法華文句記 2.40

2.40

次釋少知識眾中，非但不歎又不列名，以少人知。而云「聖與凡」等者，釋少知識所以，凡不測聖故云「絕交」。非聖全不交凡名之為絕，如以凡望凡交者方識，況以凡望聖理合絕交，交好既絕，豈以識之多少言耶？「特以」等者，今聖為引凡發彼同類，機緣不等隨類接之，故現少識之迹以接隱德之徒，故不以凡夫能知能識而判所知所識位高下也。故言不可以多少之迹失其本，故不可以多人知識為本高、以少人知識為本下。又不可多知識者為有實本、少知識者為無實本，故知多識少識俱迹而別有理本，若久本者自有實成。若欲此中辨四悉者，「多少異故」，世界；「隨順物機」為人；「藏名隱德」，對治，「高下莫測」，第一義。「三藏十八種學人」等者，具如《止觀》第六記。通教學無學位兩節判者，前約二乘，後約菩薩。又前約三乘共位，後約獨菩薩位。約別圓中亦兩節判者，前云「功用無功用」，即約地住前後，次「具不具」即等覺妙覺，初入無功用亦得名為無學，但是分得故更約具足。引《阿含》意者，為開第三句義端故也。外人所以作此問者，汝云羅漢既云無學，何故更須隨逐世尊？「若爾」下假問徵起，答中即成第四句也。凡言學者，為進斷故，如七反、一來、不還皆不復學，若歷果進者義屬前句，況已所已斷不復更斷亦當第四句也。更加雙非即五句也。兩教聲聞悉皆如此。四教例者，通教更約菩薩者，前兩句如前，後兩句者學無學當地住故，無學學者無學在佛不可更學，還應退取六地為無學，出假名為學；若準羅漢，佛亦住於善法，為無學學。別圓後位唯不得令佛更有所學，則闕第三句，準通可知。並以凡位為第五句，則後三教並有兩節，皆成五句。

Next, in explaining the assembly of few acquaintances, they are not only not praised, but their names are also not listed, because few people know them. As for saying “the noble and the ordinary” and so forth, this explains the reason for having few acquaintances: ordinary people cannot fathom the noble, which is why it says “cutting off intercourse.” It does not mean that the noble completely refrain from interacting with the ordinary and that this is termed “cutting off.” Just as ordinary persons looking at ordinary persons must interact before they recognize each other, how much more so when ordinary persons look toward the noble—in principle, intercourse ought to be severed! Since friendly intercourse has already been severed, how could one speak of the quantity of acquaintances? Regarding “specially in order to” and so forth, now the noble, in order to guide ordinary people, stimulate those of their same kind; their capacities and conditions being unequal, they receive them according to category. Therefore, they manifest the trace of few acquaintances in order to receive those of concealed virtue. Thus, one does not determine the high or low status of what is known and recognized by whether ordinary people are able to know and recognize them. Hence it is said that one cannot lose their origin because of the traces of many or few; therefore, one cannot consider having many acquaintances as having a high origin, or having few acquaintances as having a low origin. Furthermore, one cannot consider those with many acquaintances as possessing a real origin and those with few acquaintances as lacking a real origin. Thus we know that many acquaintances and few acquaintances are both traces, while there is a distinct origin in principle; if it is a remote origin, it naturally has real attainment. If one wishes to distinguish the four siddhāntas here: “because of the difference in quantity” is the mundane; “adapting to the capacities of living beings” is the individual; “concealing name and hiding virtue” is the therapeutic; and “unfathomable in height or depth” is the primary meaning. Regarding “the eighteen kinds of trainees in the Tripiṭaka” and so forth, this is fully as in the notes to the sixth fascicle of the Great Calming and Contemplation. The distinction between the stages of trainee and beyond-training in the shared teaching is judged in two sections: the first is in terms of the two vehicles, and the latter is in terms of bodhisattvas. Alternatively, the first is in terms of the shared stages of the three vehicles, and the latter is in terms of the exclusive bodhisattva stages. In the distinct and perfect teachings, it is also judged in two sections: the earlier statement “with exertion and without exertion” refers to before and after the bhūmis and abodes; next, “complete and incomplete” refers to equal enlightenment and wondrous enlightenment. First entering into non-exertion may also be termed “beyond-training,” but because it is only partial attainment, it is further discussed in terms of completeness. The intention of citing the Āgamas is to open the starting point of the meaning of the third proposition. The reason outsiders pose this question is: “You say that since an arhat is called ‘beyond-training,’ why does he still need to follow the World-Honoured One?” The hypothetical question raised starting from “if so” constitutes the fourth proposition in the answer. Whenever one speaks of a “trainee,” it is for the sake of advancing in eradication; thus, [those who undergo] seven returns, once-returners, and non-returners all train no further. If one advances through the fruits, the meaning belongs to the preceding proposition; how much more so when what has already been eradicated is not eradicated again, which also corresponds to the fourth proposition! Adding the double negation makes five propositions. The śrāvakas of both teachings are all like this. Exemplifying with the four teachings: when the shared teaching is further applied to bodhisattvas, the first two propositions are as before. For the latter two propositions, trainee-beyond-training corresponds to the bhūmis and abodes; as for beyond-training-trainee, beyond-training belongs to the Buddha and cannot be trained further, so one should return to taking the sixth bhūmi as beyond-training, and emerging into provisional designation as training; or according to the arhat, the Buddha also abides in wholesome dharmas, being beyond-training-trainee. For the latter stages of the distinct and perfect teachings, one simply must not cause the Buddha to have anything further to train in, so the third proposition is lacking; this can be known by analogy with the shared teaching. And taking the ordinary stage as the fifth proposition, the latter three teachings all have two sections, each forming five propositions.