法華文句記 5.118

5.118

「指上本下」者，下譬品文用此為本，譬必有法故云「本下」。「文義交加」者，此中指下、至下指此，故云「尋疏」等也。章安預點使無眩亂，眩亂在鈍，利者何憂？然諸師分譬與法參互，宿世舛隔，欲為譬本取定莫從，故先敘非、後方正釋。初師五譬者，一長者譬，即若國邑下文是，法說即指今我亦如是已下文是。二思濟譬，即長者作是思惟已下文是，法說即指我以佛眼觀已下文是。三權誘譬，即爾時長者即作是念已下文是，法說即指我始坐道場已下文是。四平等譬，即爾時長者各賜已下文是，法說即指我見佛子等志求已下文是。五不虛譬，即舍利弗於汝意已下文是，法說即指汝等勿有疑已下文是。若於今家初是總譬，總譬有六，豈獨一長者，故不用之。第二思濟，於今家是救子不得者，但是別譬中用大擬宜譬耳。故知但云思濟其理不盡，故用大救子中三，擬宜無機息化，不應獨云思濟故也。第三譬去，今家從我以去，於別譬中離為六意，彼但有三，譬本不足故亦不用。瑤師盡以五佛章用為顯實。言「四章」者，合初章在釋迦章中，而以權實合為一章，以五濁章為不得說一。又以敦逼文為不得者，並不應文故不用也。而云譬中但三，則闕第三不得者者，以譬中無此文，故凡者不一也。文中所列乃以開權為第一，開權即顯實，應對第二等賜文也。此則譬本及譬太為疎略。然長行中五佛章門，諸佛猶總又闕五濁，三佛準例其文更略，釋迦化主文相稍委，故但取釋迦離為四章，瑤師賒漫是故不用。次暢、龍二師並立六譬，其言似殊其意不別，二師並皆不立總譬，無可以對方便略頌，於別譬中文廣頌略，於中六義仍先分為四，細分更多，故知二師並與譬品義不相當，以第三第四秖是今家第二寢大施小耳。又不虛文合歎法希有，而不述其意，是故不用。次光宅十譬意者，初立總譬與今文同，但下九譬望今即是廣頌六義；若望今文，下之九譬秖應合為四譬，於中第二四行是今見火義耳。次我始下第三六行半，及第四十一行明三乘化得，是今寢大施小意耳。次我見下第五去，總有五文六行，是今顯實意耳。次汝等下第十一文是今不虛文耳。今家細開稍似光宅，然與信解宿世不同，故不細開。「有人」去，此是他人將今家義仍參光宅，故將此意以難光宅，等是細開何不作十九句？以光宅十譬對今總六別四，總別各開合有十八句，加光宅一句成十九句。何者？光宅第一即今家總譬，應離為六，光宅但合為一。第二見火去，今家別中離為四譬，光宅為九：一見火，今離為三，光宅但一。三我始等，即今文別四中第二寢大施小，光宅離為二文是也。光宅第五已下至第九，總五段文，今家合為一等賜譬，即別四譬中第三譬也。故光宅第五我見佛子等，及第六咸以恭敬心二文，即今文別四中第三等賜，離為四文中初文是也。第七我即已下，即今文四別譬中第三四文中第二文是。第八於諸菩薩中下，即今文四別譬中第三四文中第三文是。第九菩薩聞是下，即今文四別譬中第三四文中第四文是。第十不虛，即今文別四中第四一文，又離為三，謂歎法希有并本不虛及下立敦信文也。此乃別中離成十二，光宅更開今文四別譬中第三四文中初文為免難、索車二文，今已極細但為十八，若於別十二中第六更開為二則有四失，良由此也。既開為二則成十三，并總中六合成十九，何以不名為十九句耶？今雖十八，不名十八句者，但在法譬宿世信解無此義故，欲令通有復合為五，或總別二，章段既少上下易同，故今文中三種分文，光宅定十無此盈縮，進不成十九、退不成五，總別廣略又不相當，況開大機以為兩段，法中有妨故不合開。然望餘師，光宅最勝。

Regarding "pointing back to that above as the origin for that below": the text of the subsequent Chapter on the Parable takes this as its origin; since a parable must have a dharma [to which it corresponds], it is called "origin for that below." Regarding "the text and meaning intersecting": here it points down to that below, and when reaching that below it points up to this; hence it says "consulting the commentary," and so forth. Zhāng’ān notes this in advance to prevent bewilderment and confusion. Bewilderment and confusion reside in the dull; why should the sharp-witted worry? However, because the various masters divided the parable and the dharma in mutually conflicting ways and their [divisions for] past lifetimes diverged and clashed, wanting to establish a definitive basis as the origin for the parable found nothing to adhere to; therefore, the erroneous [theories] are set forth first, and the correct explanation is given only afterward. As for the first master's five parables: First is the parable of the elder, which corresponds to the subsequent text beginning with "Suppose there is a country or city..."; its doctrinal statement points to the text below beginning with "Now I, too, am like this..." Second is the parable of deliberating on salvation, which corresponds to the subsequent text beginning with "The elder had this thought..."; its doctrinal statement points to the text below beginning with "When I, with the buddha-eye, observed...". Third is the parable of skillful enticement, which corresponds to the subsequent text beginning with "At that time the elder had this thought..."; its doctrinal statement points to the text below beginning with "When I first sat at the place of awakening...". Fourth is the parable of equal bestowal, which corresponds to the subsequent text beginning with "At that time the elder gave to each..."; its doctrinal statement points to the text below beginning with "When I saw the children of the Buddha who had resolved to seek...". Fifth is the parable of not being false, which corresponds to the subsequent text beginning with "Śāriputra, what do you think..."; its doctrinal statement points to the text below beginning with "You should have no doubts...". If considered according to our school, the first is an overall parable; since the overall parable contains six [meanings], how could it be merely an elder alone? Hence we do not adopt it. The second, deliberating