法華文句記 3.149

3.149

初所因人中先述不同以徵起，次述瑤師謬解。言「因託」者，是流通之人，即指妙光。言「非直」者，非如今佛適從定起，正說之初直告身子。「彼佛」下，次明妙光非彼佛定起對告之人。「如今」下，明身子但堪對告，非堪流通，故云「未必」。次「因託」下明彼佛流通屬在妙光，故云「莫若」。次「如今」下引今流通之人，同彼妙光。「莫」無也。「若」如也。此佛弘宣無如文殊，不可匹類，故云無如。次「今佛」下明今佛既其不歎身子，往佛所以不歎對告，故知今昔俱歎弘通之人，故云「何必」。「何必」者，是不歎之辭。「文殊」下重引所歎流通人耳。次「又舊」下復述古師。而「以藥王為所因」者，許而不用。此師見下〈法師品〉初云「爾時世尊因藥王菩薩告八萬大士」，即以藥王為所因人。若引藥王以例妙光，稍似可爾；沒却身子，深不可也。但云文有所因之言，亦是對告之限，且云「可爾」。言「引往小不類」者，若引往燈明正說之初對告之人，以證今藥王，故不類也；例同身子，此則類也。所言「小」者，猶同文殊故也。「或言」下又引古師。言「不便」者，釋疑之時如來在定，定起因機非因文殊，定起唯云告舍利弗，何得將在定釋疑之人，用對定起對告人耶？「今明」下斥舊所釋不當，故總云「不爾」。《經》云「爾時燈明佛從三昧起因妙光菩薩」。「而作」下責舊，文云「因其說經」，何得云因其流通？「此乃」下責二師。「公」謂彰灼，「抗」謂拒抗。二處皆是定起對告，告即所告，乃以妙光為流通，藥王為對告，違經抗佛何關釋經？「昔因」下引諸事同非唯一途。云「迹門竟」等者，非謂迹門全竟，但是譬說周竟，便云「告舍利弗無智人中」等。「今古」下結斥。言「更若為勝」者，前釋難云：昔已發迹云是菩薩，今未發迹云是聲聞，眾事既齊故所因亦等。「而近」下斥引藥王，而近棄正說之初，遠取流通之首。

In the initial [section on] the person who served as the occasion, it first recounts the differences to raise an interrogation, and next recounts Master Yao's erroneous interpretation. The words 'relying upon' refer to the person who transmits [the teaching], namely Varaprabha (Miàoguāng). The words 'not directly' mean not like the present Buddha, who, having just arisen from samādhi at the beginning of the actual preaching, directly addresses Śāriputra. From 'that Buddha' downward, it next clarifies that Varaprabha was not the person addressed by that buddha upon arising from samādhi. From 'like the present' downward, it clarifies that Śāriputra was only fit to be addressed, not fit to transmit; hence it says 'not necessarily.' Next, from 'relying upon' downward, it clarifies that that buddha's transmission fell to Varaprabha; hence it says 'none like.' Next, from 'like the present' downward, it cites the present person of transmission as being identical to that Varaprabha. Mo means 'none.' Ruo means 'like.' In this Buddha's propagation, none is like Mañjuśrī; he cannot be matched, hence it says 'none like.' Next, from 'the present Buddha' downward, it clarifies that since the present Buddha did not praise Śāriputra, the former Buddha likewise did not praise the one addressed; hence we know that both present and past praised the person of propagation; thus it says 'why necessarily.' 'Why necessarily' is a phrase denoting not praising. From 'Mañjuśrī' downward, it merely reiterates the praised person of propagation. Next, from 'moreover, former [masters]' downward, it again recounts the ancient masters. As for 'taking Bhaiṣajyarāja as the person who served as the occasion,' this is granted but not adopted. This master saw that the beginning of the 'Dharma Teacher' chapter below states: 'At that time the World-Honoured One, on account of Bhaiṣajyarāja Bodhisattva, addressed the eighty thousand great beings,' and immediately took Bhaiṣajyarāja as the person who served as the occasion. If one cites Bhaiṣajyarāja to analogize him to Varaprabha, it seems somewhat admissible; but obliterating Śāriputra is deeply impermissible. It only says that because the text has the words 'on account of,' it also falls within the scope of being addressed, so it temporarily says 'admissible.' Regarding 'citing the past is slightly disparate,' if one cites the person addressed at the beginning of the actual preaching of the former [Buddha] Candrasūryapradīpa to verify the present Bhaiṣajyarāja, they are disparate; if analogized to Śāriputra, then they correspond. In saying 'slightly,' it is because he is still like Mañjuśrī. From 'some say' downward, it also cites an ancient master. The words 'inconvenient' mean: at the time of resolving doubts, the Tathāgata was in samādhi; arising from samādhi was occasioned by the capacity [of beings], not by Mañjuśrī. Arising from samādhi is only described as addressing Śāriputra; how can one take the person who resolved doubts while [the Buddha was] in samādhi and equate him with the person addressed upon arising from samādhi? From 'now we clarify' downward, it refutes the impropriety of the old interpretations, hence summarily stating 'not so.' The sūtra says: 'At that time the Buddha Candrasūryapradīpa arose from samādhi on account of Varaprabha Bodhisattva.' From 'and acted' downward, it rebukes the old [view]: the text says 'on his account preached the sūtra,' so how can one say it was on his account that it was transmitted? From 'this is' downward, it rebukes the two masters. Gong means manifest; kang means to resist. In both places it is a matter of addressing upon arising from samādhi, and the address is to the one addressed; yet they took Varaprabha as the transmitter and Bhaiṣajyarāja as the one addressed—contradicting the sūtra and resisting the Buddha, what has this to do with interpreting the sūtra? From 'formerly occasioned by' downward, it cites that the various matters are the same and not just of a single course. Regarding 'the trace section completed' and so forth, it does not mean the entire trace section is completed, but only that the cycle of parable-preaching is completed, whereupon it says: 'addressed Śāriputra: among people without wisdom,' and so forth. From 'present and past' downward, it concludes with a rebuke. Regarding 'how could it be superior?': the earlier resolution of the difficulty said that because in the past the traces had already been revealed, they were called bodhisattvas, while in the present the traces have not yet been revealed, so they are called voice-hearers; since the various matters are identical, the occasions are also equal. From 'yet nearby' downward, it rebukes citing Bhaiṣajyarāja, discarding what is near at the beginning of the actual preaching and seizing what is distant at the head of the transmission.