法華玄論 2.103

2.103

又問：若《法華》開近顯遠，明久已成佛為本、近成為迹者，何故〈常不輕品〉更覆遠明近、隱本辨迹耶。不應一經之內前後相違。若一經之中本迹或覆或開，則三一或會或不會也。又若此經為明久已成佛實說者，則初開三顯一諸佛共同，開近顯遠則釋迦獨有也。若言此義為例者，下〈分別功德品〉諸菩薩皆發願「願我於未來說壽亦如是。」豈得言釋迦獨有開近顯遠而餘佛無耶？以此眾事詳之，但知是寄無始終以顯法身常義，有始終者皆是應迹。以此義通上諸經，無一豪滯也。此義難明，本迹義及〈壽量品〉文更廣論之。又設以復倍上數之言證無常者，經有二文，前文明壽命無量阿僧祇劫常住不滅，後明復倍之言。若以後說為無常者，何故不以前證為常？

Question again: If the *Lotus Sūtra* opens the near to reveal the far, explaining that having attained buddhahood long ago is the origin and the recent attainment is the trace, why does the chapter 'Sadāparibhūta' again conceal the far and clarify the near, hiding the origin and distinguishing the trace? Within a single scripture, the earlier and later parts should not contradict each other. If within a single scripture origin and trace are alternately concealed or opened, then the three and the one would be alternately united or not united. Furthermore, if this scripture was meant as the real teaching that clarifies attainment of buddhahood long ago, then the initial opening of the three to reveal the one is shared by all buddhas, but opening the near to reveal the far would belong to Śākyamuni alone. If one says that this meaning serves as a general rule, later in the chapter 'Discrimination of Merits' all the bodhisattvas make vows: "May my lifespan in the future also be like this." How could one say that opening the near to reveal the far belongs exclusively to Śākyamuni and other buddhas do not have it? Examining it through these many matters, one simply knows that it relies on having no beginning and no end to reveal the permanence of the dharmakāya; those with beginning and end are all responsive traces. Using this principle to comprehend the scriptures above, there is not the slightest obstruction. This principle is difficult to clarify; the doctrine of origin and trace and the text of the chapter 'Lifespan' will be discussed more broadly. Furthermore, even if one uses the words "again twice the above number" to prove impermanence, the scripture has two passages: the earlier passage clarifies that the lifespan is measureless asaṃkhyeya kalpas, constantly abiding and not becoming extinct; the later passage clarifies the words "again twice." If one takes the later statement as impermanence, why not take the earlier proof as permanence?