法華玄論 6.84

6.84

答：須得譬意。意不論索之久近，但作癡子無知，不領父意、不識權實有無，故就父索。用此曉於時會，令改三執耳。是故法譬言不相違。後見《法華論》釋三請文，明有三種義：一者決定義、二者疑義、三者依何事疑。決定者，有聲聞方便證得深法，作決定心得涅槃證。此明爾前證得涅槃，生決定究竟心，不疑為究竟為不究竟。若爾，前已疑者疑名猶豫，不得稱為決定。以論推之，則知爾前猶未索，聞今教生疑方乃索耳。

Answer: One must grasp the intent of the parable. The intent is not about how long or short the time of demanding was; it merely shows foolish sons being ignorant, not grasping their father's intent, and not recognizing the provisional and real, the existent and non-existent, hence approaching their father to demand. Using this to enlighten the assembly of that time, it simply makes them change their attachment to the three. Therefore, the doctrine and the parable do not contradict each other in words. Later, seeing the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa explain the text on the three requests, it explains three kinds of meanings: first, the meaning of determination; second, the meaning of doubt; third, what the doubt is based on. As for "determination": there are śrāvakas who through skillful means realize the profound Dharma, generating a determined mind that they have attained the realization of nirvāṇa. This explains that prior to this, having realized and attained nirvāṇa, they gave rise to a determined, ultimate mind, not doubting whether it was ultimate or non-ultimate. If so, if they had already doubted previously, "doubt" means hesitation, and could not be called "determination." Deducing it through the treatise, one knows that prior to this they had not yet demanded; upon hearing the present teaching and giving rise to doubt, they only then demanded.