法華義疏 7.65

7.65

Third, the section on expressing understanding in verse: these ten parables correspond to and express understanding of the six parables in the 'Parable Chapter'. The parable of originally being father and son expresses understanding of the elder and the thirty sons in the overall parable above. The parable of losing each other midway expresses understanding of [the passage in] the parable of seeing the fire above: 'Your sons previously entered this house out of play.' The parable of the son gradually returning to his native land also expresses understanding of [the passage in] the parable of seeing the fire: 'Hearing someone say, "Your sons previously entered this house out of play,"' which means that sentient beings have the capacity to petition the Buddha, and therefore the Buddha responds by entering birth and death. The capacity moving the Buddha corresponds to the son gradually returning to his native land. The Buddha responding by entering birth and death is like the father knowing the son ought to return, and thus halting halfway in a city. The parable of father and son seeing each other also expresses understanding of the parable of seeing the fire: sentient beings having the capacity to move the Buddha is like the son seeing the father; the Buddha responding by entering birth and death is like the father seeing the son. Here, three parables together express understanding of the parable of seeing the fire above, but they are compared only in broad outline and cannot correspond completely in every detail. The parable of calling the son in vain here expresses understanding of the parable of being unable to save the sons above. The parable of sprinkling cold water on his face expresses understanding of the words 'such various kinds' in the parable of the three carriages above. The text above says 'such various kinds of goat carriages, deer carriages, and ox carriages', which are the three vehicles. Mentioning 'various kinds' before the three carriages refers to expounding the human and divine vehicles before the three vehicles. This is an old interpretation in the commentaries; do not doubt it. The parable of enticing him to return home expresses understanding of the parable of successfully transforming the sons through the goat and deer carriages among the three carriages above; expressing understanding of these two carriages above, it therefore presents two messengers here. The two parables of entrusting the wealth and secretly transforming him and tempering and training the narrow mind express understanding of the great carriage among the three carriages above; because the great carriage among the three carriages explicitly indicates the Mahāyāna Dharma, which refers to the various Mahāyāna teachings prior to the Lotus [Sūtra], these two parables therefore express understanding of it. The parable of delegating the family estate expresses understanding of the parable of bestowing the great carriage equally above. As for why it does not express understanding of the sixth parable, that of [the father] not lying: once they attained understanding, they knew that the Buddha does not lie; hence they do not express understanding of the parable of not lying. However, former scriptural masters insisted that the later parables must correspond strictly to the earlier ones; this completely misses the purport of the sūtra. Why is this so? The Buddha and his disciples jointly revealed the esoteric teaching to tame and subdue sentient beings, and thus expounded the Dharma by shifting their approach; hence the Buddha spoke six parables before, and the disciples elucidated ten parables after. They correspond only in broad outline, while their stylistic frameworks differ. One should properly take the sequence of the latter ten parables as primary and their expressing understanding of the former six as secondary, just as the general import of the 'Parable Chapter' and the 'Expedient Means Chapter' is the same, yet their adaptations differ.