法華經義記 2.69

2.69

解釋者言：「非是都無所以。所以諸佛雙歎二智，釋迦不雙歎者，欲顯體一故。雙歎諸佛二智，將明體雖是一功用異故；隻歎釋迦二智，此是互舉一邊也。復言諸佛先歎實智後歎方便智、釋迦中先歎方便後歎實智者，諸佛先歎實智後歎方便智者，此明本末次第。何以故，只以有本故有末。釋迦先歎方便後歎實智者，此明教化次第。所以有本末互有前後者，此則彼此各舉一邊雙明一理。又言諸佛舉往因釋二智、釋迦舉果頭諸功德者，諸佛舉往因釋二智者，此明勝因必感圓果。釋迦舉果頭諸功德釋二智者，此明圓果必酬勝因，此亦互舉一邊也。復言諸佛雙結二智、釋迦單結實智者，欲明興廢義故，談諸佛二智興時，故雙結二智。今日釋迦正廢權顯實之時，即為廢權義故，故不結權智為顯實義故，故單結實智也。」

The commentator says: "It is not entirely without reason. The reason why the Buddhas paired the praises of the two knowledges, whereas Śākya does not pair the praises, is that he wishes to make clear that their essence is one. Pairing the praises of the two knowledges of the Buddhas will clarify that although their essence is one, their functions differ; praising the two knowledges of Śākya singly—this is to bring up one side alternately. Furthermore, as for saying that the Buddhas first praise the real knowledge and later praise the skilful knowledge, whereas in Śākya's case he first praises the skilful and later praises the real knowledge: that the Buddhas first praise the real knowledge and later praise the skilful knowledge clarifies the sequence of root and branch. Why is this? Simply because where there is a root, there are branches. That Śākya first praises the skilful and later praises the real knowledge clarifies the sequence of edifying conversion. As for why there is an alternation in sequence between root and branch: each party brings up one side, both clarifying a single principle. Again, as for saying that the Buddhas cite past causes to explain the two knowledges, whereas Śākya cites all the merits of the fruition: that the Buddhas cite past causes to explain the two knowledges clarifies that superior causes inevitably evoke the perfect fruition. That Śākya cites all the merits of the fruition to explain the two knowledges clarifies that the perfect fruition inevitably recompenses superior causes; this too is an alternate bringing up of one side. Again, as for saying that the Buddhas double-conclude the two knowledges, whereas Śākya singly concludes the real knowledge: this is because he wishes to clarify the meaning of establishment and abolition. When speaking of the time when the Buddhas' two knowledges were established, he therefore double-concludes the two knowledges. Today is precisely the time when Śākya abolishes the expedient and reveals the real; thus, for the sake of the meaning of abolishing the expedient, he does not conclude the expedient knowledge, and for the sake of the meaning of revealing the real, he singly concludes the real knowledge."