法華文句記 7.203

7.203

釋增長中，二乘增長二解不同，並今師意。前釋得小乘盡生死，方名「最後」。次釋大乘中，方名「後身」。大小兩種並名增長，增長皆由值佛。眾生自謂當分增長，今準佛意莫非地雨，故令當分遠有增長，所以至此方知合一，無後之言且任小教，權名為無非永無也。若得法身等覺一轉當入妙覺，乃云最後。《論》云：「羅漢發心已，後邊際定力令分段身延至變易」，不復改報成無上果者，此多屬通義，以通菩薩過二乘地，惑潤生身或不經生而成正覺，豈華王佛果而用二乘邊際定身？故應問言：此定與彼首楞嚴定同耶異耶？諸論皆云捨分段身而入變易，天親論主意未必然，但恐論釋義不正耳。故知最後增長之言，大小各別，無人有教深可為規。

In explaining 'growth', the two interpretations regarding the growth of the two vehicles differ, yet both are the intention of the present master. The former explains that only when one attains the small vehicle and exhausts birth and death is it named 'the final [body]'. The latter explains that within the Mahāyāna, only then is it named the 'subsequent body'. Both small and large are named growth, and growth is in all cases due to encountering a buddha. Sentient beings themselves consider it to be growth within their own allotted share; now, judging by the Buddha's intent, nothing is not the earth and rain, which causes their allotted share to have growth from afar. That is why only upon arriving here do they realize that they are united into one. The statement that there is no subsequent [body] provisionally relies on the small teaching, where it is provisionally called 'none'; it is not an eternal non-existence. If one attains the dharmakāya, then upon turning once from equal enlightenment, one shall enter wondrous enlightenment; only then is it called 'the final'. The treatise says: 'After an arhat gives rise to the mind [for bodhi], through the power of the concentration of the ultimate boundary, the body of fragmented [birth and death] is prolonged up to [the stage of] inconceivable transformation', and without altering their reward they achieve the unsurpassed fruit—this mostly belongs to the meaning of the shared [teaching]. Because a bodhisattva of the shared [teaching] has passed beyond the ground of the two vehicles, defilements moisten their physical body, or without undergoing birth they achieve right enlightenment. How could the fruit of the Flower-King Buddha use the ultimate-boundary concentration body of the two vehicles? Therefore, one should ask: Is this concentration identical to or different from that Śūraṅgama concentration? The treatises all say that one abandons the body of fragmented [birth and death] and enters inconceivable transformation; the intention of the treatise-master Vasubandhu was not necessarily so, but it is only to be feared that the treatise's explanation of the meaning was not correct. Therefore we know that the words 'the final growth' differ between the small and the large; [if] there is no one who possesses the teaching, what can profoundly serve as a model?