法華文句記 3.95

3.95

《經》「善男子」者，涉法師云：「離五不男」，豈法華中眾但離不男，纔堪為受聲聞無作，一緣之中少分而已。今言此名大小通共，至今應云開七方便為善，堪聞獨妙名男，男子即丈夫，具如《大經》。《大經》仍含三教佛性，具如《玄》文所引云，須陀洹人佛性如淨乳等，豈小教中有佛性耶？故知《大經》於《法華》之後，開方便教遍立佛性之名，名通義別，故男子之稱通在五時，諸教義別。次釋略曾，初言「小分明」者，且從言說階漸而言，意則不然，向云惟忖還忖廣略，故知略曾更述惟忖，答中但略舉光瑞，光照他方義當他土。總而言之，並答此土，況他土之文元為成此，故知惟忖且此、略曾且彼，所以分於彼此者，以惟忖中有今佛之言，略曾中有過去之語，以今表此、以過表彼。

Regarding the sūtra's "good men", Dharma Master Shè said: "Separated from the five types of unmanliness." Could it be that the assembly in the Lotus [Sūtra] is merely separated from unmanliness, barely competent to receive the non-manifest [precepts] of the śrāvaka? That is merely a minor portion within a single condition. Now I say that this name is shared commonly by both the Mahāyāna and the Hīnayāna; up to the present, one should say that opening the seven skillful means constitutes "good", and being competent to hear the uniquely wondrous constitutes "men"; "men" means great heroes, fully as in the Great Sūtra. The Great Sūtra still contains the buddha-nature of the three teachings, fully as quoted in the Text of the Profound Meaning, which says that the buddha-nature of a srotāpanna is like pure milk, etc. Could there be buddha-nature in the Hīnayāna teaching? Thus one knows that the Great Sūtra, after the Lotus Sūtra, opened the expedient teachings and universally established the name of buddha-nature; the name is common but the meanings are distinct. Therefore, the designation of "men" pervades the five periods, while the meanings of the various teachings are distinct. Next, in explaining the brief past, the initial words "slightly clear" are spoken for now in terms of the gradations of discourse; the intention, however, is not so. As said earlier, the deliberation also deliberated on the extensive and brief; thus one knows that the brief past further narrates the deliberation. The answer merely briefly raised the omen of light; the light shining upon other directions is in meaning equivalent to other lands. Speaking generally, both answer regarding this land; moreover, the text regarding other lands was originally meant to complete this. Thus one knows that the deliberation pertains for now to this, while the brief past pertains for now to that. The reason for dividing this and that is that within the deliberation there are words of the present Buddha, and within the brief past there are words of the past, using the present to represent this, and using the past to represent that.