法華文句記 10.185

10.185

「文廣意狹」至「云云」者，離開多句故云「文廣」，意唯現文故云「意狹」。「總答文狹」者，但十二字。言「意廣」者，既云「種種」，何所不該？「聞品功德」云「持地」者，《寶雲經》云：「菩薩有十法名持地三昧，如世間地，一者廣大，二眾生依，三無好惡，四受大雨，五生草木，六種子所依，七生眾寶，八生眾藥，九風不動，十師子吼亦不能驚。菩薩亦爾。」經一一合。今謂以八教判，方應今經。「聞品功德」下「云云」者，應對諸經及以今部，辯其得益共別不同，以判教相兼帶等異，教若唯小顯露，終無結得大益，密得大益教不可傳，教雖不傳須辨其旨。若如方等般若之流，以部共故聞益亦共，則具顯密及以不定，互相知者名為不定，互不相知名為祕密。是則部內或品似大，益有大小；或品似小，益亦大小，或兼大小，益亦大小。皆以向來三義消之，不能具指諸經品相，思之！思之！今經唯大，大中唯圓，無密偏小，故聞品益始終無偏。雖於圓中亦有發心不退及無生等，不與偏小共也。約部判益良由於此。故〈嚴王品〉雖云「法眼名同體異」，定非初果，須判為六根清淨法眼位耳，即七信已上。若聞《法華》令得初果，則《法華》一部文義俱壞。「初一是橫釋」等者，結前三重釋無等等以成大車。佛界一念望理名橫，佛心望理二義均等，故名為橫。次約初心緣畢竟理，初後相望為豎。第三意者，心之與理冥符一體，俱不可說，誰論橫豎？初釋唯佛，心即空也。次釋通一切假也。第三明前二俱不可得中也。文後偈頌什公不譯，近代皆云梵本中有，此亦未測什公深意。《續僧傳》中云：「偈是闍那掘多所譯」，今從舊本故無所釋，還著本人，具如《止觀》第八記。

Regarding 'the text is broad and the intention narrow' down to 'and so forth': because it sets forth many phrases, it is called 'the text is broad'; because the intention is solely the present text, it is called 'the intention is narrow'. Regarding 'the general answer has narrow text': it has only twelve characters. As for 'the intention is broad': since it says 'various', what is not encompassed? Regarding 'merits of hearing the chapter', where it mentions 'Dharaṇīṃdhara': the Ratnamegha Sūtra says: 'A bodhisattva possesses ten dharmas called the samādhi of holding the earth, like the earthly realm: first, vastness; second, reliance for sentient beings; third, without likes or dislikes; fourth, receiving great rain; fifth, growing grasses and trees; sixth, the basis of seeds; seventh, producing various treasures; eighth, producing various medicines; ninth, unmoved by wind; tenth, a lion's roar cannot frighten it. The bodhisattva is also like this.' The sūtra matches every single one. We now say that only by judging through the eight teachings does it correspond to the present sūtra. Regarding 'and so forth' under 'merits of hearing the chapter': one should contrast various sūtras with the present section to discern the shared and specific differences in their attainment of benefit, so as to judge the differences of doctrinal characteristics, such as whether they include or combine [other teachings]. If a teaching is exclusively Hinayana and manifest, it will never conclude with the attainment of great benefit; if it secretly attains great benefit, the teaching cannot be transmitted; although the teaching is not transmitted, one must discern its purport. If it is of the class of Vaipulya and Prajñā, because the section is shared, the benefit of hearing is also shared, possessing the manifest, secret, and indeterminate: where they know one another, it is called indeterminate; where they do not know one another, it is called secret. Thus, within a section, a chapter may seem Mahayana, but the benefit has great and small; or a chapter may seem Hinayana, but the benefit also has great and small; or it combines great and small, and the benefit also has great and small. All are explained through the previous three meanings; we cannot point out every chapter's characteristics across all sūtras—reflect upon this! Reflect upon this! The present sūtra is exclusively Mahayana, and within Mahayana, exclusively perfect; it has no secret, one-sided, or Hinayana; therefore, the benefit of hearing the chapter is from beginning to end without one-sidedness. Although within the perfect there are also generating the aspiration, non-retrogression, and non-arising [acceptance], these are not shared with the one-sided and small. Judging the benefit according to the section is truly due to this. Therefore, although the 'Chapter on King Śubhavyūha' mentions 'the Dharma-eye is the same in name but different in substance', it is definitely not the first fruition, but must be judged as the Dharma-eye stage of the purification of the six sense faculties, which is the seventh faith and above. If hearing the Lotus Sūtra caused one to obtain the first fruition, then the entire text and meaning of the Lotus Sūtra would be destroyed. Regarding 'the first is a horizontal explanation', and so forth: concluding the previous threefold explanation of 'the unexcelled' to constitute the great cart. A single thought-moment of the Buddha-realm viewed toward principle is called horizontal; the Buddha-mind viewed toward principle has both meanings equal, hence it is called horizontal. Next, based on the initial mind focusing on ultimate principle, viewing the initial and final against each other is vertical. The third intention is that mind and principle are mysteriously unified as one substance, both being ineffable—who discusses horizontal or vertical? The first explanation is solely the Buddha: mind is emptiness. The next explanation pervades everything: provisionality. The third clarifies that the previous two are both unobtainable: the middle. The verses at the end of the text were not translated by Venerable Kumārajīva; in recent times all say they exist in the Sanskrit text, but Kumārajīva's profound intention in this cannot be fathomed. The Continued Biographies of Eminent Monks states: 'The verses were translated by Jñānagupta.' Following the old text, we now provide no explanation, returning [the authorship] to the original translator, fully detailed as in the notes to the eighth fascicle of Great Calming and Contemplation.