法華文句記 5.61

5.61

言「正三毒」者，他方淨土如阿閦國，亦有女人無邪欲故，舉一準餘諸可例識，廣歷諸土分別不同，故注「云云」。「敦真」者，敦實得者故斥言非，上慢亦然，終無實得而不信者。「嗣」亦繼也。「身尚無量」者，小乘教中不說更有界外生處，有計變易在界內者，亦名生處；大乘教中既其變易生處多故，故云無量。此述逼意，言中但云「名增上慢」，意指羅漢。若實得者豈有不發大心者耶？乃以大乘密而斥之。若謂究竟應變易盡，若未盡者何以不信？「值遇餘佛」者，初文以有餘土佛名為餘佛。「羅漢受先世身」者，酬先業故名先世身。煩惱果故，故須必滅。若煩惱所惑能不滅者，有於因果不同之過，縱云邊際定力持令不滅，今問邊定為大為少？若其小者，小無變易之名，亦無永常之說。若言大者，大邊除名唯在等覺，豈得記之後即等覺耶？若大入小定顯大無定用。有引羅云等，此不應爾。但佛滅後諸阿羅漢隱顯不同，皆隨機緣，況本大菩薩。此是《大論》龍樹菩薩假施此問，欲準大教具委答之故也。故答文中云「不生三界」，況論還引《法華》證之。故知博地之言無教可準，餘國之義出自他人。故古人云：「學不師安，義不中難。」故此《法華》非茲不了。又若變易不出界者，而生五道之言，却入生死之說，驚入火宅之喻，非涅槃一日之文，便為虛構。「南岳」下三釋，並是南岳釋也。

As for "the correct three poisons": in pure lands of other directions, such as Akṣobhya's realm, there are also women without perverse desires; by adducing one case, the rest can be known by analogy; traversing the various lands extensively to differentiate their distinctions, it therefore notes "and so forth." "Earnestly urging those who have truly attained": because he earnestly urges those who have truly attained, he rebukes them, saying they are not [true arhats]; the same is true of the excessively arrogant, for ultimately none who have truly attained lack faith. "Continue" (si) also means to succeed. "Bodies are yet immeasurable": in the Hīnayāna teachings, it is not taught that there are other places of rebirth outside the realm [of saṃsāra]; for those who assert that inconceivable transformation is within the realm, these are also called places of rebirth; in the Mahāyāna teachings, since places of rebirth through inconceivable transformation are numerous, it says "immeasurable." This recounts the intent of pressing them: in words he merely says "are termed excessively arrogant," but his intent points to the arhats. If they had truly attained it, how could they fail to give rise to the great aspiration? Thus he secretly rebukes them by means of the Mahāyāna. If one claims it is ultimate, inconceivable transformation should be exhausted; if it is not yet exhausted, why do they not believe? As for "encountering other buddhas": the initial text takes the buddhas of other lands with residual [afflictions] to be "other buddhas." "Arhats receive bodies of prior lifetimes": because they repay past karma, these are called bodies of prior lifetimes. Because they are the effects of afflictions, they must inevitably perish. If those who are deluded by afflictions could fail to perish, there would be the fault of disparity between cause and effect; even if it is said that the power of samādhi of the extreme limit sustains them so that they do not perish, we now ask: is this samādhi of the extreme limit Mahāyāna or Hīnayāna? If it is Hīnayāna, the Hīnayāna has no term for inconceivable transformation, nor does it speak of eternity. If it is said to be Mahāyāna, the Mahāyāna's removing the name [of extreme limit] exists only at the stage of virtual enlightenment; could it be that immediately after receiving the prophecy they are virtually enlightened? If the great enters the small samādhi, this shows that the great lacks samādhi function. Some cite Rāhula and others, but this should not be so. It is merely that after the Buddha's extinction, the concealment and appearance of the arhats differed, all according to the conditions of their capacities, not to mention those who were originally great bodhisattvas. This is a question posed tentatively by Bodhisattva Nāgārjuna in the *Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa*, wishing to give a fully detailed reply based on the Mahāyāna teachings. Therefore, the reply states "they are not born in the three realms," and furthermore the treatise cites the *Lotus Sūtra* to verify this. Thus we know that the words of commoners on the ground have no scriptural authority to rely on, and the doctrine of other lands originates from someone else. Thus an ancient said: "If one's study does not take Master Dao'an as teacher, one's doctrines will not withstand critique." Therefore, this *Lotus Sūtra* is not incomprehensible on this point. Moreover, if inconceivable transformation did not transcend the realms, then the statements about being born in the five destinies, the claims of returning to birth and death, the simile of being frightened into entering the burning house, and the text on the single day of nirvāṇa would all become fabrications. From "Nányuè" onward, the three explanations are all Master Nányuè's explanations.