法華文句記 9.143

9.143

次「問近成是方便」等者，今師假設，先引《華嚴》、《大經》以定。次「若爾法華」下引《法華》，於《華嚴》、《大經》為妨，《法華》若興皆開成遠，則法華中無復方便，何故本後不輕却近？「當知」下結難。「若爾會三」下，以迹例本，本門開已更近，亦應迹門會已不會，應知此中文略。須先結云迹門會已無更不會，所以本門遠已無更不遠，縱不輕中更明近迹，不可長壽更令短促。次「若爾」下重以迹例本，以定道同，故一切諸佛悉皆爾也。「若爾」下難諸佛壽同，何獨釋迦長壽可歎？「若獨」下結難，若獨釋迦壽長，則有佛道不同之過，故云「前諸義壞」。答意者，捨異從同，一切諸佛悉皆如此，故云「亦然」。意在同顯實本，不必長短悉齊。「又諸菩薩」下引證，且引願長，豈即全等？「此即」下結同。「亦不偏言」者，明常壽等，顯往時異長短不同，望未來常一向平等，故諸佛顯本各有遠近，若論壽體無得復云一近一遠，故諸菩薩聞長壽已，亦願未來說報身壽，如今釋迦但開迹已無復近遠。「故知」下明本迹體用，體用即法應相望，若應迹相望不無近遠，約近迹應望本初應得有近遠，故對緣長短無別長短。所以不云報身長者，欲以法身亡其長短。又欲顯於諸佛道同，其實開三佛道可同，事成久近不可同也。以是方可破他諸師，故云「諸師不可師也」。

Next, regarding the passage beginning “Question: If attaining [enlightenment] recently is skillful means…,” our teacher establishes a hypothetical question, first citing the Avataṃsaka and Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtras to establish [the position]. Next, the passage beginning “If so, the Lotus Sūtra…” cites the Lotus Sūtra as an objection to the Avataṃsaka and Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtras: if the emergence of the Lotus Sūtra opens all [past attainments] as being remote, then within the Lotus Sūtra there would be no further skillful means; why then, in the subsequent [chapter on Bodhisattva] Never Disparaging, is the recent [attainment] mentioned again? The passage beginning “One should know…” concludes the objection. The passage beginning “If so, harmonizing the three…” uses the traces to analogize the origin: if after the opening in the origin gate it were again recent, then in the trace gate, after being harmonized, they would again not be harmonized. One should know that the text here is condensed. One must first conclude that after being harmonized in the trace gate there is no further non-harmonization, and therefore, after being [revealed as] remote in the origin gate, there is no further non-remoteness; even if [the chapter on] Never Disparaging again explains recent traces, a long life span cannot be made short again. Next, the passage beginning “If so…” again uses the traces to analogize the origin in order to determine that their paths are identical, and thus it is so for all buddhas. The passage beginning “If so…” objects that if all buddhas have identical life spans, why should Śākyamuni’s long life span alone be praised? The passage beginning “If [Śākyamuni] alone…” concludes the objection: if Śākyamuni’s life span alone were long, there would be the fault of the buddha-paths being dissimilar; hence it says, “the preceding meanings would be ruined.” The point of the reply is to set aside differences and follow commonality: all buddhas are entirely like this, and therefore it says, “It is also thus.” The intention is to jointly reveal the real origin; the lengths [of their life spans] do not necessarily have to be entirely equal. The passage beginning “Moreover, the bodhisattvas…” cites proof: this merely cites their vows for length—how could it mean they are entirely identical? The passage beginning “This then…” concludes their identity. The phrase “Nor does it speak one-sidedly…” explains that eternal life span and the like demonstrate that differences in the past had unequal lengths, while viewed in terms of the future they are consistently and constantly equal; therefore, when the various buddhas reveal the origin, each has remoteness or recency, but if one speaks of the substance of the life span, one can no longer say one is recent and one is remote. Hence, after hearing of the long life span, the bodhisattvas also vowed that they would expound the life span of the saṃbhogakāya in the future, just as now Śākyamuni merely opens the traces, whereupon there is no longer recency or remoteness. The passage beginning “Hence we know…” explains the essence and function of origin and traces. Essence and function are the mutual relationship between the dharmakāya and the nirmāṇakāya. If the nirmāṇakāya and the traces are viewed against each other, they are not without recency and remoteness; viewed from the recent trace-response toward the original initial response, there can be recency and remoteness, so the lengths corresponding to conditions have no other separate length. The reason he does not speak of the length of the saṃbhogakāya is that he wishes to extinguish its length by means of the dharmakāya. Furthermore, he wishes to reveal that the paths of all buddhas are identical; in reality, when opening the three, the buddha-paths can be identical, but the historical duration of their attainment cannot be identical. Only by this means can one refute the other masters; hence it says, “The various masters are not to be taken as teachers.”