法華文句記 8.93

8.93

「譬如」至「俱薄」者，亦約初心易成壞說，若約田說義例可知。如八福田看病第一，人多厭故看者福增，此乃約心難易故也。若約田就事，豈一病人比於大聖及妙法耶？如濟匹夫與獻主天隔，匹夫恩不自蔽，主澤霑及萬民，四悉適宜不可一準。然約此經功高理絕得作此說，餘經不然。「為如來肩」等者，佛得權實及非權實，我亦得之乃稱佛得，是則義當在佛肩背。亦是用佛權實等法名在肩背，亦是眾生常在肩背日用不知，餘經不然故須說之。若不爾者，豈持經者盡為如來肩背荷擔？是故此文須廢事釋。若迷今文權實施開，縱作權實之名消之，亦未會此妙旨。《經》云「應持天寶」等者，先舉人中上供，次以天寶況之。尚以天寶奉獻，故云應持。況人中上供？有人云：西方舉勝皆云天也。若爾，前云人中上供即是天供，何重言之？

From "For instance" to "both slight": this is also spoken in terms of the initial mind being easily formed or ruined; if spoken in terms of the field, the principle is understood by analogy. As among the eight fields of merit tending the sick is foremost, because many people detest it, the merit of the caregiver increases; this is due to the difficulty or ease of the mind. If based on the field and regarding the fact, how could a single sick person compare to the Great Sage and the wondrous Dharma? Just as relieving a commoner differs from presenting [gifts] to a sovereign as heaven from earth: a commoner's kindness does not extend beyond oneself, whereas the sovereign's bounty spreads to all people; the four siddhāntas are applied as appropriate, and cannot be judged by a single standard. However, this statement can be made in terms of this sūtra's supreme efficacy and transcendent principle; it is not so in other sūtras. Regarding "bearing on the Tathāgata's shoulders", and so forth: the Buddha attains the provisional, the real, and the neither-provisional-nor-real; when I attain them as well, it matches what the Buddha attained. In principle, this corresponds to being on the Buddha's shoulders and back. It also means using the Buddha's provisional, real, and other dharmas, which is called being on the shoulders and back. It also means that sentient beings are constantly on the shoulders and back, using them daily without knowing; other sūtras are not like this, hence this must be explained. If not so, would all who uphold the sūtra literally be shouldered upon the Tathāgata's shoulders and back? Therefore, this passage must set aside the literal, phenomenal explanation. If one is confused about the opening and setting forth of the provisional and real in the present text, even if one uses the names of provisional and real to explain it, one will still not comprehend this wondrous meaning. The sūtra says "should offer celestial treasures", and so forth: first mentioning the supreme offerings among humans, and next comparing them to celestial treasures. Even celestial treasures should be offered, hence it says "should offer"; how much more so the supreme offerings among humans? Someone said: "In the Western Regions, whenever mentioning what is supreme, they call it celestial." If so, the earlier supreme human offerings would just be celestial offerings; why repeat it?