法華義疏 4.26

4.26

「我此九部法」下，第二、明說九部教法意。上半明隨宜說教法，下半明說教意。說九部為令悟入大乘、與解大乘為本意，故言入大乘為本。「有佛子心淨」下，上明昔說小乘教意，今第二明昔說大乘教意。若五乘論之，上說四乘，今辨第五大乘教也。若作三教次第者：一、人天為下教；次、二乘為中教；今、大乘為上教，文正作此意，一一文中皆先明機次辨教，觀文即現也。有人言：上明昔說小乘是方便，今明昔日三乘中大乘亦是方便，將欲會三乘歸一乘故，前明小乘今辨大乘也。今謂不然，前明小乘，而文辨小乘為方便，若昔大乘是方便者，亦應前列大乘次明大乘為方便。而文不爾，直明昔日大乘，不言是方便，故知昔小乘是方便，昔大非方便也。又為偏行六度菩薩說大乘，可是方便耳。而文云「佛子無量諸佛所行深妙道」，非則是假名偏行之人，則知是真實大乘也。又《中論》云「前為聲聞說生滅十二因緣，次為已習行有大心堪受深妙法者說十二因緣不生不滅」，若爾此大小應並是方便，而《中論》明前說小是方便、後說大是真實，今文亦爾也。

From "These my nine-division teachings" downward, second, [the text] clarifies the intention of preaching the nine divisions of the doctrinal Dharma. The first half [of the verse] clarifies expounding doctrinal teachings in accordance with what is appropriate; the second half clarifies the intention of expounding the teachings. Preaching the nine divisions was to bring about awakening and entering into the Mahāyāna, and taking understanding of the Mahāyāna as the fundamental purpose; therefore it is said that entering into the Mahāyāna is the foundation. From "There are Buddha-sons whose minds are pure" downward, above [the text] clarified the past intention of preaching the Hīnayāna teaching; now, second, it clarifies the past intention of preaching the Mahāyāna teaching. If discussed in terms of the five yānas, above it spoke of the four yānas, and now it distinguishes the fifth, the Mahāyāna teaching. If one takes the sequence of the three teachings: first, humans and devas are the lower teaching; next, the two yānas are the intermediate teaching; now, the Mahāyāna is the superior teaching. The text genuinely bears this meaning: in each passage, it always first clarifies the capacity and next distinguishes the teaching, which becomes apparent upon examining the text. Someone says: "Above it clarified that the past preaching of the Hīnayāna was an upāya; now it clarifies that the Mahāyāna among the past three yānas was also an upāya, because [the Buddha] intended to unite the three yānas to return to the ekayāna; hence earlier he clarified the Hīnayāna and now distinguishes the Mahāyāna." We say this is not so: earlier he clarified the Hīnayāna, and the text distinguished the Hīnayāna as an upāya; if the past Mahāyāna were an upāya, then he should likewise have first listed the Mahāyāna and next clarified that the Mahāyāna was an upāya. Yet the text does not do so; it directly clarifies the past Mahāyāna without saying it was an upāya. Hence we know that the past Hīnayāna was an upāya, while the past Mahāyāna was not an upāya. Furthermore, expounding the Mahāyāna for bodhisattvas who practice the six perfections exclusively could indeed be an upāya. Yet the text says "Buddha-sons who have practiced the profound and marvelous path of immeasurable Buddhas"; these are not persons of conventional designations who practice exclusively, so we know this is the real Mahāyāna. Moreover, the Madhyamakaśāstra states: "Earlier, for the sake of śrāvakas, he preached the twelve links of dependent origination that arise and cease; next, for those who had already trained in practice, possessed great minds, and were capable of receiving the profound and marvelous Dharma, he preached the twelve links of dependent origination that do not arise and do not cease." If so, then these—great and small—would both be upāyas; yet the Madhyamakaśāstra clarifies that the former preaching of the small was an upāya and the subsequent preaching of the great was real. The present text is likewise.