法華文句記 7.13

7.13

譬文為五，始自相失，即結緣已後終至等賜，即聞譬之時，若合四五秖成四段，故光宅十譬不應今文，故前文云「於四人乖離」，離破光宅、乖斥餘師，餘師雖不離為十譬，對當文相又亦乖張，具如前斥。「西方」等者，彌陀、釋迦二佛既殊，豈令彌陀隱珍玩服，乃使釋迦著弊垢衣，狀當釋迦無珍服可隱，彌陀唯勝妙之形，況宿昔緣別化道不同，結緣如生、成熟如養，生養緣異父子不成，珍弊分途著脫殊隔，消經事闕、調熟義乖，當部之文永無斯旨。「舍那著脫」等者，迷於舍那不動而往，彌陀著弊諸教無文，若論平等意趣，彼此奚嘗自矜，縱他為我身還成我化，我立他像乃助他緣，人不見之，化緣便亂。故知夫結緣者並約應身，如云我昔曾於二萬億等，況十六王子從始至今，機感相成任運分解，是故不可以彼彌陀為此變換。「非結緣己界」等者，本結大緣寂光為土，期心所契法界為機，退大已來機土全失，今流五道望本為他，方便有餘尚非己界，況復五道流轉者耶？

The text of the parable has five parts: beginning from losing each other—that is, after the forging of the karmic bond—and ending with the equal bestowal—that is, at the time of hearing the parable. If one merges the fourth and fifth, there are only four sections. Therefore, Guāngzhái's ten parables do not correspond to the present text. Hence, the previous text states: "diverging from the four men"; "diverging" refutes Guāngzhái, and "discordant" criticizes the other masters. Although the other masters did not divide it into ten parables, their correspondences to the textual passages were also discordant, fully as criticized before. Regarding "the Western" and so forth: since the two Buddhas, Amitābha and Śākyamuni, are distinct, how could one make Amitābha conceal his precious robes and ornaments, and make Śākyamuni wear soiled and defiled garments? The appearance would imply that Śākyamuni had no precious robes to conceal, while Amitābha had only an exceedingly wondrous form. Moreover, their past karmic conditions are distinct and their ways of converting are different: forging the bond is like giving birth, and maturing is like nurturing. When the conditions for birth and nurturing differ, the relation of father and son is not established. The precious and the defiled take different paths, and wearing and shedding them are completely separated. This would lack textual support in interpreting the sūtra and contradict the meaning of seasoning and maturing; the text of this work never has such an intention. Regarding "Vairocana wearing and shedding" and so forth: being confused about Vairocana going without moving, and Amitābha wearing soiled garments, has no textual basis in any teaching. If one discusses the intention of equality, how could one or the other ever pride itself? Even if another becomes my body, it still constitutes my transformation; when I establish another's image, it assists another's conditions. If people do not see this, the conditions for transformation become confused. Therefore, we know that forging the bond is entirely in terms of the nirmāṇakāya, as in saying, "In the past, under twenty thousand koṭis [of buddhas]..." Furthermore, from the beginning until now, the sixteen princes and their faculties and stimuli have mutually formed each other, naturally distinguishing and understanding. Therefore, one must not take that Amitābha to transform into this one. Regarding "not the realm where the bond was forged" and so forth: originally, when forging the great bond, the Land of Eternally Quiescent Light was the land, and the Dharma realm aimed for in mind was the capacity. Since retreating from the Great, capacity and land have both been lost. Now drifting in the five destinies, looking back at the origin, it is other. Even the land of provisional remainder is still not one's own realm, so how much less so wandering in the five destinies?