法華文句記 10.80

10.80

問答中先問可見。答中「此法」者，展轉聞法故。「彼人」者，《大品》云：「若聲聞人能發心者，我亦隨喜。」亦應更問，彼兼此獨，云何得同？答不從所兼不共不別，恐混名同辯別故來。況彼是引進之語，此判初心實功，故彼無發心之理，此明隨理已成，是故名同其事永別。「前品以校量四人」者，〈分別功德品〉末於後四人經文節節自校量訖，唯初品文未有校量，故生此品。故前品末疏云「今具列五品校量四品，後〈隨喜品〉校量初品」。「乘機」者，由佛知機隱之未說，故使彌勒乘機扣佛，廣校初文方知後四功大，時眾益廣故曰「乘機」。「南方」者，江南也。言「勝劣平」者，意謂後後漸勝為「勝」，後後相似為「平」，後後漸弱為「劣」，乃以漸劣況出平勝，劣中最後第五十人功德尚多，況平況勝至第五十耶？文雖未破理不全然，但依漸劣以後況初，何用平勝？平乃初後相似，勝又後勝於前，並非校量之限。今正解者，以因古人非五十位解傷文失理，故今助之，暫寄教門以立人數。但約六眾不列式叉者，亦一往對數且暫除之，豈有式叉不聞經耶？意亦不必從於有門以大比丘而為初會中人，此中雖復累人及門并行至四十八，意明教教及一一人隨從一門一行，皆可從於法會人聞。所以二解者，初約三教義當昔教有五十人至今聞圓；二者至今復成五十，即是聞經皆被開顯全成四人。故圓舉數無可以辯，且寄數法以一七而止，如七世等七中從大故四十九。「皆是師弟」等者，展轉教故。言「最後一人無教他」者，且約一期校量為言。言「大七」等者，此方數法黃帝所立，有二不同，下數十萬為億，上數億億為億；七數亦然，故以七七而為大七，於小乃成四十九也。并最後人即成五十，此亦一往合其數耳。正義如前破古師中，今謂「不爾」已下文是。《經》「四生」者，有人於此廣約《俱舍》、《婆沙》及諸經論，出四生義章，非今文要，但可略知六趣，略如第一卷及《止觀》第一記。四生者，謂胎、卵、濕、化。又《顯識論》中又立四生，一觸生者，因交會故。二嗅生者，雄有欲心嗅雌者根門，即便有孕。三沙生者，如雌雀以欲心坋沙，因即有孕。四者聲生，如雌孔雀以欲心故聞雄者鳴，便即有孕。此四但攝胎、卵二生，濕、化但染香處不須此相。「與世間樂拔果苦」者，且與四事及以七寶，故云世樂。令果身安故云拔果，令得羅漢故云拔生死苦。「此是梵福」者，此人教他令得聖果，自未得聖但名梵福，若得聖果方名為聖。「今更廣之」者，此用《大論》文也。福中大者莫先於梵，故《論》釋百福莊嚴相中，以梵福為一福；有此校量，今經令得四果者，亦梵福也。於中復更校量出聞經福，令以眾聖福之初用校最後聞經之益，故聞《妙經》隨喜，初心尚過後聖，何況初聖？故知世人目視如意而爭求水精，已遇日光而謀燈燭。「薩埵大薩埵」者，以三菩薩展轉相望，一往且以大小言之，故方便極位菩薩猶尚不及第五十人，何況但教他得二乘耶？言「聖福」者，望上屬福故也。然《華嚴》中以初住校量，其事仍易；今初隨喜位校量聖福，自非大聖嚴旨，安能信斯希奇？故知但從事判云「此品行旁不輕行正」，故此一部無得以旁言之，並是《法華》之正轍也。此中功德對五十人，章安但直標數而已，不指經文。今略對之，每兩功德結為一句：

