法華玄論 7.15

7.15

答：皆有義也。初就一化始終具有八譬，次就正譬但有其六，後據子自序始終故有十譬，次就文意但有九。前二父子合論，後二父子各辨。以經意多含，非片言可盡。如《釋論》、《攝大乘論》等，釋一經文多有復次。又身子聞說一偈知其千義，目連止了五百，故一句之中具含多義也。若領上者，父子相失領上總譬，總譬雖有六義而不出能化所化，故明父子相失即領總譬也。又見火譬中明父子相失，如云「汝諸子等先因遊戲來入此宅」，即是子失父義。子既失父，即是父失子也。若爾，父子相失可兼領二譬意也。父子相見譬、頭上見火譬，但上明見火，正是法身地見，故云「是時長者在門外立」，〈方便品〉亦然，故云「我以佛眼觀見六道眾生」，謂法身地見也。今云父子相見者，可就本迹二處明之。一者未垂迹時在法身地，眾生大機動，扣於法身，名子見父；佛於法身地見大機動，名父見子。若爾，從其父先來求子，不得此中即含子見父、父見子義也。二者就迹中而言，初成道時見其大機當發，名父見子；中止一城踞師子座，爾時始明父子相見。若爾，父子相失及父子相見二譬，相帶領上見火譬也。喚子不得，領上救子不得。喚子得，領上救子得。委家業，領上等賜大車也。冷水灑面，領初成道時說人天教。付財，領佛說波若教。此二譬來者，在昔聞猶未悟，因今悟昔，不領上六譬也。不領不虛譬者，既領一化大宗，方悟佛屈曲恩深、崎岴德重，乃患慚之不足，豈敢疑佛虛哉。又如此而悟，即是總領不虛旨也。

Answer: All possess doctrinal meaning. First, in terms of the beginning and end of a single period of teaching, there are fully eight parables; next, in terms of the primary parables, there are only six; then, based on the son's own account of the beginning and end, there are ten parables; next, in terms of the textual intention, there are only nine. The former two treat father and son together; the latter two delineate father and son separately. Because the sūtra's meaning is richly multi-layered, it cannot be exhausted by partial words. Just as in the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa and the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, when explaining a single passage of sūtra there are many alternative explanations. Furthermore, when Śāriputra heard a single gāthā expounded, he understood its thousand meanings, whereas Maudgalyāyana only comprehended five hundred; therefore, within a single sentence, multiple meanings are fully contained. If it grasps the preceding: father and son losing each other grasps the general parable above; although the general parable has six meanings, they do not go beyond the transformer and the transformed, and thus clarifying that father and son lost each other directly grasps the general parable. Furthermore, in the parable of seeing the fire, father and son losing each other is clarified, as in saying, "All of you sons previously entered this house because of playing games," which is precisely the meaning of the son losing the father. Since the son has lost the father, that is also the father losing the son. If so, father and son losing each other can concurrently grasp the meaning of both parables. As for the parable of father and son seeing each other and the parable of seeing the fire from above: the preceding clarification of seeing the fire was seeing from the level of the dharmakāya, hence it states, "At that time the elder stood outside the gate"; the "Skillful Means" chapter is also like this, hence it states, "With my buddha-eye I observe and see sentient beings in the six destinies," referring to seeing from the level of the dharmakāya. Now, as for what is called father and son seeing each other, it can be clarified in terms of both the fundamental and the trace. First, before descending as a trace, while at the level of the dharmakāya, sentient beings' great capacity stirred and knocked upon the dharmakāya, which is called the son seeing the father; the Buddha seeing at the level of the dharmakāya that the great capacity stirred is called the father seeing the son. If so, from the father previously coming to seek the son without finding him, this implicitly contains the meaning of the son seeing the father and the father seeing the son. Second, speaking in terms of the trace, when he first attained the Way and saw that their great capacity was about to be stimulated, this is called the father seeing the son; stopping in the midst of a city and sitting on a lion throne—at that time, father and son seeing each other was first clarified. If so, the two parables of father and son losing each other and father and son seeing each other conjointly grasp the above parable of seeing the fire. Calling the son without reaching him grasps the above saving the son without reaching him. Calling the son and reaching him grasps the above saving the son and reaching him. Bequeathing the family estate grasps the above equally bestowing the great carriage. Sprinkling cold water on the face grasps expounding the teaching of humans and gods when first attaining the Way. Entrusting the wealth grasps the Buddha expounding the Prajñā teaching. The reason these two parables appear is that in the past they had heard but had not yet awakened, and by means of the present they awaken to the past; they do not grasp the six parables above. As for not grasping the parable of not being false: having grasped the great purport of the entire period of teaching, one only then awakens to the Buddha's circuitous and profound grace, and his towering and heavy virtue; one then merely worries that one's shame is insufficient—how could one dare doubt that the Buddha was false? Furthermore, awakening in this manner is itself comprehensively grasping the principle of not being false.