法華義疏 9.55

9.55

「譬如有人」下，第二、譬說廣述領解。此經佛有三周說，初周法說，次周譬說，後周亦譬亦法。弟子三領解亦有三階：舍利弗聞上法說還作法說領解；迦葉悟前譬說還作譬說而領；今雙了法譬雙作法譬而領，故前明法說領解，今明譬說領解也。就譬始終凡有八句：一、貧人至親友家；二、親友設以酒饍；三、醉酒而臥；四、繫以寶珠；五、都不覺知；六、起已遊行求索衣食；七、會遇親友示以寶珠；八、貧人得珠歡喜。親友始終欲相利益，要具八事，以類相從義意唯三：初、繫寶珠譬；二、中途相失譬；三、會遇示珠譬。所以立此三譬者，還領上三義：初、領昔稟大乘，即大通佛時；次、領忘大取小，從過去退菩提心竟今靈山前也；三、領還得悟大，即靈山之會也。二者、領化城三譬，前領初說大乘譬，次領中途說小譬，次領後還說大譬。三者、領如來三種法輪，初領根本法輪，次領枝末法輪，後領攝末歸本法輪也。「譬如有人」者，即下根之流也。「至親友家」者，昔有大乘之機，感說大乘教，故稱為至。同有佛性又曾受化為出世法親，同志菩提共出生死故名為友。〈譬喻品〉作父子之譬，〈信解品〉還作父子，而領〈化城品〉作導師伴侶譬，今還作兄弟而領，以十六沙彌過去前悟故稱為兄，兄即友也；稟教之人後學，即是弟義也。「家」者，說大乘教處也。「醉酒而臥」者，光宅等云：「貧人本醉，往親友家遂臥，譬眾生為五濁所昏，情滯生死為醉，無明惑心得解不久而忘解，後遂不行如臥也。」今謂不爾。下偈云「譬如貧窮人往至親友家，其家甚大富，具設諸餚饍」，既醉來而臥，云何得設？又既設餚饍，寧無酒也？此則譬事不成。今明此中可有二義：一者、親友設於酒饍，但長行略故不說，偈則具足。二者、即此長行自含有之。文云「醉酒而臥」，酒者親友所設也，醉者貧人飲酒而醉也。昔說《法華》，即大宗中道無相教為酒，滯教為醉，迷理為臥，故經云「持空三昧瓶以盛無相酒」。

From "For instance, like a man..." downward is the second part: the parabolic explanation that broadly recounts their receipt and understanding. In this sūtra the Buddha expounded in three cycles: the first cycle was an exposition in Dharma; the next cycle was an exposition in parables; the final cycle was both parables and Dharma. The disciples' three expressions of receipt and understanding also have three stages: Śāriputra, hearing the preceding exposition in Dharma, in turn made an expression of receipt and understanding in Dharma; Kāśyapa, awakening to the preceding exposition in parables, in turn received it through a parabolic exposition; now, fully comprehending both Dharma and parable, they make their expression through both Dharma and parable; hence the preceding clarified receipt and understanding in Dharma, and now clarifies receipt and understanding in parables. In the parable from beginning to end there are altogether eight clauses: 1. the poor man arrives at the house of a close friend; 2. the close friend treats him to wine and food; 3. he drinks the wine, becomes drunk, and lies down; 4. [the friend] ties a precious jewel [into his garment]; 5. he is utterly unaware of it; 6. having arisen, he travels about seeking food and clothing; 7. he meets his close friend, who shows him the precious jewel; 8. the poor man obtains the jewel and rejoices. For the close friend to benefit him from beginning to end, eight matters must be complete; grouped by category, the intended meaning comprises only three: first, the parable of tying on the precious jewel; second, the parable of losing each other along the way; third, the parable of meeting and being shown the jewel. The reason for establishing these three parables is that they in turn express understanding of the preceding three meanings: first, understanding their past reception of the Mahāyāna, which was at the time of the Buddha Mahābhijñājñānābhibhū; second, understanding their forgetting the great and seizing the small, which extends from falling back from bodhicitta in the past right up to before [the assembly on] Mount Gṛdhrakūṭa; third, understanding their regaining awakening to the great, which is the assembly on Mount Gṛdhrakūṭa. Second, they express understanding of the three parables of the conjured city: the first expresses understanding of the parable of initially preaching the Mahāyāna; the next expresses understanding of the parable of preaching the small along the way; the next expresses understanding of the parable of returning to preach the great at the end. Third, they express understanding of the Tathāgata's three kinds of Dharma wheels: the first expresses understanding of the fundamental Dharma wheel; the next expresses understanding of the branch Dharma wheel; the last expresses understanding of the Dharma wheel that gathers the branches back into the root. "For instance, like a man": this refers to the class of lower faculties. "Arrives at the house of a close friend": in the past they had the capacity for the Mahāyāna, which evoked the preaching of the Mahāyāna teaching, and so it is called "arriving." Sharing the same Buddha-nature and having previously received transformation, they are relatives in the supramundane Dharma; having a common aspiration for bodhi and transcending saṃsāra together, they are therefore called "friends." The "Parable Chapter" made a parable of father and son, and the "Belief and Understanding Chapter" likewise made it father and son to express understanding; the "Parable of the Conjured City Chapter" made the parable of the guide and his companions, and now they likewise make it brothers to express understanding: because the sixteen novices were awakened first in the past, they are called elder brothers, and an elder brother is a friend; those who received the teaching learned later, which has the meaning of younger brothers. "House" is the place where the Mahāyāna teaching is expounded. As for "drinks the wine, becomes drunk, and lies down": Guangzhai and others say: "The poor man was originally drunk; going to his close friend's house, he then lay down. This illustrates sentient beings clouded by the five turbidities; their feelings lingering in saṃsāra is the drunkenness; their minds deluded by ignorance gained understanding, but before long they forgot that understanding, and subsequently did not practice, like lying down." Now I say this is not so. The verses below state: "For instance, like a poor man / who went to the house of a close friend. / That household was very rich / and fully prepared all sorts of fine food." If he had arrived drunk and lain down, how could [the friend] have prepared it? Moreover, having prepared fine food, could there be no wine? In that case the details of the parable would not hold. Now I clarify that there can be two meanings here: first, the close friend prepared wine and food, but the prose is concise and so does not state it, whereas the verses provide it in full. Second, this prose itself implicitly contains it. The text says "he drank wine, became drunk, and lay down"; the wine was prepared by the close friend, and the drunkenness was the poor man drinking the wine and becoming drunk. In the past, the preaching of the *Lotus Sūtra*—namely, the signless teaching of the great doctrine of the Middle Way—was the wine; lingering in the teaching was the drunkenness; being deluded about the principle was lying down. Thus the sūtra states: "Holding the bottle of the emptiness samādhi to contain the wine of signlessness."