法華文句記 7.108

7.108

「今明」等者，意云雖非親生，既迹中同業非無相關，故是父之流例，義當伯叔。當知今日影響，在昔不無高下，是則昔示高位如伯，示下位者如叔，並是父族故云「親族」。「并」「會」字貫下。「國王」至「是王」者，前約昔教諸部為諸王。言「興廢」者，委論興廢具如《玄》文第九卷明。今欲略論對部說者，則華嚴二興二廢，乃至法華一興三廢，今乃廢諸小王唯立一主，是故《法華》名王中王。次「有此經」下約此經會教，以今經中部無餘教，部即部中尊極為王，教即部內教主為王，既教分大小王亦尊卑，國界寬狹、民有多少、資產各異所出不同，故部內教通別二轍，別則當界施恩、通乃須歸大國，故知部教俱須會通，故前云「部」後乃云「教」。在昔未會，如一國內二三小王各理蒼品未歸大國，故方便教主王名不無，但兼部中圓極主弱；若會已後同霑一化，民無二主國無二王。自爾已前或歸不歸，不歸仍是小王被輔不獲已而統之，小王本無背長，良由民心未歸，民若歸從王本一統。以此會法，義可比知。「無量義中先已收集」者，雖云從一出多，密擬多皆屬一，故云「收集」。又乃由先說一出於多，方可定起收多歸一，故知爾前當機益物，雖於一施三而三掩其一，欲說收入故預譚開。「彼云」下引彼《無量義經》示相，如何得知收集諸經，彼經既云「諸經無量皆從一出」，故指前經以為無量。四諦因緣即鹿苑也，方等般若次第宛然。言「華嚴」者，具有二義，已在《玄》文。「彌勒」等者，昔教既偏圓未融人亦權實不一，今教已會，補處豈多？補處既然，餘下準此。民歸王順如向所論。「初地」等者，為會偏教故不云圓。

Regarding "now clarifying..." and so forth: the meaning is that although they are not born of [his own body], since their enterprise in the traces is shared, they are not without relation; thus they are of the father's peer group, conceptually equivalent to uncles. One should know that regarding today's shadow and echo [retinue], in the past there were indeed higher and lower [ranks]. Thus, those who previously displayed high ranks are like elder paternal uncles, and those who displayed lower ranks are like younger paternal uncles; both belong to the father's clan, hence it is said "relatives and kin." The words "and" and "gather" run through what follows. From "kings of states" to "this king": earlier it drew an analogy to the various kings by referring to the various collections of the past teachings. Regarding "flourishing and declining": an exhaustive discussion of flourishing and declining is fully clarified in the ninth fascicle of the Profound Meaning. If we now wish to speak briefly regarding the collections: the Avataṃsaka had two flourishings and two declinings, up through the Lotus Sūtra having one flourishing and three declinings; now, it discards the various lesser kings and establishes solely one lord; therefore the Lotus is called the king among kings. Next, below "there is this sūtra," it harmonizes the teachings with respect to this sūtra: because in this present sūtra's collection there is no other teaching, the collection itself has its most supreme within the collection as king, and the teaching itself has the lord of the teaching within the collection as king. Since the teachings are divided into great and small, the kings likewise have higher and lower [status]; their boundaries are broad or narrow, their populations large or small, and their assets differ and are produced differently. Hence, within the collection, the teachings follow two tracks, common and distinctive: the distinctive [teaching] bestows benevolence within its own territory, while the common [teaching] must return to the great realm. Thus we know that both the collection and the teaching must be harmonized and unified; hence earlier it said "collection" and later it said "teaching." In the past, before they were unified, it was like two or three lesser kings within a single realm, each governing the common folk without having submitted to the great realm. Therefore, the name "king" for the lord of the provisional teaching was not absent, but in combination with the perfect culmination in the collection, the lord was weak. Once they are harmonized, they all partake of a single transformation: the people have no two lords, and the realm has no two kings. Prior to this, they may or may not have submitted; not submitting still meant being a lesser king who was assisted and, having no other choice, governed them. The lesser king originally had no intention of defying his elder; it was truly because the minds of the people had not yet submitted. If the people submit and follow, the king is originally one sovereign ruler. Using this to harmonize the dharmas, the meaning can be known by analogy. Regarding "in the Immeasurable Meanings it was already gathered beforehand": although it says that from the one emerges the many, it secretly intends that the many all belong to the one; hence it says "gathered." Furthermore, only by first explaining that the one emerges into the many can one, upon arising from samādhi, gather the many and return to the one. Thus we know that previously, according with capacity to benefit beings, although three were bestowed for the sake of the one, the three obscured the one; wishing to expound their gathering, it spoke beforehand of their opening. Below, "that text states..." cites the Sūtra of Immeasurable Meanings to show the characteristics: how does one know that it gathered the various sūtras? Since that sūtra states, "The immeasurable sūtras all emerge from the one," it points to the previous sūtras as the "immeasurable." The Four Truths and dependent origination are the Deer Park; the Vaipulya and Prajñā follow in vivid sequence. The mention of "Avataṃsaka" possesses two meanings, which have already been addressed in the Profound Meaning. Regarding "Maitreya" and so forth: since the past teachings had not yet fused the one-sided and the perfect, persons likewise differed in provisional and real; now that the teaching has unified them, how could there be many in the stage of succession? If this is true for the stage of succession, the rest below can be inferred accordingly. The people submitting and the kings yielding are as discussed above. Regarding "the first bhūmi" and so forth: this is for the sake of harmonizing the one-sided teachings, which is why it does not speak of the perfect.