法華文句記 5.62

5.62

次釋中云「羅漢若修念佛三昧」等者，若言念十方佛則已發大心，若唯念釋尊乃因小感大，亦是機發使之然耳。然小乘之中諸部不同，亦有信有十方佛者，即小乘人修第四禪邊際定力，見十方佛等，念佛觀成感佛為說。第三舉凡夫者，舉凡夫況聖耳。是故羅漢必無不聞之理。瑤師意云：實得羅漢無不信者，不須餘佛；遇餘佛者，則指凡夫。南岳豈不知凡夫於佛滅後能生信耶？故值餘佛必指羅漢。故《淨名》云：「凡夫有反復而聲聞無也」。故知聲聞難迴而須商議，凡夫易受何須引例？「有人云」至「必然」者，意破瑤師，立不信者義亦不然。執心牢固必在昔教，不應證今滅後之文。此師又引身子於《法華》初聞略開之文，以證滅後羅漢不受之語。意云：值佛羅漢尚疑是魔，況佛滅後寧肯信受？今則不然。佛預敦逼無不信者，故於滅後執經權說，義容可爾。「云云」者，應廣明羅漢及以凡夫信不信意，以破此師及以瑤師。「此直是異解」等九字，恐須作白字書之。指前兩師亦非全失，但未全順經意故耳。不能全破故云異解。若論瑤師見違經文，經云「羅漢遇餘佛生信而云不須」，經意云「除佛滅後」者，欲顯四依通經功能；而瑤不以四依為餘佛，謂羅漢三根聞與不聞，並不假從四依邊聞者，深不可也。又以凡夫為況者，此則可爾。但須云遇四依耳。後師意云：凡夫易、羅漢難。此亦違經決了之語，故云「不用此義」。

Next, in the explanation, it says: "If an arhat cultivates the samādhi of mindfulness of the Buddha," etc. If it is said that they are mindful of the buddhas of the ten directions, they have already given rise to the great aspiration; if they are mindful solely of Śākyamuni, then through the small they are moved by the great; this too is brought about by the activation of their spiritual capacities. However, within the Hīnayāna, the various schools differ; there are also those who believe there are buddhas of the ten directions—namely, Hīnayāna practitioners who cultivate the power of the samādhi of the extreme limit of the fourth dhyāna, see the buddhas of the ten directions, etc., and upon perfecting the contemplation of mindfulness of the Buddha, stimulate the buddhas to preach to them. The third, adducing ordinary beings, merely adduces ordinary beings to illustrate noble ones. Therefore, there is definitely no principle by which arhats would fail to hear it. Master Yao's view was: Those who have truly attained arhatship never lack faith and do not require other buddhas; "encountering other buddhas" refers to ordinary beings. How could Nányuè not know that ordinary beings can generate faith after the Buddha's extinction? Therefore, "encountering other buddhas" must refer to arhats. Thus the *Vimalakīrti-nirdeśa* says: "Ordinary beings are capable of reversal, but voice-hearers are not." Thus we know that voice-hearers are difficult to turn and require deliberation; ordinary beings are easily receptive, so why would one need to cite them as a parallel? From "Someone says" to "must be so": this aims to refute Master Yao, but establishing that they do not believe is also not correct. Their adherence was firmly rooted in the former teachings, and should not be used to prove the present text regarding [the time] after extinction. This master also cited Śāriputra's initial hearing of the brief opening in the *Lotus Sūtra* to prove the claim that arhats would not accept it after extinction. His idea was: When encountering the Buddha, an arhat still suspected he might be Māra; how much more so after the Buddha's extinction—would they be willing to believe and accept it? Now this is not so. The Buddha anticipated and earnestly pressed them so that none failed to believe; therefore, after extinction, clinging to the provisional teachings of the sūtras is, in principle, quite possible. "And so forth": one should explain at length the attitudes of belief and disbelief in arhats and ordinary beings in order to refute this master as well as Master Yao. The nine characters "This is simply a different interpretation," etc., should probably be written in blank space. They point out that the previous two masters were not entirely in error, but merely failed to conform completely to the sūtra's intent. Because they cannot be wholly refuted, it says "different interpretation." If one considers Master Yao's view, it directly contradicts the sūtra text: the sūtra says "arhats encounter other buddhas and give rise to faith, yet he says it is not needed"; the sūtra's intent in saying "except after the Buddha's extinction" is to reveal the function of the four refuges in transmitting the sūtras; yet Yao did not take the four refuges to be "other buddhas," asserting that whether the three roots of arhats heard it or not, neither depended on hearing it from the four refuges—this is profoundly untenable. Moreover, taking ordinary beings as a comparison is admissible, but one must specify that they encounter the four refuges. The latter master's view was that ordinary beings are easy and arhats are difficult. This also contradicts the sūtra's definitive words, hence it says "this doctrine is not accepted."