法華文句記 6.108

6.108

「免八苦」下結向命重身輕意也。當知借於小命為大命，初用小濟存五分身，已得珍玩，況常於火宅方便教小本在於大，而今獲大，豈虛妄耶？小乘五分法身具如《俱舍》云云。「況二萬億佛」下指昔因也。經中但以今世火宅況之，疏中加於昔大以釋。從「圓因成」去指今果也。「不乖本意」者，此述長者本意，若小若大俱有本心，大本為本小本非本，許小不與尚無所乖，況更與大寧乖本意？如許少財與少非妄，況與大位得過於昔，寧非本心？信知如來本非小化，所以財但免於分段之貧，位則超於二死之賤，一義兼備何乖之有？但小非究竟，不須更與，故云不與耳。「本知無三」至「本心」者，明不與意，昔非本意故今不與，《經》云「方便令出」，疏云「令不墮惡」者，令不墮故方便令出，方便令出故令不墮惡，則一意也。「結前」等者，雙釋兩結皆安似者，文似偏結理必兼具，二輪別故所對不同，故借二輪以消二結。

From "escaping the eight sufferings" onward, it concludes the previous idea that life is heavy and the body is light. One should know that the small life is borrowed to serve as the great life: initially using the small salvation to preserve the fivefold body already obtained what was treasured; how much more so when constantly teaching the small as a skillful means in the burning house was originally aimed at the great, and now they obtain the great—how could it be false? The Hinayana fivefold dharmakāya is fully explained in the Kośa, and so forth. From "how much more so the two myriads of koṭis of buddhas" onward, it points to past causes. In the sūtra, it merely illustrates this by the present lifetime's burning house; in the commentary, it adds past greatness to explain it. From "the perfect cause being fulfilled" onward, it points to the present fruit. Regarding "not contrary to the original intention": this expresses the elder's original intention. Whether small or great, both have an original intent: the great origin is the root, while the small origin is not the root. Promising the small and not giving it is still not contrary; how much less is giving the great contrary to the original intention? Just as promising little wealth and giving little is not false, how much more so giving a great position that exceeds the past—how could it not be the original intent? We truly know that the Tathāgata was originally not about small transformation; therefore, wealth merely frees one from the poverty of fragmented [birth and death], while the position transcends the baseness of the two kinds of death. Possessing both meanings in one, what contrariety could there be? It is simply that the small is not ultimate and does not need to be given again; hence it says "not given." From "originally knowing there are not three" to "original intent," it clarifies the intention of not giving: because the past was not the original intention, he does not give it now. The Sūtra says "by skillful means causing them to escape," and the commentary says "causing them not to fall into evil": causing them not to fall, he therefore by skillful means causes them to escape; by skillful means causing them to escape, he therefore causes them not to fall into evil—these are one and the same meaning. Regarding "concluding the preceding" and so forth: both explanations of the two conclusions place "resembles"; the text resembles a one-sided conclusion, but in principle it must possess both. Because the two wheels are distinct, what they face is different; therefore, the two wheels are borrowed to resolve the two conclusions.