法華文句記 4.130

4.130

答中二意，初通明知，次「凡有」下分門別釋。初文意者，此經亦云知者，責於問者何以專引不知之文，故此經與記處處云知。次引今文正答云知。三根之後有不知者，敦逼之辭，諸不愚等來至法華皆悉已知，假使更有不知之人判成上慢，既非上慢道理皆知，滅想尚知何況餘耶？次分門釋者，初明知者，聲聞於彼亦不云知，佛於彼經為諸菩薩說其元意，故云知耳。此即答前兩經之問，昔曾發大故云前知，中間退大，次明不知，今至法華被會方知。若佛在世三根得記，佛滅度後無不知者。「又身子」下重引此經以證不知，初句是身子敘千二百不知，「我今」下法說之初自敘不知，此是三周之前不知之文，非關三周後也。「又大通」下此當三周之後亦有不知之文。何者？既云說是經時，十六沙彌皆悉信受，聲聞眾中亦有信解，其餘眾生千萬億眾皆生疑惑，即是彼佛在世亦有不知之人。然亦不得云永不知，即是王子為其覆講，此十六子義當餘佛。佛雖在世四依弘經理亦不失，當知且對聞佛說時云不知耳。「若執」下，次為和會，於中先總非，次正會。初不許偏執者，如前二文，或初後知而中間不知，或初不知後必得知。生滅度想尚於彼知，況在佛世暫時不知，安得固執而生矛盾？矛盾具如《止觀》記。「論者」下抑挫凡情，恐成巨損。言「餘事」者，修行趣果有饒益者方可論之。「聲聞」等者且順《大經》諍論之文，故《大經》皆云「不解我意」。然彼《經》中二十三雙俱云不解者，以對昔教故責迷者二俱不解，若識化意則二俱名解，在昔須云不成執者，望今成過；在今須云必成，望後逗小成過，以大小教開與不開並通三世。若唯引不成以證定性，既俱有過安偏引耶？雙引各執尚違教旨，迷實執權其過非小，亡權執實斯愆猶薄，既申實教須云定成，人不見之徒援權典用證實教。

In the answer there are two points: first, an overarching clarification of knowing; next, from "Whenever there are..." onward, a classification into distinct categories and separate explanations. As for the meaning of the first text: this sūtra also speaks of knowing, rebuking the questioner for exclusively citing texts about not knowing; therefore this sūtra and the conferrals of prediction everywhere speak of knowing. Next, the present text is cited to formally reply that they do know. That there are those who do not know after [the preaching for] the three faculties is an expression meant to urge and press them; those who were "not foolish" and so forth have, upon coming to the Lotus [Sūtra], all already known. Even if there were further persons who do not know, they are judged to be the overweeningly arrogant; since they are not overweeningly arrogant, by principle they all know. If even those who conceived the thought of extinction knew, how much more so the rest? Next, in explaining by classifying categories: as for first clarifying those who know, the voice-hearers in that [sūtra] are also not said to know; it is only because the Buddha in that sūtra explained their original intention for the sake of the bodhisattvas that he said they knew. This answers the previous question regarding the two sūtras: because they had once generated the great [mind] in the past, it is said that they previously knew; having regressed from the great [mind] in the interim, it next clarifies that they did not know; now, having arrived at the Lotus [Sūtra] and been gathered in, only then do they know. If [spoken] while the Buddha was in the world, those of the three faculties attained predictions; after the Buddha's parinirvāṇa, there were none who did not know. From "Furthermore, Śāriputra..." onward, this sūtra is cited again to prove not knowing: the first clause is Śāriputra recounting the not knowing of the twelve hundred; from "I now..." onward, at the beginning of the exposition of the Dharma, he recounts his own not knowing. These are passages on not knowing prior to the three cycles [of preaching], not concerning after the three cycles. From "Furthermore, Mahābhijñājñānābhibhū..." onward, this corresponds to a passage showing there were also those who did not know after the three cycles. Why? For it says that when that sūtra was preached, the sixteen śrāmaṇeras all faithfully accepted it, and among the assembly of voice-hearers there were also those who faithfully understood, while the remaining sentient beings—thousands of myriads of koṭis of assemblies—all gave rise to doubt and perplexity; this means that while that buddha was in the world, there were also people who did not know. Yet one also cannot say they eternally did not know: that is, the princes repeated the preaching for them, and these sixteen sons in principle correspond to other buddhas. Even though the buddha was in the world, the four reliances propagating the sūtra was also not lost in principle; one should know that it merely spoke of not knowing in contrast to the time of hearing the buddha preach. From "If one clings..." onward, next is the reconciliation; within this, it first generally negates, and next formally reconciles. First, not permitting one-sided clinging: as in the previous two texts, either one knows at the beginning and the end but does not know in the middle, or one does not know at first but must know later. If one who gives rise to the thought of extinction still knows there, how much more so a temporary not knowing during the Buddha's time in the world? How could one stubbornly cling to this and produce contradictions? The contradictions are fully explained as in the Notes on the Stopping and Contemplation. From "Debaters..." onward, it suppresses mundane sentiments, fearing that great harm will result. "Other matters" means that only things that are beneficial for cultivation and tending toward the fruit may be discussed. "Voice-hearers" and so forth merely conforms to the text of the dispute in the Great Sūtra; hence the Great Sūtra everywhere says, "They do not understand my intention." However, in that sūtra, the twenty-three pairs all say "they do not understand" because, contrasting with the past teaching, it rebukes the deluded as neither understanding both; if one recognizes the intent of the transformation, then both are called understanding. In the past, it had to be said that clinging was not formed, but looking toward the present it becomes an error; in the present, it must be said that it will certainly be formed, but looking back at adapting to the small it becomes an error, because the opening and not opening of the Great and Small teachings both apply across the three times. If one only cites non-formation to prove fixed nature, since both have errors, how could one cite only one side? Citing both and clinging to each still violates the intent of the teaching; being deluded about the real and clinging to the provisional is no small error, while abandoning the provisional and clinging to the real—this fault is still slight. Having set forth the real teaching, one must say that it is definitely accomplished; people fail to see this and in vain invoke provisional scriptures to prove the real teaching.