法華文句記 9.139

9.139

道場觀意，以《法華》為乘始，以《涅槃》為乘終，終始隔部，所以不可。等是隔部，何不以《華嚴》為乘始？若以會歸為乘始者，教行人理一切皆會，會已無始亦復無終。若迹門為乘始者，又不全然。若但乘始，何故法說中明佛智等，譬喻說中明至道場，因緣說中云至寶所？所以初釋惟初中五句，意云今之與昔或已入住行向地等，入復增進，唯有一分鈍根聲聞，於此終開仍入初住，豈名乘始？若初住名始，彈指如何？故不依此能判經部。若《涅槃》澄神為乘終者，說《大經》時十仙諸外道並初發心，復無量人退菩提心。又《法華》之始則在物機，《涅槃》澄神約於教主，由《法華》教主久成，故《涅槃》澄神不滅。又滅影為息迹，則《法華》猶迹，澄神為本，非今經本，應知今經以久遠實成為本，中間今日示成為迹，若依他釋本迹二門俱屬乘始。若不釋本直於迹中明始終者，具如《玄》文乘妙中說。注家先舉非存亡出脩夭為非壽量，用釋壽量。次明壽量意。然釋兩字，仍似顛倒。存亡之數是量，脩夭之限是壽；一期曰壽，壽內之數曰量故也。次「法身」下明意者，重舉向非壽非量之體，非形牒非壽，非年牒非量。此違《論》文。「使大士」下正明說壽量意，意令菩薩修踐極照，令知如來遠壽之體。是大士智之所遊，所遊既深故云「踐極」。達彼非壽故名為「照」。「不以」兩字貫下百年，「期頤」者，「期」要也，「頤」養也。百歲之人不知衣食，要假孝子而扶養之。今佛不然，故云「不以」。

In the view of Daochang Guan, the Lotus Sūtra is taken as the beginning of the vehicle, and the Nirvāṇa Sūtra as the end of the vehicle; separating the two into distinct texts makes this untenable. Since they are equally distinct texts, why not take the Avataṃsaka Sūtra as the beginning of the vehicle? If one takes the convergence [of the teachings] as the beginning of the vehicle, then teaching, practice, person, and principle are all converged; once converged, there is neither beginning nor end. If the trace gate is taken as the beginning of the vehicle, that too is not entirely correct. If it were merely the beginning of the vehicle, why is the Buddha's wisdom and so forth explained in the doctrinal exposition, reaching the place of enlightenment explained in the parabolic exposition, and arriving at the place of jewels spoken of in the exposition through causes and conditions? Therefore, in the initial explanation of the five phrases on 'considering only the initial,' the meaning is that both now and in the past, some may have already entered the abodes, practices, dedications, grounds, and so forth, and having entered, they advance further; only a portion of dull-rooted śrāvakas at this point finally open [their minds] and still enter the first abode. How could this be called the beginning of the vehicle? If the first abode is called the beginning, what about [making an offering with] a snap of the fingers? Therefore, one cannot classify the texts of the sūtras on this basis. If the clearing of the spirit in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra is taken as the end of the vehicle, when the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra was spoken, the ten ṛṣis and various non-Buddhists all brought forth their initial resolve, and countless people also regressed from the bodhimind. Furthermore, the beginning in the Lotus Sūtra lies with the capacities of living beings, whereas the clearing of the spirit in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra concerns the lord of the teaching; because the lord of the teaching in the Lotus Sūtra had attained enlightenment long ago, the clearing of the spirit in the Nirvāṇa Sūtra is not extinction. Again, if extinguishing the reflection is taking to rest the traces, then the Lotus Sūtra is still the traces, and the clearing of the spirit is the origin—this is not the origin meant in the present sūtra. One should know that the present sūtra takes the real attainment in the far distant past as the origin, and the intermediate and present manifestations of attainment as the traces. If one relies on the other interpretation, both the origin and trace gates would belong to the beginning of the vehicle. If one does not explain the origin but directly explains the beginning and end within the traces, it is explained fully in the Profound Meaning under the 'Wondrousness of the Vehicle.' The commentator first brought forward 'neither existing nor perishing, transcending longevity and brevity' as 'non-life span and non-measure,' using it to interpret 'life span' and 'measure.' Next, he explained the intent of the life span. However, his explanation of these two words still seems reversed: the counting of existence and perishing is the 'measure,' while the limit of longevity and brevity is the 'life span'; a single period is called 'life span,' and the number within the life span is called 'measure.' Next, regarding the explanation of intent from 'dharmakāya' onward: he again brought forward the aforementioned essence of non-life span and non-measure; 'non-physical form' corresponds to non-life span, and 'non-years' corresponds to non-measure. This contradicts the text of the Upadeśa. From 'causing the great beings' onward, he directly explains the intent of expounding the life span: the intent is to cause the bodhisattvas to cultivate and tread to the ultimate illumination, making them know the essence of the Tathāgata's distant life span. This is the domain traversed by the wisdom of the great beings; since the traversal is deep, it is called 'treading to the ultimate.' Penetrating that non-life span is called 'illumination.' The two words 'not by' run through the 'hundred years' below. 'Qiyi' (the age of one hundred): 'qi' means expecting, and 'yi' means supporting. A person of one hundred years does not know how to attend to clothing and food, and must rely on filial children to support and nurture them. This is not so for the Buddha now, hence it is said 'not by.'