on salvation, according to our school corresponds to being unable to save the children; it is merely the parable of tentative testing using the great [vehicle] within the specific parables. Thus we know that merely calling it "deliberating on salvation" does not exhaust its principle; because within using the great to save the children there are three [aspects]—tentatively testing, having no capacity, and suspending teaching—one should not speak solely of "deliberating on salvation." From the third parable onward, our school, beginning from "I...", separates [the text] within the specific parables into six meanings; but he has only three, and because the origin for the parable is insufficient, [his view] is also not adopted. Master Yao used all five chapters on the buddhas exclusively to reveal the real. Regarding the phrase "four chapters": he combined the first chapter into Śākyamuni's chapter, combining the provisional and the real into a single chapter, and taking the chapter on the five defilements as the inability to speak of the One [Vehicle]. Furthermore, he took the text on pressing and urging as the unable; none of these accords with the text, and therefore are not adopted. And as for saying that there are only three [aspects] in the parable, which then lacks the third, "being unable," this was because such text was absent from his parable, so his ordinary instances are inconsistent. What is listed in his text actually takes opening the provisional as the first; since opening the provisional is just revealing the real, it should correspond to the second text on equal bestowal. If so, both the origin for the parable and the parable itself are excessively sketchy and coarse. However, in the prose sections, the thematic headings of the five buddhas: the [past] buddhas are still general and also lack the five defilements, and following this pattern the three buddhas' text is even briefer; only the textual form of Śākyamuni, the master of transformation, is somewhat more detailed. Hence we take only Śākyamuni and divide [the text] into four chapters. Master Yao's [reading] is loose and vague, and is therefore not adopted. Next, Masters Chang and Long both established six parables. Their terminology seems different, but their meaning does not diverge. Neither of the two masters established an overall parable, so they had nothing to correspond to the brief verses of Skillful Means. In the specific parables, the text is broad while the verses are brief; within these, the six meanings are still first divided into four, and under finer division they become even more. Thus we know that neither of these two masters accords with the meaning of the Chapter on the Parable, because the third and fourth are simply our school's second [theme], withholding the great and bestowing the small. Furthermore, the text on not being false is combined with praising the rarity of the Dharma without explaining its meaning; hence it is not adopted. Next, regarding the meaning of the ten parables of Guāngzhái: initially establishing an overall parable is the same as our present text; but the nine parables below, viewed from our perspective, are just the six meanings of the expanded verses. If viewed from our present text, the nine parables below should only be combined into four parables. Among them, the second [parable consisting of] four lines is just our meaning of seeing the fire. Next, the third [consisting of] six and a half lines beginning with "When I first..." and the fourth [consisting of] eleven lines explaining the three vehicles' attainment of transformation are just our meaning of withholding the great and bestowing the small. Next, the fifth onward beginning with "When I saw...", comprising altogether five passages and six lines, is our meaning of revealing the real. Next, the eleventh passage