法華遊意 1.118

1.118

得與無得蓋是眾經之旨歸、聖觀之淵府，辨得失之根本、示佛教之偏正，豈不該羅《法花》？又即此經文自辨得與無得，今略舉三文：一、初開宗即云「我以無數方便引導眾生令離諸著」，二者、後〈流通〉富樓那歎佛云「甚奇世尊以智惠方便拔出眾生處處貪著」，處處貪著者著小著大、著三著一，故知此經正明無所得也。又此經盛談寂滅，如云「是法不可示言辭相寂滅」，又云「諸法從本來常自寂滅相」，寂滅相即是無得實相異名，不應言此經辨有所得也。三者、則用此經文責之，若言乘是因者，是義不然，今講《法花》宜以《法花》為證。《法花》明三車一車皆悉是果，故〈譬喻品〉云「今此三車皆是在門外」，即三界外果德為車，故下合譬談皆以果德合之，舉涅槃合羊車，舉自然惠合鹿車，舉佛果四德智合牛車，舉大涅槃果德合大車，故云「皆以如來滅度而滅度之」，又舉佛果眾德以合大車，故云「悉與諸佛解脫三昧」，故名等賜大車，則知三車一車皆是果乘非因乘矣。又此經秤名「妙法」，妙法者佛果德無不圓、累無不盡，故名為妙；因德未圓、累猶未盡，不名為妙。則應以果為正宗，因非正宗也。次問第二，若偏以佛果為乘者，是亦不然。諸子求車，佛即賜車，諸子得車即諸子得果，故云乘是寶車直至道場，即知以因為乘寧非乘也。又《大品》等經皆明乘是因義，何得偏用果為乘耶？次破第三，因果為宗，是亦不然。此經初分始終盛談果德，今略引三證：一者、開宗略說歎佛智惠甚深，二者、廣說開佛知見，三者、多寶證說歎大惠平等，故知初分始終盛談果德，非明因矣。以此眾義求三家解釋並皆不成，故無可與同異。

Attainment and non-attainment are indeed the ultimate purport of the diverse sūtras and the profound reservoir of noble contemplation; they distinguish the root of gaining and losing, and reveal the partial and the correct in the Buddha's teaching. How could they fail to encompass the Lotus Sūtra? Furthermore, the text of this very sūtra itself distinguishes attainment and non-attainment. Now I briefly cite three passages: First, at the very opening of the main theme, it states: 'With innumerable upāyas I guide sentient beings, causing them to abandon all attachments.' Second, later in the 'Entrustment' [section], Pūrṇa praises the Buddha, saying: 'How extraordinary, World-Honoured One, that with wisdom and upāya you pluck out sentient beings' craving and attachment everywhere.' 'Craving and attachment everywhere' means attaching to the small and attaching to the great, attaching to the three and attaching to the one; hence we know that this sūtra properly clarifies non-attainment. Moreover, this sūtra extensively discusses quiescent extinction, as when it says, 'This Dharma cannot be demonstrated; the characteristics of words are quiescently extinct,' and again, 'All dharmas from the very beginning are ever of quiescently extinct characteristics.' The characteristic of quiescent extinction is simply another name for the dharmatā of non-attainment; one should not say that this sūtra determines that there is attainment. Third, one should reprove them using the text of this very sūtra: If one says that the vehicle is the cause, this meaning is not so. In lecturing on the Lotus Sūtra now, it is proper to take the Lotus Sūtra as evidence. The Lotus Sūtra makes clear that the three carts and the one cart are all the result; hence the 'Parable Chapter' states: 'Now these three carts are all outside the gate.' That is, the fruition-virtues outside the three realms are the carts. Therefore, the explanations that join the parable below all join them using fruition-virtues: it brings up nirvāṇa to join the goat cart, brings up natural wisdom to join the deer cart, brings up the wisdom of the four virtues of the Buddha-fruition to join the ox cart, and brings up the fruition-virtues of the great nirvāṇa to join the great cart; thus it says, 'All are caused to cross over into extinction through the extinction of the Tathāgata.' It also brings up the manifold virtues of the Buddha-fruition to join the great cart; thus it says, 'All are given the liberation and samādhis of the Buddhas.' Therefore it is called 'equally bestowing the great cart.' Thus we know that the three carts and the one cart are all the result-vehicle, not the cause-vehicle. Furthermore, this sūtra is entitled the 'Wondrous Dharma' (Saddharma): as for the Wondrous Dharma, among the Buddha's fruition-virtues none is not complete, and among encumbrances none is not exhausted; hence it is called 'wondrous.' In the cause, virtues are not yet complete and encumbrances are still unexhausted, so it is not called 'wondrous.' Thus one ought to take the result as the cardinal theme, and the cause is not the cardinal theme. Next, in questioning the second [position]: if one one-sidedly takes the Buddha-fruition as the vehicle, this too is not so. The children sought carts, and the Buddha thereupon bestowed carts; when the children obtained the carts, the children obtained the cause, and hence it says that riding this precious cart they go directly to the bodhimaṇḍa. Thus we know that taking the cause as the vehicle—how could it not be the vehicle? Furthermore, sūtras such as the Larger Prajñāpāramitā all clarify that the vehicle has the meaning of the cause; how can one one-sidedly use the result as the vehicle? Next, in refuting the third [position], that cause and result constitute the cardinal theme: this too is not so. The first section of this sūtra, from beginning to end, extensively discusses the fruition-virtues. Now I briefly cite three proofs: first, the opening of the theme briefly explains and praises the Buddha's wisdom as extremely profound; second, the extensive explanation opens the Buddha's knowledge and vision; third, Prabhūtaratna's confirmatory statement praises the equality of the great wisdom. Thus we know that the first section, from beginning to end, extensively discusses the fruition-virtues, and does not clarify the cause. Seeking to apply these various meanings, the interpretations of the three masters are all invalid; hence there is nothing with which to agree or differ.