法華文句記 3.142

3.142

「下文」者，具如〈五百受記〉中說，則知一切頭角聲聞咸是菩薩。「昔明」至「則有」者，釋疑也。恐疑昔與今今同中應一切同，何以今具五序昔但二耶？初是現相，從「彌勒當知」下懷疑，從「時有菩薩」下便論說經。所以古唯二者，有二意故，先徵竟，次「既言」下釋，中二：先明文無義有，次「又若」下明隱昔顯今。從要答二，理兼者略。若具引三序以答彌勒之問，還成文殊引往為答，有何不可？但文殊鑒物知此時眾情在於己，故彌勒云「四眾欣仰瞻仁及我」，是以隱昔日之三而但述二，令知問答之後即說《法華》，巧申己見以愜眾情，適時之宜何以加也。「又若」下第二意，秖緣不敘昔答，故以垂辭具騰始末，始說《法華》終盡滅後，乃至結會方結述云「今見此瑞與本無異」等，乃至偈云「我見燈明佛，本光瑞如此，以是知今佛，欲說法華經」等，但利物乘機何勞費辭，故隱問答但述己見。

Regarding 'the later text,' it is fully as explained in the 'Conferral of Prophecy on Five Hundred Disciples' [chapter]; then one knows that all the prominent voice-hearers are bodhisattvas. The passage from 'previously clarifying' to 'then there is' resolves doubts. It is feared that one might suspect that in the sameness between the past and the present, everything should be the same—why does the present possess five prefaces while the past has only two? The first is the manifestation of signs; from 'Maitreya should know' downward, doubts were harbored; from 'at that time there was a bodhisattva' downward, it immediately discusses the preaching of the sūtra. The reason why the past had only two is that there are two intentions. First, after the interrogation is completed, next from 'since it says' downward is the explanation, which has two parts: first clarifying that though absent in the text, it exists in meaning; next from 'moreover if' downward, clarifying the concealing of the past to reveal the present. Answering two from the essentials, that which is implicitly included in principle is omitted. If one were to fully cite the three prefaces to answer Maitreya's question, it would still amount to Mañjuśrī citing the past as an answer—what could be objectionable about that? But Mañjuśrī, examining beings, knew that at this time the minds of the assembly rested upon himself; hence Maitreya said, 'The fourfold assembly gazes up with joy, looking to the Benevolent One and to me.' Therefore, he concealed the three of the past and only recounted two, letting them know that immediately after the question and answer the Lotus Sūtra would be preached; skillfully expressing his own view to satisfy the assembly's mind, what could surpass this suitability to the occasion? From 'moreover if' downward is the second intention: precisely because he did not narrate the past answer, he fully recounted the beginning and end through spoken words—beginning with the preaching of the Lotus Sūtra and ending with the complete passing into extinction, down to concluding and bringing them together, where he finally concludes and recounts: 'Now seeing this auspicious sign, it is no different from the original,' and so forth, down to the verse saying: 'I saw the Buddha Candrasūryapradīpa; his original light and auspicious sign were like this; by this I know the present Buddha wishes to preach the Lotus Sūtra,' and so forth. Only wishing to benefit beings and take advantage of the opportunity, why waste words? Therefore, he concealed the question and answer and only recounted his own view.