beginning with "You all..." is our text on not being false. Our school's fine subdivisions somewhat resemble Guāngzhái, but because they differ from Faith and Understanding and Past Lifetimes, we do not subdivide them finely. Regarding "Someone says..." onward: this is someone taking our school's meaning and collating it with Guāngzhái, and then using this meaning to challenge Guāngzhái: if both are fine subdivisions, why not make nineteen phrases? By setting Guāngzhái's ten parables against our six overall and four specific [parables], the overall and specific, when each is subdivided, combine into eighteen phrases; adding Guāngzhái's one phrase makes nineteen phrases. Why? Guāngzhái's first is our school's overall parable, which should be divided into six, whereas Guāngzhái merely combined it into one. From the second, seeing the fire, onward, our school divides the specific into four parables, whereas Guāngzhái makes nine: First, seeing the fire: we divide it into three, whereas Guāngzhái has only one. Third, "When I first..." and so forth, is the second among our four specific parables, withholding the great and bestowing the small, which Guāngzhái divides into two passages. From Guāngzhái's fifth down to the ninth, altogether five passages of text, our school combines them into the single parable of equal bestowal, which is the third among our four specific parables. Thus Guāngzhái's fifth, "When I saw the children of the Buddha..." and so forth, and the sixth, "All with respectful minds...", these two passages are the first of the four passages into which the third [parable], equal bestowal, among our four specific parables is divided. From the seventh, "I immediately..." onward, it is the second passage among the four passages of the third of our four specific parables. From the eighth, "Among all the bodhisattvas..." downward, it is the third passage among the four passages of the third of our four specific parables. From the ninth, "When the bodhisattvas hear this..." downward, it is the fourth passage among the four passages of the third of our four specific parables. The tenth, not being false, is the fourth single passage among our four specific parables, which is further divided into three: namely, praising the rarity of the Dharma, together with the original not being false, and the subsequent text establishing the urge to believe. This constitutes a subdivision into twelve within the specific; Guāngzhái further opens the first passage among the four passages of the third among our four specific parables into two passages—escaping difficulty and seeking carriages. Here, under the finest [subdivision], there are only eighteen; if one further opens the sixth among the twelve specific into two, there are four faults—this is precisely the reason. Once it is opened into two, it becomes thirteen, and together with the six in the overall it combines into nineteen; why then is it not called nineteen phrases? Although there are eighteen at present, they are not called eighteen phrases because such a meaning does not exist in the Dharma, the Parable, Past Lifetimes, or Faith and Understanding; wishing to make it universally applicable, they are recombined into five, or into two—overall and specific. Since the chapters and sections are few, it is easy to align the upper and lower [parts of the text]; thus our present text has three ways of dividing the text. Guāngzhái fixed it at ten and lacked this flexibility to expand or contract; advancing he does not reach nineteen, and retreating he does not arrive at five, while his overall, specific, expanded, and brief also do not correspond. What is more, dividing the capacity for the great into two sections obstructs [the sense] within the Dharma, so it should not be opened. Nevertheless, compared to the other masters, Guāngzhái is the most superior.