法華義疏 7.195

7.195

「臨欲終時而命其子」下，第二、正說法華。就文為四：一、辨時節；二、明召集眾證明；三、結會父子；四、委囑家業。「臨欲終時」者，第一、付財時節也。舊云：如來三十成道、八十滅度，其間五十年說法，此經隣次涅槃，故〈壽量品〉云「於伽耶成道至今四十餘年」。諸師並云四十九年說《法華》。今明若說《法華》必是四十九年，則佛非十九出家、三十成道。何以知之？若十九出家、三十成道者，則出家以後經十二年。而經及《釋論》云「踰城之夜生羅云」，若爾，何故知十二年耶？又經皆言六年苦行，若十二年者，其間復何所為耶？以此推之，非十九出家而三十年成道。若必十九出家者，即二十五年成道，〈壽量品〉應云五十餘年，不應言四十餘年也。今依《釋論》引經云「我年二十九出家」，若爾即三十五年成道，而〈壽量品〉云四十餘年，即會其文也。若言經教不同適緣而見者，斯則時節不定也。既隣次涅槃，如臨終義也。

From "When he was near the end of his life, he summoned his son" onward: second, the direct preaching of the Lotus Sūtra. Structurally, this comprises four parts: first, distinguishing the time; second, explaining the convocation of the assembly to bear witness; third, uniting the father and son; fourth, entrusting the family estate. "When he was near the end of his life": first, the time of entrusting the wealth. Formerly it was said: The Tathāgata attained awakening at thirty and entered extinction at eighty, preaching the Dharma for fifty years in the interval; this sūtra directly adjoins the nirvāṇa, which is why the "Lifespan Chapter" states, "Since I attained awakening at Gayā, more than forty years have passed." The various masters all say that he preached the Lotus Sūtra in the forty-ninth year. Now I clarify: if the preaching of the Lotus Sūtra was necessarily in the forty-ninth year, then the Buddha did not leave home at nineteen and attain awakening at thirty. How is this known? If he left home at nineteen and attained awakening at thirty, then twelve years elapsed after leaving home. Yet the sūtras and the Treatise state: "On the night he went over the city wall, Rāhula was born." If so, on what grounds would one know of twelve years? Furthermore, the sūtras all speak of six years of austerities; if it were twelve years, what was done in the remaining interval? Deducing from this, it was not that he left home at nineteen and attained awakening in his thirtieth year. If he necessarily left home at nineteen, he would have attained awakening at twenty-five, and the "Lifespan Chapter" should have said "more than fifty years," and ought not have said "more than forty years." Now, relying on the Treatise citing a sūtra stating, "At the age of twenty-nine I left home"—if so, he attained awakening at thirty-five, and the statement in the "Lifespan Chapter" of "more than forty years" harmonizes with the text. If one says that the scriptural teachings differ according to what is seen by adapting to conditions, then the time is not fixed. Since it directly adjoins the nirvāṇa, it has the meaning of being near the end of life.