法華義疏 6.52

6.52

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.