法華文句記 9.200

9.200

「法說中未來語少」者，但指「常住不滅」四字，為未來文也。「譬說偈中文多」者，長行譬說中從「其父聞子」已下文是，其文尚少；偈法說中從「我見諸眾生」下十行半文，故云多也。「一身即三身」等者，文中二解各有其意，初釋約三身法體法爾相即，次釋約今昔相望，以今法體望昔故也。亦可前釋通諸味、後釋斥他經，唯在今經故也。即祕密家之神通，故還約三身以釋，故知神通力言隨於諸教教主故也。故廣約諸味簡已，更約今昔簡之，方顯本地三身神通。若釋小乘及以漸教，則不得以此中三身釋之。引《大品》者，此經舉一切世間皆謂近成，唯列天人脩羅不云三惡者，然計近者亦多在此三，故引為例。前雖有二乘之名從初以說，若被開已俱成菩薩，故今但從開邊以說。彼《大品》意云「勝出」者，但勝出小，小在此三亦不須三惡，故暫引同。從「此法身地」至「長遠之說者」，法忍菩薩尚自須聞，當知壽量非說不知。然得無生者，亦聞應即法身，但不聞久成而已。言「自應」等者，但不同界內經歷五味跨涉本迹，七請五誡方乃得聞，以見一分法身理合得聞長遠，故前文云，地住已上得聞常故，但常與餘時異，故更論之。「破近顯遠略有十意，如玄義云云」者，《玄》文第九明用中，有十門不同，彼具列釋兼與迹門十意，以辯同異，今但略舉破廢二門。注家云，無始之壽晦而未彰者，此不應爾。何者？此中正明久遠之長，以破伽耶近成之短，彰灼顯著何晦之有？又言：何佛不然？此亦不爾。久近不同長短別故。

Regarding “in the explanation in terms of Dharma, there are few words concerning the future”: this merely refers to the four characters “constantly abiding and not perishing” as the text for the future. Regarding “in the verse of the explanation by metaphor, there are many words”: in the prose metaphor, it is the text from “the father heard that the sons” downward, which is still brief; in the verse explanation of Dharma, it is the ten and a half verses from “I see all sentient beings” downward, hence it is called “many.” Regarding “one body is identical to the three bodies” and so forth: the two explanations in the text each have their point; the first explains in terms of the dharmic essence of the three bodies being naturally identical, while the second explains in terms of contrasting present and past, comparing the present dharmic essence with the past. One can also say the former explanation applies generally across the flavors, while the latter explanation refutes other sūtras, belonging solely to the present sūtra. As it is the supernatural power of the treasury of secrets, it is again explained in terms of the three bodies; hence one knows that the phrase “power of supernatural penetrations” follows the lord of teachings in each teaching. Thus, having widely distinguished them in terms of the various flavors, and further distinguished them in terms of present and past, the supernatural penetrations of the three bodies of the ground of origin are only then revealed. If explaining the Hīnayāna and the gradual teaching, one must not explain them using the three bodies found here. Regarding the citation of the *Pañcaviṃśati* (*Dàpǐn*): this sūtra cites all the world as deeming [buddhahood] to be recently attained, listing only gods, humans, and asuras without mentioning the three evil destinies; since those who reckon [it to be] recent are mostly among these three, it is cited as a parallel. Although previously there was the designation of the two vehicles, spoken from the beginning, once they have been opened up they all become bodhisattvas; hence now it speaks solely from the aspect of opening up. What that *Pañcaviṃśati* means by “surpassing and transcending” is merely surpassing and transcending the small, and the small is among these three, so there is no need for the three evil destinies either; thus it is temporarily cited as identical. From “the stage of this dharmakāya” to “the discourse on the distant”: even bodhisattvas of the acceptance of dharma must hear it; one should know that the life span cannot be known without being spoken. However, those who have attained non-arising also hear that the response body is identical to the dharmakāya, yet they merely had not heard of the attainment from long ago. The phrase “naturally should” and so forth means that they merely do not traverse the five flavors within the realm or cross through the origin and traces, requiring seven requests and five admonitions before getting to hear it; having seen a portion of the dharmakāya, it is reasonable that they get to hear of the distant [origin]. Hence the earlier text says that from the stages and abodes upward one attains hearing of eternity, but eternity differs from other times, so it is further discussed. Regarding “the refutation of the near and revelation of the distant has roughly ten meanings, as detailed in the Profound Meaning”: in the ninth fascicle of the *Profound Meaning*, in the section explaining function, there are ten distinct doors; there they are completely listed and explained, and compared with the ten meanings of the trace gate to discern similarities and differences; here it merely briefly mentions the two doors of refutation and abandonment. The commentator says that the life span of beginninglessness was obscured and not yet apparent; this should not be so. Why? Here it precisely clarifies the length of the distant past to refute the shortness of the recent attainment at Gayā; brightly manifest and prominent, what obscurity is there? Furthermore, it says: “What buddha is not thus?” This also is not so, because long and near are not identical, and length and shortness differ.