法華文句記 4.82

4.82

「今明」下正解，先立理，次引論。初略立，次云「若從」等者，實智尚無阿鼻，豈見定有聲聞？若說時未至有義非謬，故長者佛眼始終皆無，以法眼觀中途須有，作人亦約未得記前。次引論者為五：一正引論，二「若依」下以今經望論義立五種，三「若從」下判，四「若得」下結意，五「復次」下判大。引論如文。次今家依經望論，但加佛道一種。三判中云「若從決定」至「寶所」者，約大雖無、準小仍有，退菩提心仍屬有者，由在小教，今譚其初故云退大。「實者既爾」下明應化也。所引迴心能化本大，若增上慢二途不攝，本非商議。五「復次」下更判大乘有無者，先判，次結。意指應化為無，第四第五並名大故，故《論》中則無大乘之名，但云「應化」。「若從」下正指佛道，此用今家所立之名，而以發迹釋義仍除開三，得記已即名生身得忍菩薩故也。故取發迹者，知有實本亦得名為大乘聲聞，是則從隱德故無、從發迹則有。所以得大乘聲聞名者，彰言發迹仍示聲聞，故得名也。不同他釋於大乘中自立聲聞。從「今開三」下定文正意須為二人，為退大者與《論》不別，今取決定意似少殊，《論》據在座得記，今據通途被開，其不在座展轉為說，或在界外亦得聞之，或佛滅後敦逼令信，此經通說直云「與記」。《論》云退大且依一途，如諸聲聞於法華前，誰知退大？方等等席，咸稱滅種。準今經意，既彼此聞經，必彼此與記，一開之後無所間然，迴與未迴以分二義，當知《論》涉有餘之說，無以經意雷同。

From "now it is clarified" onward is the proper explanation: first establishing the principle, then citing the treatise. First it is established briefly, and next saying "if according to" and so forth: in real wisdom there is not even an Avīci [hell], how could one see definitely existing śrāvakas? If before the time of preaching has arrived, the meaning of existence is not fallacious; therefore, from the elder's buddha-eye, from beginning to end none exist, but viewing with the dharma-eye, halfway through they must exist; positing persons is also in terms of prior to receiving predictions. / Next, citing the treatise consists of five parts: first, properly citing the treatise; second, from "if relying on" onward, viewing the treatise in light of the present sūtra to doctrinally establish five kinds; third, from "if according to" onward, judging [them]; fourth, from "if obtaining" onward, concluding the meaning; fifth, from "furthermore" onward, judging the Great [Vehicle]. Citing the treatise is as in the text. / Next, our school, relying on the sūtra and viewing the treatise, merely adds the one kind of the Buddha Path. / In the third, the judgment, saying "from the determined" down to "treasure trove": in terms of the Great [Vehicle] they do not exist, but in accordance with the Small [Vehicle] they still exist; that those who retrogressed from the bodhi mind still belong to existence is because they are in the Small Teaching; now discussing their beginning, we say "retrogressing from the Great." / From "since the real are like this" onward clarifies the responsive transformations. Those who are led turn their minds, and those who can transform are originally Great; as for the arrogant, they are not included in either alternative, and were originally not under consideration. / Fifth, from "furthermore" onward, further judging the presence or absence in the Mahāyāna: first judging, then concluding. The intent points to responsive transformations as nonexistent, for the fourth and fifth are both called Great; therefore, in the *Treatise* there is no name "Mahāyāna," but it merely says "responsive transformations." / From "if according to" onward properly points to the Buddha Path: this uses the name established by our school, and in explaining its meaning through manifesting the traces, it still excludes opening the three, because upon receiving the prediction one is immediately named a bodhisattva who attains acceptance in the fleshly body. Therefore, taking those who manifest the traces, knowing they possess the real origin, they may also be named Mahāyāna śrāvakas; thus, in terms of concealing virtues they do not exist, but in terms of manifesting traces they do exist. The reason they obtain the name "Mahāyāna śrāvaka" is that, while explicitly manifesting traces, they still display śrāvakas; hence they obtain the name. It is not like other interpretations that independently establish śrāvakas within the Mahāyāna. / From "now opening the three" downward determines that the proper intent of the text must be for two kinds of persons: for those who retrogressed from the Great, it does not differ from the *Treatise*; now taking the determined, the intent seems slightly distinct. The *Treatise* is based on receiving predictions while present in the assembly, whereas we now base it on being opened universally; those who were not present in the assembly have it explained to them through transmission, or hear it outside the realm, or after the Buddha's extinction are pressed to make them believe; this sūtra speaks universally and simply says "conferring predictions." When the *Treatise* speaks of retrogressing from the Great, it tentatively relies on one avenue: like the various śrāvakas prior to the Lotus Sūtra, who knew of retrogressing from the Great? In assemblies such as the Vaipulya, all spoke of having destroyed the seeds [of buddhahood]. Basing ourselves on the intent of the present sūtra, since both [groups] hear the sūtra, both must receive predictions; once opened, there is no distinction between them. Differentiating between having turned and not yet turned distinguishes the two meanings; one should know that the *Treatise* touches upon teachings with remainder, and one must not equate it indiscriminately with the sūtra's intent.