法華經義記 7.89

7.89

「而說偈言」此下是第二偈頌。但上長行中本有二：第一先據行作兩章門，次明於後惡世中能流通此經。第二正釋兩章門，不釋能流通義也。今此二十三行偈亦分為二：初有一行半偈，頌第一舉行作兩章門；「常離國王」以下二十一行半，頌第二正解釋也。第一段有二：先作兩章門，次明能流通此經。今倒頌一行先頌第二明能流通，次半行追頌第一兩章門也。上第二釋中先明行處，後明親近處為二。今此偈中不得依上直判為三段，第一有十三行半，先頌假名空親近處；次有兩行半，追頌兩行處；第三有五行半，頌法空親近處也。上釋二親近處有二：初提章門，今不頌之，唯頌第二正釋。但假名空親近處中本有三：第一先明所不親近處，第二正明所親近處，第三總結。今不頌第二所親近處，十三行半偈中，初十二行半頌第一所不親近，一行頌第三總結也。但上所不親近處有八種，今此十二行半唯得通頌之不可分也，是則名為此一行頌總結也。但本論近處，此中何故舉行處結耶？解釋言：「此舉行處近處，故前行也。此二處者，此近處是第二，前行處是第一，故道二也。」

From 'And spoke verses saying' downward is the second, the verses. In the prose above there were originally two: first, establishing two chapter headings based on practice; next, clarifying being able to propagate this sūtra in the evil age to come. Second, directly explaining the two chapter headings, without explaining the meaning of being able to propagate. Now these twenty-three verses are also divided into two: at first, there are one and a half verses versifying the first, which raises practice to make two chapter headings; from 'Always departing from kings' downward, twenty-one and a half verses versify the second, the direct explanation. The first section has two: first, making two chapter headings; next, clarifying being able to propagate this sūtra. Now, inverted, one verse first versifies the second, clarifying being able to propagate; next, half a verse retrospectively versifies the first, the two chapter headings. In the second explanation above, first clarifying the sphere of practice, and afterward clarifying the sphere of intimacy, made two. Now, in these verses, one cannot directly determine three sections according to the above: first, there are thirteen and a half verses, first versifying the sphere of intimacy of nominal emptiness; next, there are two and a half verses, retrospectively versifying the two spheres of practice; third, there are five and a half verses, versifying the sphere of intimacy of dharma emptiness. The explanation of the two spheres of intimacy above had two: first raising the chapter headings, which is not versified here, versifying only the second, the direct explanation. In the sphere of intimacy of nominal emptiness, there were originally three: first, clarifying what one does not draw close to; second, directly clarifying what one draws close to; third, the general conclusion. Now, the second, what one draws close to, is not versified; in the thirteen and a half verses, the first twelve and a half verses versify the first, what is not drawn close to, and one verse versifies the third, the general conclusion. But the things not drawn close to above were eight kinds; now these twelve and a half verses can only versify them generally and cannot be divided; 'This is called'—this one verse versifies the general conclusion. But since it originally discussed the sphere of intimacy, why does it raise the sphere of practice to conclude here? The explanation says: 'This raises the sphere of practice and sphere of intimacy, hence it repeats the former practice. As for these two spheres, this sphere of intimacy is the second, and the former sphere of practice is the first, which is why it speaks of two.'