法華文句記 7.26

7.26

Since the preceding line states that he sought his son without finding him, this means that relying on the one real loving-kindness and compassion of the Land of Self-Enjoyment, he sought his son without finding him. Therefore, he now halts midway between self and other, abides in expedient means, and still using his fundamentally relied-upon loving-kindness and compassion, thinks of his son. Thus, the country is for dwelling the people; the city originally secures the lord; the home fundamentally nurtures the nature. For those who have not entered the perfect [teaching]—that is, the people of the seven expedient means—he manifests forms in expedient means, abides in that [land with] remainder, and contemplates and seeks the perfect capacity. Therefore, dwelling there, the work of transformation is not abandoned, and the meaning of contemplating the capacity of co-dwelling is accomplished in the text. Since "home" is "house," exercising conditionless loving-kindness in that [land of] remainder is called "dwelling here." Therefore, halting in the home of conditionless loving-kindness gives rise to the two responses of superior and inferior, one-sided and perfect. However, there he should only use the superior response. Regarding "superior and inferior": the superior encompasses two places, while the inferior is solely the Deer Park. If a lesser capacity arises, in principle he should respond to it; explaining both beginning and end together is why it says "superior and inferior." Since it is said that the five kinds of persons born in that land are all bodhisattvas, when the eight, the six, and so forth arrive in that land, there is no need for lesser transformation. As they gradually advance toward the perfect and real, how could they still linger in the one-sided? Those who practice expedient means mostly go astray regarding its teaching. Fascicle 7 of the *Zhǐguān* determines that the instructional paths of the eight, the six, and so forth must be abandoned, and only with the opening and revealing of the *Lotus Sūtra* are they capable of hearing this. When a bodhisattva's capacity matures, how could what is responded to differ? The "five kinds of persons" are the four fruits and the pratyekabuddha; establishing names according to the origin, it says from the srotāpanna up to the pratyekabuddha. As for severing completely, it means severing common afflictions; or taking the two vehicles of the Tripiṭaka and the three vehicles of the common [teaching] as those who sever common afflictions, this is also permissible. The five persons of the Tripiṭaka naturally subsume the five of the common [teaching]. Bodhisattvas of the common teaching were already named bodhisattvas, so one cannot further say that upon arriving there they are all bodhisattvas; know that this refers entirely to the two vehicles of both teachings together with the bodhisattvas of the common [teaching]. If, by analogy with the four persons, the common bodhisattvas are also called bodhisattvas, what is improper about that? It is only that their corresponding to the superior response does not hold in meaning. Yet, if even the two vehicles of both teachings turn their minds there, how could the bodhisattvas of the common teaching cling to the old? If one accords with changing contemplation, bodhisattvas of both the common and separate teachings must generate the aspiration; hence it says "instructed them to cultivate and learn." It does not mention the separate [teaching] because these five persons are identical in realization. If one discusses the number of persons of expedient means comprehensively, then one should say nine: two for the Tripiṭaka, three for the common, three for the separate, and one for the perfect; one cannot say five. Here, for now, facing the lesser, it says five.