法華經義記 2.69

2.69

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."