法華玄論 2.20

2.20

The fourth is addressing the two kinds of recipients. First, discerning the provisional and real nature of wisdom was spoken for the sake of the śrāvakas; now, clarifying the original and trace natures of the body is spoken for the sake of the bodhisattvas. Spoken for the śrāvakas: Śāriputra represents the pinnacle among the lesser; because the lesser and greater intersect, he turns from the lesser to take refuge in the greater. Spoken for the bodhisattvas: Maitreya represents the pinnacle of causal practice, being adjacent to the dharmakāya; thus, he turns from the impermanence of the cause to cause [bodhisattvas] to realize the permanence of the fruition. If the dharmakāya were still impermanent, then cause and fruition would be of the same station, and what would a person in the cause have left to learn? Furthermore, if the cause were impermanent and the fruition were also impermanent, then a person at the station of the cause would be able to measure the virtues of the fruition, and what doubt would the Compassionate One (Maitreya) have had? What is clarified now is that previously the greater was spoken to persons of the lesser to cause the lesser to take refuge in the greater; now, the permanent is spoken to persons of impermanence to cause persons of impermanence to realize the permanent. Moreover, the lesser is inferior while the greater is superior; thus, the greater was spoken to guide the lesser, causing the lesser to aspire to the greater; impermanence is inferior while permanence is superior; thus, the permanent is spoken to guide the impermanent, causing those of impermanence to aspire to the permanent. Therefore, there are differences between the two sections of two teachings and two recipients. If the dharmakāya were impermanent, the teaching would lack the ability to guide recipients, and recipients would lack the rationale to delight in the teaching.