法華義疏 6.52

6.52

所以許者，稱彼根緣得出火宅故須許也。理畢竟無三，又非佛本意，云何可與？故終不與也。與而不許者，若遂許其大，不稱根情無由出宅，故始不許也。終遂與者，大機既動稱佛本心，道理有一，是故與也。就文有二：初、明昔無三說三非虛妄，第二、就今與一明無虛妄。佛但略反質今不虛妄，而身子廣答具明今昔不虛妄。又舉昔況今，昔無三說三尚不虛妄，況今有一與一豈虛妄也。二文各有一釋一況。初明一釋者，長者但令諸子出於火難得全法身慧命，都不與車亦非虛妄。所以然者，既得法身慧命即是可保重義，故非虛也。

The reason he promised was to match their faculties and conditions so they could escape the burning house; therefore he had to promise. In principle there are ultimately no three, nor was it the Buddha's original intent; how could they be given? Therefore, in the end he did not give them. Giving what he had not promised was because if he had promised them the great from the start, it would not have matched the dispositions of their faculties and they would have had no way to escape the house; therefore he did not promise it at first. In the end he gave it because once the capacity for the great was aroused, matching the Buddha's original intention, in principle there is the one; for this reason he gave it. Within the text there are two parts: first, explaining that in the past, preaching three when there were no three was not false; second, explaining with respect to the present gift of the one that it is not false. The Buddha merely questioned in turn briefly regarding the present not being false, but Śāriputra replied extensively, fully explaining that neither past nor present was false. Furthermore, he cited the past to illustrate the present: in the past, preaching three when there were no three was still not false; how much more so in the present, when there is the one and he gives the one—how could that be false? Each of the two passages has an explanation and an illustration. In the first explanation: even if the elder had merely caused the children to escape the peril of the fire and preserve their dharmakāya and life of wisdom intact, and had not given them carriages at all, it would still not be false. Why is this? Since they obtained the dharmakāya and life of wisdom, this is itself something worthy of valuing; therefore it is not false.