法華文句記 3.2

3.2

「教菩薩法」明因人所依，此去仍帶異名以釋，故加之以處。處為能生之一法，一法秖是究竟相，故云諦理。諦理乃與法華不殊，故燈明佛歎《法華經》，亦云「教菩薩法佛所護念」，故得引下普令等文以之為證，證義處也。所以經名在序，但云「無量義」耳。以兼正故，教菩薩法加於處也。取下三昧來通釋之，使兩處義齊俱序並正。嘉祥云：「此有二義，一者實相名為無量，二者實相所生名為無量。」今謂無量之名可名所生，實相之稱應申能生，雖立能所俱名無量則未可也；若對異名能生之法名為實相，斯則可矣。直爾釋序意都不然。經自釋云：「無量義者從一法生」，生即所生，一法能生即實相也。古來匠者，如何得以能生釋耶？故《論》云：「此是如來欲說法時至成就」，既云「欲說」，非即全同，若其全同即是已說，故《論》存序，乃云欲說，意兼於正則為異名，論其二途今釋準彼，亦順下文三昧為歎。若所入三昧唯依所生列名，秖應但云「無量」，故知經名文在所生，意兼能出，所入三昧義必雙含。所以前消論云「欲說此經先入此定」，今從經所表邊，復以義處歎之，及引文證全在此經。「佛護念」者，果人所護既是能生無量義處，復是佛所證得，豈佛所證而非實相？故引自住而以為證。昔未說故名之為護，約法約機皆護念故。從「雖欲」下明護念意，佛意本欲唯說能生，故說《無量義》時機仍未發，隱而不說，故云「護念」。「故無量義」下一護念言亦成兩向，但彼經文雖云從一出多，未云從多歸一，猶是覆相名為護念。若不爾者，則已說《法華》，何名為序？以未說故，故云「雖欲開示」等也。以未說故「護」，未暢故「念」。言「久默」者，自昔至今。「斯要」等意思之可知。若唯從所生非專佛護，在昔通說無時不然，故《法華論》云：「蓮華二義：一者出水，二者開敷。」彼如出水、此若開敷，所以仍名為蓮故華，但有未開當開之別。

"The dharma for teaching bodhisattvas" clarifies that which is relied upon by persons in the stage of causes. From here on, [the text] still draws upon alternative names for its explanation, and therefore adds "abode" (locus). The abode is the one dharma that is able to produce; the one dharma is nothing other than the ultimate character; hence it is called "the truth-principle." The truth-principle is not different from the Lotus Sūtra. Therefore, when Candrasūryapradīpa Buddha praised the Lotus Sūtra, he also said: "The dharma for teaching bodhisattvas, which is protected and remembered by buddhas." Hence one may cite the text below, "universally causing," etc., as verification—verifying the locus of meaning. For this reason, the title of the sūtra in the preface merely says "Innumerable Meanings." Because it includes the main body, "the dharma for teaching bodhisattvas" is supplemented with "abode." Drawing upon the samādhi below to explain it generally makes the meanings of both places equal, so that both are preface and both are main body. Jiāxiáng stated: "This has two meanings: first, the true character is called innumerable; second, that which is produced by the true character is called innumerable." We now say that the designation "innumerable" may designate what is produced, whereas the term "true character" should express that which is able to produce; positing that both the producer and the produced are called innumerable is unacceptable. If, relative to the alternative name, the dharma able to produce is termed "true character," then this is acceptable. To explain the preface directly like that is not the intention at all. The sūtra itself explains: "Innumerable meanings are produced from the one dharma"; "produced" refers to what is produced, and the "one dharma" able to produce is precisely the true character. How could ancient masters explain it through that which is able to produce? Hence the Treatise states: "This is the Tathāgata wishing to preach the Dharma when the time has arrived at fulfillment." Since it says "wishing to preach," it is not entirely identical; if it were entirely identical, it would already have been preached. Hence the Treatise preserves the preface, saying "wishing to preach," but its intention includes the main body, which is an alternative name. When discussing these two paths, our present explanation accords with that text, and also aligns with the praise of the samādhi in the subsequent text. If the samādhi entered were listed solely based on what is produced, it should only say "innumerable." Therefore, we know that while the sūtra's title refers in text to what is produced, its intent includes what is able to produce; the samādhi entered must embrace both meanings. Thus, the previous commentary on the Treatise states: "Wishing to preach this sūtra, he first enters this concentration." Now, from the aspect of what the sūtra signifies, it is praised once more with the "locus of meaning," and the texts cited as proof are entirely within this sūtra. Regarding "protected and remembered by buddhas": that which is protected by the person in the stage of fruition is both the abode of innumerable meanings that is able to produce and that which has been realized by the Buddha; how could what the Buddha realized not be the true character? Hence, "dwelling in it himself" is cited as verification. Because it was not yet preached in the past, it is called "protected"; it is protected and remembered in terms of both dharma and capacity. From "Although wishing" onward, the intent of protecting and remembering is explained: the Buddha's original intention was solely to expound that which is able to produce, but when expounding the Innumerable Meanings [Sūtra], the capacities [of the audience] had not yet unfolded, so he concealed it and did not speak it; hence it is called "protecting and remembering." From "Hence the Innumerable Meanings" onward, the single statement "protecting and remembering" also assumes two directions. However, although that sūtra's text speaks of emerging from the one to the many, it does not speak of returning from the many to the one; being still a concealed aspect, it is called "protecting and remembering." Were it not so, then the Lotus Sūtra would already have been preached—why would it be called a preface? Because it has not yet been preached, it says: "Although wishing to open, reveal," and so forth. Because it has not yet been preached, he "protects" it; because it has not yet been fully articulated, he "remembers" it. Regarding "silent for a long time": from the past down to the present. The meaning of "this essential" and so forth may be understood through reflection. If it were solely from the perspective of what is produced, it would not be exclusively protected by the Buddha; in the past, it was universally expounded at all times without exception. Hence the Lotus Sūtra Treatise says: "The lotus has two meanings: first, emerging from the water; second, blooming." That [earlier sūtra] is like emerging from the water; this [present sūtra] is like blooming. Therefore, it is still named the lotus flower, having only the distinction between not yet blooming and about to bloom.