法華文句記 9.152

9.152

「問義推」等者，如向所說，《法華》明常道理實爾，據文不如《涅槃》常顯，故今經明常似無文據。答意者，詮教也，宗旨也。糟糠及橋並能詮教，能詮雖異失旨如糠。「問橋」具如《止觀》第十。此且通途以斥執者。「又教本」下別明化意。前雖通斥，今別明四悉，宜長宜短被物不同，即因緣也。「又文」下以部望部據多少論，非全無文，即約教也。「若隨多棄少」等者，忽若俱少則二經俱棄，非魔何謂？具如《涅槃》第七〈邪正品〉中，不知法身常住皆名魔說。又此經處處明法身者，略如向引，但名異義同，人便迷名而失其旨，若但隨名尚是魔說，況多少耶？亦如《玄》文同體異名中說，即是實相寶渚非如非異，平等大慧等。

Regarding the passage beginning “Question: By deducing the meaning…,” as stated earlier, the Lotus Sūtra's explanation of the eternal is indeed true in principle, but based on the text it is not as explicitly manifest as the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]; hence the explanation of the eternal in the present sūtra seems to lack textual basis. The intention of the answer is: the expressing [vehicle] is the teaching, and the aim is the principle. The chaff and the bridge both express the teaching; though the expressing vehicles differ, to miss the aim is like [grasping at] chaff. The “inquiry about the bridge” is fully explained in the tenth fascicle of the Śamatha-vipaśyanā. Here it refutes those who cling [to the text] in a general manner. The passage beginning “Moreover, the root of the teaching…” separately explains the intention of conversion. Although he refuted them generally before, here he separately clarifies the four siddhāntas, whereby suitability for length or brevity instructs beings differently, which is precisely [the working of] causes and conditions. The passage beginning “Moreover, the text…” compares sūtra section to sūtra section based on quantity, showing it does not completely lack textual basis, which is [explaining] in terms of the teaching. Regarding the phrase “If one follows the many and abandons the few…,” if both happened to be few, both sūtras would be abandoned—what could this be called if not māra? It is fully set forth in the seventh chapter of the Nirvāṇa Sūtra, “The Wrong and the Right,” where failing to know that the dharmakāya is eternally abiding is called the teaching of māra. Furthermore, that this sūtra everywhere explains the dharmakāya is briefly shown as cited above; it is just that the names differ while the meaning is the same, so people become confused by the names and lose their aim. If merely following names is already the teaching of māra, how much more so with quantity? It is also like what is said in the Profound Meaning under identical substance with different names: namely, the jewel islet of the true character, neither identical nor different, equal great wisdom, and so forth.