法華玄論 6.78

6.78

答：文已釋之。此文不明理中無三教有三，但保執昔教謂永失大乘。復見如來諸勝功德，而帳帙遲迴或恐不失，是故致有此難耳。若實見未來生死因果者，必知修行作佛，何事嗟傷耶？即以此文破子所說。又依汝此義，《淨名》次《法華》，而諸聲聞於是《淨名經》自云「我等何為永絕其根，於此大乘已如敗種。」又云「高原陸地不生蓮華。」何得云爾？前聲聞以理疑教、以教惑理，踟蹰理教之間。既踟蹰理教之間，復何得云永絕其根已如敗種？自成鉾楯不可會通。又問：羅漢得果竟即索者，依汝義從初教至《法華》之前未明三界外事。云何爾者？已見未來界外生死不盡耶？若言深解故見界外事者，何不深解即知三權一實耶？又阿羅漢見未來生死不盡者，此是理中說、為是教中說？若理中說，三乘初業已知當得作佛生死未亡，不待證無學方始知也。若教中說者，《法華》之前大乘教尚未明三界外事，云何三藏教中得羅漢後即見未來生死不盡耶？今所明者，昔日未索、今始索也。何以知之？前救子得譬屬昔三乘化得義，索車譬屬今一乘化得也，故以知約今明索昔不索也。

Answer: The text has already explained this. This text does not elucidate that within the principle there are no three while in the teaching there are three; it merely holds fast to the former teaching, thinking that one has forever lost the Mahāyāna. Then, seeing the tathāgata's various superior merits, yet feeling hesitant and wavering, fearing perhaps they were not lost, therefore gave rise to this difficulty. If he truly saw the future causes and effects of saṃsāra, he would certainly know to practice and become a buddha; why would he lament and grieve? Thus, this text refutes what you have said. Furthermore, according to this opinion of yours, the Vimalakīrtinirdeśa preceded the Lotus Sūtra, yet in this Vimalakīrtinirdeśa-sūtra the śrāvakas themselves said: "Why have we forever severed its root, and with regard to this Mahāyāna are already like spoiled seeds?" and again: "On high plateaus and dry lands, lotuses do not grow." How could they speak thus? Previously the śrāvakas doubted the teaching by means of the principle and were confused about the principle by means of the teaching, hesitating between principle and teaching. Since they hesitated between principle and teaching, how could they further say that they had forever severed its root and were like spoiled seeds? This naturally becomes a contradiction that cannot be reconciled. Furthermore, I ask: regarding the arhat demanding immediately upon attaining the fruit—according to your view, from the initial teaching up until before the Lotus Sūtra, matters outside the three realms had not been explained. How could it be that he had already seen that the future saṃsāra outside the realms was inexhaustible? If you say that through deep understanding he saw matters outside the realms, why through deep understanding did he not immediately know that the three are provisional and the one is real? Furthermore, regarding the arhat seeing that future saṃsāra is inexhaustible: is this stated within the principle, or is it stated within the teaching? If stated within the principle, beginners of the three vehicles would already know that they are destined to become buddhas and that saṃsāra has not ceased; they would not wait until realizing the non-learner to only then begin to know it. If stated within the teaching, prior to the Lotus Sūtra the Mahāyāna teachings had not yet explained matters outside the three realms; how could one, within the Tripiṭaka teaching, upon attaining arhatship, immediately see that future saṃsāra is inexhaustible? What is now explained is that formerly they did not demand, and only now do they demand. How is this known? The preceding parable of saving the sons belongs to the meaning of the former three-vehicle conversion; the parable of demanding the carriages belongs to the present one-vehicle conversion; thus one knows that the demanding is explained regarding the present, and formerly they did not demand.