法華文句記 10.135

10.135

次別破第九第十者，第九佛無就座，難云：開塔蒙命釋迦入坐，閉塔還出亦宜復座，豈得立說下諸經耶？如《涅槃經》如來現臥還從臥起，如茶毘時從金棺起上升梵宮，梵宮下已還復本座，此亦應爾，何事不然？翻曰：若摩頂已理須復座，若言無文令佛常立者，如文殊答問竟無入海文，何故至此忽云海來？又云於海常說《法華》，常說之言應常在海，若本在海〈序〉不應列，何得復為彌勒釋疑？又說經竟，佛但令眾各散，元無更坐之文，佛應立送天龍八部，何但獨送多寶分身？立送分身其儀稍順，立送八部尊卑倍乖。又何不責云諸分身佛但令侍者齎華以宣問訊，及云彼某甲佛與欲開此寶塔，即云爾時釋迦見分身集與欲開塔，不見侍者至會說欲，欲應不成。〈法師〉與彼雖則稍親，黨理不黨親，古可依也。又何不責，教門皆云達多世世造惡，今忽說為佛師，復云與師記莂，顛倒不可具言。何不責龍女成佛太速？何不責聲聞成佛太遲？

Next, refuting the ninth and tenth objections specifically: The ninth is that the Buddha did not resume his seat. The objection argues: 'Opening the stupa, he received the invitation and Śākyamuni entered and sat down; closing the stupa and coming back out, he should also have returned to his seat. How could he stand to speak the subsequent sūtra chapters? Just as in the *Nirvāṇa Sūtra* the Tathāgata manifested lying down and then rose from lying down, and as at the cremation he rose from the golden coffin, ascended to the Brahmā palace, and having descended from the Brahmā palace returned to his original seat—this should also be like that; why should it not be so?' Overturning this: If having patted their heads he naturally had to return to his seat, but you claim that the absence of text implies the Buddha stood continuously: just as after Mañjuśrī finished answering the question there is no text of his entering the sea, why does it suddenly say here that he came from the sea? And it also says he 'constantly expounded the *Lotus Sūtra* in the sea'; the words 'constantly expounded' imply he should constantly have been in the sea; if he was originally in the sea, he should not have been listed in the 'Introductory Chapter', so how could he again resolve doubts for Maitreya? Furthermore, after the sūtra was spoken, the Buddha merely ordered the assembly to disperse, with fundamentally no text of his sitting down again; the Buddha would have had to stand to send off the gods, dragons, and eight classes, so why only send off Prabhūtaratna and the emanations? Standing to send off the emanations is somewhat in line with decorum; standing to send off the eight classes would be doubly contrary to the distinction between noble and lowly. Furthermore, why do you not censure the fact that the emanation buddhas merely ordered attendants to bring flowers to convey their inquiries and say, 'Such-and-such a buddha gives his consent to open this treasure stupa,' whereupon it immediately says that at that time Śākyamuni saw that the emanations had gathered and gave his consent to open the stupa, without seeing the attendants arrive in the assembly to declare their consent—the consent should thus be invalid! Although Dharma Master [Cí'ēn] is somewhat close [in lineage or esteem] to that [school], one sides with principle, not with closeness; the ancients can be relied upon. Furthermore, why do you not censure the fact that the doctrinal teachings all say Devadatta committed evil lifetime after lifetime, yet now he is suddenly declared to be the Buddha's teacher, and it is further said that [the Buddha] bestowed a prediction on his teacher? Such reversals cannot be fully recounted. Why do you not censure the dragon girl for attaining buddhahood too quickly? Why do you not censure the śrāvakas for attaining buddhahood too slowly?