法華文句記 5.119

5.119

「若以」至「六義之內」者，若立此六則攝十九入此六中，何以不但云為六義耶？何者？依前總六却合為一，於別四中但離第二以為二段，則為五章，對前總一即成六義。若全依今文但成五義，他且依彼而為問辭。「又十譬」至「參差」等者，開為十譬，法譬二處尚自參差，況與信解等文合耶？故「法說」下出參差相。又光宅句數與今細開似同，而章目未穩，故亦不用。下結云「四失」者，一前後，二大小，三有無，四引文。今初前後不同失者，若於今別細開中，第五離為五六，并第七文為父喜者，對於法說索車父喜前後迴互，言法說中索車在前者，先云舍利弗當知我見佛子等至求佛道者等，二行即索車在前，即光宅第六文是。次二行一句中最後一句方云今我喜無畏，即父喜在後也。譬說中父喜在前者，先云爾時長者見諸子等安隱得出等，索車在後者，次文方云時諸子等各白父言等。若光宅十譬中合於五六二段，同為一索車譬本，及免難譬本，不云歡喜譬本，則無此失。言「雖欲會通」者，縱欲曲通，云由喜故索、由索故喜，亦未穩便，故云「迂迴」。「又大小」下，於大小中復為三失。言「法說中大機動」者，即大小不對，今我喜無畏更進用下句云於諸菩薩中，故知此是見大機動故喜。若云見諸子等安隱得出，故知是見小機免火宅難故喜。次「因果不對」者，法說中意云由昔不信，故云舍利弗當知乃至今我喜無畏，故知是大因。譬中云見諸子等得出火宅，故知是小果。法說中大障將傾者，爾後即云菩薩聞是法疑網皆已除，去除不遠，譬說中云安隱得出，故云小果。有此三失，過由光宅五六七文，故作譬本未為穩便。言「又有無異」者，破其十中第六為下索車譬本，法說文中無索車語，至譬說中由根非利所以方有，故不得用為索車譬本。況法說中但云我見佛子等志求佛道者，非關二乘索小車也。四「若引」下為引文失，豈得濫用來至之言，便為小乘索車譬本？此從合為四別譬責，故別譬第三復合為一等賜文也。縱開此為四，第一名為大乘機動，為後索車譬本，但不得云索小車耳。故前約大小破中云，譬說敘小果，秖云敘小而情求於大，即名機動，故云殊不體文旨，故知其文自是大機將動。然有無者下今文自辯同異有六，初有無中云「長行有真偽」者，簡偽敦信文也。言「偈中無」者，此且一往順舊，以偈末七行為法說流通。若依今意，以此七行為敦信文，則闕此有無一意。頌中有歎法者，從諸佛興出等四難文是，長行中全無。次第中云「長行先開三後顯一」者，長行中初云舍利弗我今亦復如是，知諸眾生有種種欲等，豈非施三？次文云，如此皆為得一佛乘，即顯一也。頌中初總頌中二行，初行顯實、次行施權，故先云安隱及示佛道，次文乃云我以智慧力知眾生性欲。若取別譬文，先五濁中更開為三，初能見眼亦當顯實，次所見火及寢大施小皆屬權也。若論別譬大意，亦先權後實。若取總頌，則前行顯實、次行施權，開合中云「初合而不開」者，若得二偈但為總譬作本，故云合而不開。若以二偈離六，總亦有別，且從合說，故對下譬亦復更分。「五濁文離為四譬本」者，恐文誤，應云「三譬本」，即別四譬中初文復離為三，即能見、所見、驚入，對下譬文仍有四也。彼以第四廣明見火，合在第二文也，故知但三。次明取捨中云「四段經文為六譬本」者，四段者，別四也。六譬者，離五濁為三，并下三段即是六也。「歎法非六譬本」者，於四別中離第四段，出嘆法敦信，非下六譬本也。

