if the two buddhas were sitting side by side, why would he ask to see him? Furthermore, when Prabhūtaratna Buddha spoke to Gadgadasvara from within the precious stūpa, he merely said, "You have come to make offerings to Śākyamuni..." and so forth, without mentioning the emanation [buddhas]; if the emanation [buddhas] were right before his eyes, would he not make offerings to them? Moreover, when Gadgadasvara wished to return, it merely says "having made offerings to Śākyamuni and the stūpa of Prabhūtaratna," without saying "saw the Buddha"; upon arriving there and seeing Padmavṛṣabhavikrāmin, he merely said "made offerings to Śākyamuni and the stūpa of Prabhūtaratna," and likewise did not say "saw Prabhūtaratna Tathāgata and the emanation [buddhas]." Furthermore, when Mañjuśrī came, it says, "bowed his head to the feet of the two World-Honoured Ones"; after the entrustment, there is no such text at all. Hence the stūpa was already closed and the emanation [buddhas] were already dismissed. If the emanation [buddhas] were present, when Avalokiteśvara made offerings of jewels, he logically ought to have made offerings [to them], and should not have made only two [offerings].