法華遊意 1.167

1.167

釋此經者凡有三說：一云，此經雖辨一乘之因，猶感無常之果。是以文云「過去過塵沙未來復倍上數」；又〈藥草喻品〉云「究竟涅槃常寂滅相終歸於空」，終歸於空者，終灰身滅智入無餘涅槃，故猶是無常；至《大涅槃》方辨常住。既是無常則應是麁，但對前諸經未辨過去過塵沙未來復倍上數，故歎此經以為妙耳。若望涅槃教，則猶是麁也。第二釋云，此經已辨於常，猶未顯了，但是覆相明常。所以然者，此經未除八倒、不明四德，但明壽命無窮，故是覆相辨常；至涅槃教方顯了辨常。第三釋云，自小乘之教則辨無常覆相之說，一切大乘經皆是常住顯了無餘。今總評此三說，初釋是下根之人，次釋是中根之人，第三是上根之人也。所以然者，初釋為謗法過甚深，故是下根；次說毀呰少輕，秤為中根；第三乃言究竟而封執成迷教，故是上根人也。此皆就有所得中自開三品。

Those who explain this sūtra have three theories altogether: One says that although this sūtra distinguishes the cause of the ekayāna, it still incurs an impermanent fruit. Therefore the text says, 'Exceeding the sands of dust in the past, and double that number again in the future'; furthermore, the 'Medicinal Herbs Parable Chapter' says, 'The ultimate nirvāṇa, of constantly quiet and extinct mark, ultimately returns to emptiness.' 'Ultimately returns to emptiness' means that in the end one reduces the body to ashes and annihilates consciousness to enter nirvāṇa without remainder, and hence it is still impermanent; only upon reaching the Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra does it distinguish permanence. Since it is impermanent, it ought to be coarse, but in contrast to the earlier sūtras that had not yet distinguished 'exceeding the sands of dust in the past, and double that number again in the future,' this sūtra is praised as sublime. If viewed from the perspective of the teaching of the Nirvāṇa, it is still coarse. The second explanation says that this sūtra has already distinguished permanence, yet it is not yet fully explicit, being only an explanation of permanence under covered marks. Why is this so? This sūtra has not eliminated the eight inversions and does not explain the four virtues, but only explains that lifespan is boundless; hence it distinguishes permanence under covered marks. Only upon reaching the teaching of the Nirvāṇa does it explicitly distinguish permanence. The third explanation says that small vehicle teachings distinguish the exposition of impermanence and covered marks, whereas all Mahāyāna sūtras are permanent, explicit, and without remainder. Now, evaluating these three theories overall: the first explanation belongs to people of lower faculties, the second explanation belongs to people of medium faculties, and the third belongs to people of higher faculties. Why is this so? The first explanation slanders the Dharma most grievously, and is therefore of lower faculties; the second statement's disparagement is slightly milder, and is weighed as of medium faculties; the third says it is ultimate, yet clinging to it creates delusion about the teaching, and so is of higher faculties. These all open up three grades from within the view of possessing attainment.