法華文句記 8.49

8.49

次「今明」下正解，初斥有無，從「三車」下斥三一。「問城與二使」下，破動靜，破初文中言約眾生心為有者，一者本有，二者中途。今約中途故二並有。又亦可云元發大心，故無中以小接謂有。次約佛智，先立句，次釋亦應更須翻倒說之。實智所明說城為化故亦無，權智所明為子造車故亦有。「云云」者，應須具明多種有無，約能設教故俱有，約所證理故俱無；覆實故有，開權故無；施權故有，廢權故無；俱是造作故有，俱是化他故無。故知《法華》非但化城亦是化車，皆逐便耳。化城正意為退大者，更與上問對論同異，故今文云前路猶遠今欲退還，上兩周未有此語，但云沒苦及以所燒，此亦一往。亦可退大者利通上二周，元小者鈍應在第三。「三車通今昔」等者，昔指三味、今謂法華，故二教中俱有三車，但昔正用、今述昔耳。又應以體外體內之名以簡今昔。言「化城」等者，亦應更云化城唯在今。言「教意」者，若不於今經以說教意，不可輒云小果是化，正施小時云是實故，故云未道是化；至今經中初設之時，即云化作者，以是聲聞大機動時，得說教意云城是化。故知化城在昔對人亦三，三車在昔對理亦一。

Next, from "Now to clarify" down is the correct explanation: first refuting existence and nonexistence, and from "three carts" down refuting three and one. Under "Questioning the city and the two messengers," refuting dynamic and static: in the text refuting the first, saying that they are existent in terms of the minds of sentient beings, first, it is originally existent; second, it is halfway. Now in terms of halfway, both are existent. Alternatively, one may say that they originally aroused the great mind; hence, using the small to guide them amid nonexistence, they consider it existent. Next, in terms of the Buddha's wisdom: first the proposition is established, and next the explanation should also be stated in reverse. As clarified by real wisdom, speaking of the city as a phantom means it is also nonexistent; as clarified by provisional wisdom, constructing carts for the children means they are also existent. Regarding "and so forth": one should fully clarify the multiple kinds of existence and nonexistence. In terms of being able to set forth teachings, both exist; in terms of the principle realized, both do not exist. Because of concealing the real, they exist; because of opening the provisional, they do not exist. Because of bestowing the provisional, they exist; because of discarding the provisional, they do not exist. Because both are created, they exist; because both transform others, they do not exist. Thus we know that in the Lotus Sūtra, there is not only a phantom city, but also phantom carts; all follow what is expedient. The primary intent of the phantom city is for those who backslide from the Mahāyāna; comparing and discussing similarities and differences with the questions above, the present text therefore says that the road ahead is still far and they now wish to retreat. In the preceding two cycles there were no such words, merely speaking of sinking in suffering and being burned; this is also a tentative statement. Alternatively, those who backslide from the Mahāyāna have sharp faculties running through the first two cycles, while those originally of the small vehicle are dull and should be in the third. Regarding "The three carts apply to past and present" and so forth: the past refers to the three flavors, and the present means the Lotus Sūtra; hence, both teachings contain the three carts, but in the past they were directly used, while now the past is recounted. Furthermore, one should distinguish present and past by the terms "external to the essence" and "internal to the essence." Regarding "The phantom city" and so forth: one should also add that the phantom city is solely in the present. Regarding "the intent of the teaching": if one does not explain the intent of the teaching in the present sūtra, one must not arbitrarily say that the lesser fruition is a phantom, because when directly bestowing the small, it was said to be real, which is why it says that it had not yet been spoken of as a phantom. When it is first set forth in the present sūtra, it is immediately said to be a phantom creation; because this is the time when the great capacity of the śrāvakas is stirred, the intent of the teaching can be spoken, saying that the city is a phantom. Thus we know that in the past, relative to persons, the phantom city was also three; in the past, relative to principle, the three carts were also one.