Regarding [the text from] “If, taking” down to “within the six meanings”: if one establishes these six, they subsume the nineteen [verses] into these six; why not simply speak of them as six meanings? Why is this? If, based on the previous general [verses], the six are merged back into one, and within the specific four only the second is divided into two sections, there will be five sections, which, matched against the previous general one, make six meanings. If one relies entirely on the present text, it only forms five meanings; the opponent is merely framing his question on the basis of their [system]. Regarding “Further, the ten similes” down to “discrepant”, etc.: when expanded into ten similes, the two locations of dharma and simile are themselves already discrepant, so how much more so when harmonised with texts such as the [Chapter on] Faith and Understanding? Hence, under “dharma explanation”, the marks of discrepancy are set forth. Moreover, the number of lines in Guangzhai appears similar to our present detailed expansion, but his section headings are not sound, so they are not adopted either. Below, [the text] concludes by stating “four faults”: first, sequence; second, great and small; third, presence and absence; fourth, citing the text. Now, first, regarding the fault of difference in sequence: if, in our present detailed division of the specific [verses], the fifth is divided into five and six, and combined with the seventh text as the father’s joy, then, corresponding to the dharma explanation, asking for the carts and the father’s joy are reversed in sequence. As for asking for the carts being first in the dharma explanation: it first says, “Śāriputra, you should know that when I see the Buddha’s children,” down to “those who seek the Buddha path,” etc.; these two verses are asking for the carts being first, which is the sixth passage of Guangzhai. In the next two verses and one line, the very last line finally says, “Now I rejoice and have no fear,” which means the father’s joy comes after. In the simile explanation, the father’s joy comes first: it first says, “At that time the elder saw that his children had safely escaped,” etc.; asking for the carts comes after: only in the following text does it say, “Then the children said to their father,” etc. If, in Guangzhai’s ten similes, the two sections five and six were combined together as the basis of the single simile of asking for the carts, as well as the basis of the simile of escaping disaster, without speaking of a basis for the simile of rejoicing, then he would be free of this fault. Regarding “Although one might wish to reconcile them”: even if one tries to force a reconciliation by saying that because of joy they ask, or because they ask he rejoices, it is still not fitting; hence it is called “convoluted”. Under “Furthermore, great and small”, within great and small there are again three faults. Regarding “in the dharma explanation the great capacity is moved”: this is the mismatch of great and small. “Now I rejoice and have no fear” further brings in the following line, “among the bodhisattvas”; hence we know this is rejoicing because he sees the great capacity moved. If it says “seeing the children safely escape”, we know it is rejoicing because he sees the small capacity escaping the disaster of the burning house. Next, regarding “cause and effect not matching”: the intention in the dharma explanation is that it is due to past lack of faith, hence it says “Śāriputra, you should know” down to “Now I rejoice and have no fear”; thus we know it is the great cause. In the simile it says “seeing the children escape the burning house”; thus we know it is the small effect. In the dharma explanation, the great obstacle is about to collapse, for immediately thereafter it says, “When the bodhisattvas hear this Dharma, their nets of doubt are all removed”; their removal is not far off. In the simile explanation it says “safely escaped”, hence it is called the small effect. With these three faults, the error stems from Guangzhai’s fifth, sixth, and seventh texts; therefore, taking them as the basis of the similes is not sound. Regarding “Furthermore, the difference of presence and absence”: this refutes his taking the sixth of the ten as the basis of the simile of asking for the carts below; in the text of the dharma explanation there are no words about asking for the carts, and in the simile explanation, because their faculties were not sharp, it only then appears; therefore, it cannot be used as the basis of the simile of asking for the carts. Moreover, in the dharma explanation it only says, “I see the Buddha’s children striving to seek the Buddha path”; it has nothing to do with the two vehicles asking for the small carts. Fourth, under “If one cites”, it is the fault of citing the text: how can one loosely take the words “came to” as the basis of the simile of the Small Vehicle asking for the carts? This criticises [him] from the perspective of combining them into the four specific similes; thus the third of the specific similes is recombined into the single text of granting equally. Even if one divides this into four, calling the first “the moving of the Mahāyāna capacity” as the basis for the subsequent asking for the carts, one still cannot call it asking for the small carts. Therefore, in the previous refutation regarding great and small it says that the simile explanation recounts the small effect; it merely recounts the small while their minds seek the great, which is called the moving of the capacity. Hence it says that he completely fails to grasp the meaning of the text; thus we know that text itself concerns the great capacity being about to move. However, regarding presence and absence, our present text below itself distinguishes six points of similarity and difference. First, in presence and absence, where it says “the prose has the genuine and the false”, this is the text that winnows out the false and urges faith. Regarding “absent in the verses”: this is provisionally following the old view that takes the final seven verses of the gāthās as the transmission of the dharma explanation. If we follow our present interpretation, taking these seven verses as the text urging faith, then this single meaning of presence and absence would be lacking. In the verses there is praise of the Dharma: the text on the four difficulties from “the appearance of the Buddhas” onwards is it, which is completely absent in the prose. In sequence, where it says “the prose first opens the three and then reveals the one”: at the beginning of the prose it says, “Śāriputra, I now also do likewise, knowing that sentient beings have various desires,” etc.; is this not bestowing the three? In the next text it says, “all these are for the sake of obtaining the One Buddha Vehicle”; this is revealing the one. In the verses, the first two verses of the general verse: the first verse reveals the real, and the next verse bestows the provisional; hence it first says “peaceful” and “demonstrating the Buddha path”, and only in the next text does it say, “By the power of my wisdom, I know the natures and desires of sentient beings.” If one takes the text of the specific similes, first, within the five defilements, it is further divided into three: the first, the eye that can see, also corresponds to revealing the real; the next, the fire that is seen and setting aside the great to bestow the small, both belong to the provisional. If one discusses the general meaning of the specific similes, it is also provisional first and real after. If one takes the general verse, then the former verse reveals the real and the next verse bestows the provisional. In opening and combining, where it says “first combined and not opened”: if one takes the two verses merely as the basis for the general simile, it is therefore called combined and not opened. If one divides the two verses into six, the general also has the specific; provisionally following the combined explanation, it is therefore further divided with respect to the similes below. Where it says “the text on the five defilements is divided into four bases for similes”: this is feared to be a scribal error and should say “three bases for similes”; that is, in the specific four similes, the first text is further divided into three—namely, what can see, what is seen, and being alarmed and entering—which, corresponding to the text of the simile below, still has four. He took the fourth, which extensively explains seeing the fire, and combined it into the second text; thus we know there are only three. Next, in clarifying adoption and rejection, where it says “the four sections of the sūtra text serve as the bases for six similes”: the four sections are the specific four. The six similes are: dividing the five defilements into three, which, combined with the three sections below, makes six. Regarding “praising the Dharma is not a basis for the six similes”: within the four specific ones, the fourth section is set apart to bring out praising the Dharma and urging faith; it is not a basis for the six similes below.