法華義疏 3.193

3.193

初文有二：前明疑眾，如文。「各作是念」下，第二、明眾疑。就眾疑為三：一、牒今；二、騰昔；三、今昔互相疑。「何故慇懃稱歎方便」者，上佛具嘆權實、今偏疑方便者，正用方便破二乘執三乘是實故也。又欲前明開方便門、後示真實相，故前疑方便也。又逐近生疑，上偈文最後云「佛以方便力示以三乘教」，今接此文，故前疑方便也。「而作是言」者，此牒上內證實智也。「有所言說」者，牒上智慧門難解也。此二句牒上所不解之法。「一切聲聞辟支佛」者，牒上不解之人。「佛說一解脫」者，第二、牒昔也。昔說三乘同斷煩惱、得有餘一解脫，同滅身智、得無餘一解脫也。「而今不知是義所趣」者，第三、正明今生疑。疑有三：一、疑教；二、疑人；三、自疑。疑教者，今昔互相疑也。昔說三乘所得同，今說大小乘優劣異；昔說三乘所得同大小俱真實，今說大小優劣異，大實小是權。未知昔非而今是，為今非而昔是，為今昔俱非，為今昔並是？故云「而今不知是義所趣」。二、疑人者，所說之教既相違，能說之人應是魔也。三、自疑者，疑所得法，如身子云「我今自於智，疑惑不能了，為是究竟法，為是所行道」也。

The first passage has two parts: first, clarifying the doubting assembly, as in the text. From "Each had this thought" onward, second, clarifying the assembly's doubt. Within the assembly's doubt there are three: 1. citing the present; 2. recalling the past; 3. mutual doubt between present and past. "Why does he earnestly praise expedient means?": above, the Buddha fully praised both provisional and real, but now they doubt expedient means specifically, precisely because expedient means are used to refute the two vehicles' attachment to the triyāna being real. Furthermore, desiring to first clarify the opening of the gate of expedient means and later show the characteristic of the real, they therefore first doubt expedient means. Furthermore, following closely upon what preceded to give rise to doubt: the very end of the verse above said, "The Buddha, with the power of expedient means, showed them the teaching of the triyāna"; now continuing from this text, they therefore first doubt expedient means. "And made such a statement": this cites the inner realization of real wisdom above. "What has been stated": this cites the gate of wisdom being difficult to understand above. These two lines cite the Dharma that was not understood above. "All śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas": this cites the persons who did not understand above. "The Buddha spoke of one liberation": second, this cites the past. In the past it was taught that the three vehicles together sever afflictions and attain the one liberation with remainder, and together extinguish body and mind and attain the one liberation without remainder. "Yet now we do not know the import of this": third, directly clarifying the arising of doubt now. The doubt has three aspects: 1. doubting the teaching; 2. doubting the person; 3. doubting oneself. Doubting the teaching means mutual doubt between present and past: in the past it was taught that what the three vehicles attain is the same, but now it is taught that the superiority and inferiority of the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna differ; in the past it was taught that what the three vehicles attain is the same and both the great and small are real, but now it is taught that the superiority and inferiority of the great and small differ, the great being real and the small being provisional. Not knowing whether the past was wrong and the present is right, or the present is wrong and the past was right, or both past and present are wrong, or both past and present are right? Therefore it says: "Yet now we do not know the import of this." 2. Doubting the person: since the teachings spoken contradict each other, the person who speaks them might be a Māra. 3. Doubting oneself: doubting the Dharma attained by oneself, as Śāriputra says: "I now, regarding my own wisdom, am perplexed and cannot understand: is this the ultimate Dharma, or is it the path to be practiced?"