法華文句記 3.117

3.117

「成一切種智」者，五佛章中皆云為令乃至種智，故知同也。所以定起引同還同光中所見，故五佛章種種之言不出四味。「昔同」下「云云」者，令更分別三同相狀，今佛正在於定故以《法華》為當，古佛已說《法華》故以三皆在昔，所以古佛六瑞及以爾前四味，而為與今今同已同，唯說《法華》名為當同。古師不以六瑞而為今同，具如下破。「初引」至「互舉」者，文殊巧說為避繁文，故文殊見時皆具五味。言「指前」者，以中後指前初一佛也。二萬之漸指最初及後，最後之頓指二萬及初，而不引二萬之前等者，且引同皆為頓開漸，過去既爾，驗知他土不過萬八千者，以過此外不同故也。若云無量何妨照同，若依現數則中間不同尚亦不照，況萬八千外，雖然猶是一往，光但令見一萬八千。答但引於過去二萬，足得表道同、足可釋疑念，故定起所引十方三世，何但如向所見所引。

As for "accomplishing all-knowledge": in the chapters on the five buddhas, they all say "in order to cause... up to all-knowledge"; hence one knows they are identical. Therefore, upon arising from samādhi, he adduces identity, which again is identical to what was seen within the light; thus the words "manifold" in the chapters on the five buddhas do not go beyond the four flavors. The "and so forth" under "past identity": it instructs one to further distinguish the characteristics of the three identities. Because the present Buddha is currently in samādhi, the Lotus Sūtra is taken as "future"; because the ancient buddhas have already preached the Lotus Sūtra, all three are in the past. Therefore, the ancient buddhas' six portents along with the four flavors prior to that constitute the "already identical" with the present "present identity"; only the preaching of the Lotus Sūtra is called "future identity." The ancient masters did not take the six portents as the present identity, as fully refuted below. From "initially adducing" to "mutually raising": Mañjuśrī's skillful preaching was in order to avoid prolixity, so when Mañjuśrī saw, all five flavors were fully present. As for "pointing to the former": by means of the middle and latter, he points to the first single buddha before them. The gradual of the twenty thousand points to the very first and the last; the sudden of the very last points to the twenty thousand and the first. As for not adducing those before the twenty thousand and so forth: provisionally adducing identity is entirely for opening the gradual with the sudden. Since the past was like this, by examination one knows that in other lands it did not exceed eighteen thousand because beyond this, they were not identical. If one says they are immeasurable, what prevents illuminating the identical? If one relies on the manifest number, even differences in between were not illuminated, let alone beyond eighteen thousand. Even so, this is still a provisional statement: the light merely caused eighteen thousand to be seen. The answer merely adduced the twenty thousand in the past; this suffices to express that the Dao is identical, and suffices to resolve doubtful thoughts. Therefore, what was adduced upon arising from samādhi in the ten directions and three periods—how could it merely be what was seen and adduced as before?