法華遊意 1.187

1.187

此經明有二子，一不失心，二失本心。從《花嚴》至《法花》，為不失心子說，並皆得悟之，不須說《涅槃》。失心子毒氣深入失於本心，故聞《法花》不悟，唱滅說常方得解了。二者、自說於《法花》已悟，聞說《涅槃》便復進解。三者、復有眾生不聞《法花》直聞《涅槃》而得悟者。相傳云，《寶性論》云「《大品》等為利根菩薩說，《法華》為中根人說，《涅槃》為下根人說」。又如雖同是波若，而波若有無量部，雖同明常，明常何妨亦有多部耶？如七卷《金光明》已廣明常住，可得不復說《涅槃》耶？

This sūtra clarifies that there are two kinds of sons: first, those who have not lost their senses; second, those who have lost their original senses. From the Avataṃsaka to the Lotus Sūtra, it was expounded for the sons who had not lost their senses, all of whom attained awakening, without needing the exposition of the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra. As for the sons who had lost their senses, the poison had penetrated deeply and they had lost their original senses; thus, hearing the Lotus Sūtra they did not awaken, and only when [the Buddha] proclaimed extinction and expounded the eternal did they attain understanding. Second, there are those who had already awakened at the Lotus Sūtra, but upon hearing the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra expounded, advanced further in understanding. Third, there are sentient beings who did not hear the Lotus Sūtra, but directly heard the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra and attained awakening. According to tradition, the Ratnagotravibhāga states: 'The Larger Prajñāpāramitā and others were expounded for bodhisattvas of sharp faculties; the Lotus Sūtra was expounded for persons of medium faculties; and the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra was expounded for persons of inferior faculties.' Moreover, just as although all are Prajñā, there are immeasurable divisions of Prajñā, so too although all clarify the eternal, what prevents there also being multiple texts clarifying the eternal? For example, the seven-fascicle Suvarṇaprabhāsa has already extensively clarified the eternal; could it be that the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra should not have been expounded again?