In the question and answer, the question comes first and is readily apparent. In the answer, 'this dharma' refers to hearing the Dharma through successive transmission. Regarding 'that person', the Larger Perfection of Wisdom states: 'If a śrāvaka is able to produce the aspiration [for awakening], I also rejoice with them.' One should also further ask: that text combines [vehicles] while this text is exclusive; how can they be the same? The answer is that it does not proceed from combining, nor from being unshared, nor from being distinct; rather, it is presented for fear of conflating identical names, in order to distinguish them. Moreover, that text is speech meant to guide and lead them forward, whereas this text assesses the actual merits of the initial mind; thus in that text there is no principle of generating the aspiration, while this text clarifies that following the principle is already accomplished. Therefore, though the names are identical, their matters are completely different. Regarding 'the previous chapter compared and measured the four types of persons', at the end of the 'Discrimination of Merits' chapter, the sūtra text has already section by section compared and measured the latter four types of persons; only the text concerning the initial stage had not yet been compared and measured, which is why this chapter arises. Therefore, the commentary at the end of the previous chapter says: 'Now, fully listing the five stages, it compared and measured four stages; the subsequent "Rejoicing with Joy" chapter compares and measures the initial stage.' Regarding 'seizing the opportunity', because the Buddha, knowing the capacity, kept it hidden and had not yet spoken it, he caused Maitreya to seize the opportunity and query the Buddha, extensively comparing the initial text so that one only then knows the greatness of the merits of the latter four; because the assembly of the time received broader benefit, it is called 'seizing the opportunity'. 'The Southern Region' means Jiangnan. As for the words 'superior, inferior, and equal', it means that subsequent ones being gradually superior is 'superior'; subsequent ones being similar is 'equal'; subsequent ones being gradually weaker is 'inferior'. Thus, by means of gradual inferiority, it illustrates equality and superiority: if even the merits of the fiftieth person, the very last among the inferior, are still so numerous, how much more so for the equal and the superior up to the fiftieth? Although the text does not refute this, the principle is not entirely so: one simply relies on gradual inferiority to use the later to illustrate the initial; what use is equality and superiority? 'Equal' means the beginning and the end are similar; 'superior' means the later is superior to the former; neither falls within the bounds of comparative measurement. As for the correct interpretation now: because ancient masters' interpretations not involving the fifty stages damaged the text and missed the principle, we now support it, temporarily lodging in the doctrinal gates to establish the number of persons. As for merely relying on the six assemblies and not listing the śikṣamāṇās, this too provisionally sets them aside for the sake of the count; how could a śikṣamāṇā not hear the sūtra? The intent also does not necessarily require starting from the gate of existence with the great bhikṣus as the people in the initial assembly. Although here persons, gates, and practices are accumulated up to forty-eight, the intent is to clarify that each teaching and each person, following any single gate or practice, can hear it from a person in the Dharma assembly. The reason there are two explanations is: first, in terms of the three teachings, it corresponds to the fifty persons of the past teachings hearing the perfect [teaching] up to the present; second, up to the present they again become fifty, which means that all who hear the sūtra are opened and revealed, entirely becoming the four persons. Therefore, comprehensively citing a number cannot be definitively differentiated; one merely lodges in numerical convention, stopping at one seven, like the seven generations and so on: among the sevens, taking the great one yields forty-nine. 'All are teachers and disciples', etc., means teaching through successive transmission. The statement 'the last person does not teach another' is spoken provisionally regarding this single period of comparative measurement. The words 'great seven', etc., refer to the numerical systems of this land established by the Yellow Emperor, of which there are two different kinds: in the lower system ten ten-thousands make a myriad (hundred thousand), while in the upper system a myriad times a myriad makes a myriad; the number seven is also like this, so seven sevens make the 'great seven', which in the lesser system becomes forty-nine. Adding the final person makes fifty; this too is merely a provisional rounding of the number. The correct meaning is as in the earlier refutation of the ancient masters, in the text from 'Now we say: it is not so' downward. Regarding the sūtra's 'four modes of birth', someone here extensively drew upon the Kośa, the Vibhāṣā, and various sūtras and treatises to compose an essay on the meaning of the four modes of birth; this is not essential to the present text. One need only briefly know the six destinies, roughly as in the first fascicle and the first record of the Zhiguan. The four modes of birth are: viviparous, oviparous, moisture-born, and apparitional. Furthermore, the Treatise on the Manifestation of Consciousness also establishes four modes of birth: first, birth through touch, which is due to sexual intercourse; second, birth through smell, where the male, with lustful intent, smells the female's sense-aperture and she immediately conceives; third, birth through sand, as when a female sparrow with lustful intent rolls in sand and thereby conceives; fourth, birth through sound, as when a female peacock, through lustful intent, hears the male's cry and immediately conceives. These four merely subsume viviparous and oviparous births; moisture-born and apparitional births merely attach to fragrant places and do not require these marks. Regarding 'giving mundane pleasure and eradicating resultant suffering', provisionally giving the four requisites and the seven treasures is called mundane pleasure. Causing the physical body of the resultant state to be at ease is called eradicating the result; causing them to attain arhatship is called eradicating the suffering of birth and death. Regarding 'this is brahma-blessing', this person teaches others to attain the noble fruit, but has not yet attained the noble state themselves, so it is merely called brahma-blessing; only if one attains the noble fruit is it called noble. Regarding 'now it is further expanded', this employs the text of the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa. Among blessings, none is greater than brahma, so when the Treatise explains the hundred-blessing adorned marks, it takes brahma-blessing as a single blessing; having this comparison, in the present sūtra causing them to attain the four fruits is also brahma-blessing. Therein, it further compares and brings forth the blessing of hearing the sūtra, causing the initial [blessing] among the blessings of the assembly of noble ones to be used to compare the benefit of the last hearing of the sūtra; thus, rejoicing with joy upon hearing the Wondrous Sūtra, the initial mind still surpasses the later noble ones, how much more so the initial noble ones? Thus we know that worldly people, looking upon the wish-fulfilling jewel, instead scramble to seek quartz; having encountered the light of the sun, they still plan for lamps and candles. Regarding 'sattvas and mahāsattvas', considering the three bodhisattvas in relation to one another, it is provisionally spoken of in terms of great and small; thus a bodhisattva at the ultimate stage of skillful means still does not equal the fiftieth person, how much less so merely teaching others to attain the two vehicles? The words 'noble blessing' mean that looking upward, it belongs to blessing. However, in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra, comparative measurement is done with the initial dwelling, which is still an easy matter; now the stage of initial rejoicing is compared with noble blessings: were it not for the solemn decree of the Great Sage, how could one believe such a marvel? Thus we know that merely judging from phenomena by saying 'the practice of this chapter is secondary, while the practice of Never-Disparaging is primary' is incorrect, for in this entire work nothing may be called secondary; all are the main track of the Lotus Sūtra. As for the merits here correlated with the fifty persons, Zhāng’ān merely listed the number directly without indicating the sūtra text. Now we briefly correlate them, with every two merits forming one line: