法華文句記 4.114

4.114

問云「非顯非密」者，謂決定性，於前四時既無密益，不至法華復無顯得，二處無益名失時不？答「餘經」等者，謂前四時既云永滅，諸聲聞等不知變易，故《淨名》中迦葉自敘云「皆應號泣聲震三千，於此大乘已如敗種」。準彼經判，敗種豈生來至法華咸受佛記？若爾，佛於爾時何不即記，而使稽滯來至法華，顯密不同如前已釋，若將永滅權論用釋開會實經，經既已生，論何能滅？但以滅者於彼得聞，餘經不說，況通經論？故失顯密亦非失時，但弘教者曲將釋此，是釋者過非論咎也。

The question which states "neither manifest nor esoteric" refers to those of determined nature: since in the previous four periods they had no esoteric benefit, and not arriving at the *Lotus* they furthermore had no manifest attainment, does having no benefit in either place count as losing the proper time? The answer stating "other sūtras" and so on means that since the previous four periods spoke of eternal extinction, the various śrāvakas and others did not know of inconceivable transformation; therefore in the *Vimalakīrti* Kāśyapa narrates of himself, saying: "We should all wail in grief, the sound shaking the three thousand [worlds]; regarding this Great Vehicle we are already like rotten seeds." Following the determination of that sūtra, how could rotten seeds sprout and, coming to the *Lotus*, all receive the buddha's prediction? If so, why did the Buddha at that time not confer predictions immediately, but rather made them delay and hesitate until coming to the *Lotus*? The difference between manifest and esoteric has been explained as before. If one takes the provisional treatises on eternal extinction to interpret the real sūtra that opens and integrates, since the sūtra has already allowed [them] to sprout, how could the treatises bring about their extinction? It is only that those who were extinct heard it there; other sūtras did not preach it, let alone general sūtras and treatises. Therefore, losing both manifest and esoteric is still not losing the proper time; it is merely that those who propagate the teaching have tortuously applied this to interpret it—this is the interpreter's error, not the fault of the treatises.