法華義疏 5.76

5.76

Dharma Master Yao's commentary states: "He had already seen the principle of converging in the same, but using the principle he doubted the teaching, and using the teaching he doubted the principle, mutually deducing them, which is why doubt arose. Inferring according to the principle, the teaching should not be threefold; speaking in terms of the teaching, the principle should not be single; hence he wavered between principle and teaching." The various masters all agree with this explanation, but we now say this is not so. If Śāriputra, with his sharp faculties, had known in advance the sameness and difference of principle and teaching, he should also have discerned in advance the provisional and the real in principle and teaching, knowing that the principle is real and recognizing that the teaching is provisional. Why would the provisional and real be difficult to know, while the sameness and difference were said to be easily recognized? Furthermore, it may be asked: if he already knew that the principle was one and the teaching was three, before the *Lotus Sūtra* was preached the roots of his attachment would have already been shaken; what attachment would the words of the brief exposition shake further? Moreover, if he already knew that the principle was one and the teaching was three, why does it say below: "When I first heard what the Buddha taught, my heart was filled with great astonishment and doubt"? If so, there would only be his old astonishment and no new fear. Master Yao says: "'When I first heard what the Buddha taught, my heart was filled with great astonishment and doubt' means: when first hearing the teaching prior to the three requests, he definitely knew that the principle was one, and this doubt of confusing the principle with the teaching was immediately severed; later he was astonished and doubted why the Buddha had in the past gone against the principle to teach three. Because there was the doubt of confusing the teaching with the principle, from the text of the proper exposition onwards, the second doubt was then severed." We say: this too is not so. The text of the three requests was only the beginning of attachment being shaken and doubt arising; it was not yet truly severed. Furthermore, the text of the new doubt comprehensively explains the contradiction between three and one, the conflict between present and past; it does not exclusively focus on confusing the teaching with the principle. What is now explained is merely that he knew the principle of the emptiness of Dharma-nature was the same; he did not know that the principle of the ekayāna was the same. The *Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā* and this text are quite clear on their own: because the essence of the Dharma-nature is the same yet the fruits of the triyāna differ, he therefore confused the teaching with the principle and the principle with the teaching. Viewing it from the teaching, it should be an eternal loss; viewing it from the principle, it should still not be a loss. Hence, dejected and hesitating, his mind remained unresolved, which is why it says, "whether it was lost or not lost." In the second verse, seeing the Buddha praise the bodhisattvas, he still harbored an aspiration of longing, not knowing whether he would permanently abide as a śrāvaka or also become a bodhisattva; hence it says, "therefore day and night I contemplated such matters."