法華經義記 3.4

3.4

解釋者言：「上長行所以先歎權智後歎實智者，此明釋迦出世之意先權後實，偈中所以先頌實智後頌權智者，此明今日實用時，此皆前後互舉，迭相映發其義自彰。復言長行中有正歎實智有釋，偈中唯頌釋句者，此明有體一用異之義。上長行語其用異之義。何以知之？智慧鑒照為義。欲明實智所照之境有四一之義，有教一、理一、機一、人一，如來智照此四境，故稱實智。力、無畏等諸功德不詺鑒照，故知長行據其用。偈中唯頌諸功德者，此明功德與智慧只是一體，離此力、無畏、解脫三昧等更無別有智慧，亦離此智慧無別有功德。故知體一，據用則有功德智慧之異；置用談體，智慧功德只是一體。此皆前後互舉、兩義雙明。復言長行歎釋迦二智不出不知人，今偈中言『無能測量者』此出不知人，亦前後互舉。若偈中出不知人，長行亦應出，長行既不出，偈中亦應無；而一有一無，此互相映明義也。」

Commentators say: "As for why the prose above first praised expedient wisdom and afterwards praised real wisdom, this clarifies that the intent of Śākya's appearing in the world was first the expedient and afterwards the real; as for why in the verse it first summarizes real wisdom and afterwards summarizes expedient wisdom, this clarifies that when it is today's real function, these are all mutually raised back and forth, alternately reflecting each other so that their meaning naturally becomes manifest. Furthermore, in saying that in the prose there was the proper praise of real wisdom and there was an explanation, whereas the verse only summarizes the explanatory phrase: this clarifies the meaning that their substance is one while their functions differ. The prose above speaks of the meaning that their functions differ. How is this known? Wisdom has discerning illumination as its meaning. Wishing to clarify that the objects illuminated by real wisdom possess the fourfold unity—the unity of teaching, the unity of principle, the unity of capacity, and the unity of person—the Tathāgata's wisdom illuminates these four objects, hence it is called real wisdom. Various virtues such as the powers and fearlessnesses are not called discerning illumination; hence we know that the prose relies on their functions. That the verse only summarizes the various virtues clarifies that virtue and wisdom are merely a single substance; apart from these powers, fearlessnesses, liberations, and samādhis, there is no separate wisdom, nor is there any separate virtue apart from this wisdom. Therefore, we know that their substance is one, while relying on function there is the difference between virtue and wisdom; setting aside function to discuss substance, wisdom and virtue are merely a single substance. These are all mutually raised back and forth, both meanings being elucidated together. Furthermore, in saying that the prose praising Śākya's two wisdoms did not point out the persons who do not know, whereas now the verse says 'none are able to measure them', which points out the persons who do not know, this also mutually raises them back and forth. If the verse points out the persons who do not know, the prose should also have pointed them out; since the prose did not point them out, the verse should also not have had them; yet one has it and one lacks it: this is mutual illumination to clarify the meaning."