妙法蓮華經玄義 7.223

7.223

如光宅云：餘華華果不俱，譬餘經偏明因果；此蓮華華果必俱，譬此經雙辨因果；弟子門明因，師門明果，故借蓮華為喻。今謂此解語略而義偏。若迹門師、弟，各有因果，文云：「我盡行諸佛所有道法……道場得成果。」即師之因果；會三歸一即弟子因，得記作佛即弟子果。本門云：我本行菩薩道時，即師因；我得佛已來，甚大久遠，即師果；我昔教其初發心，即弟子因；今皆住不退，悉當得成佛，即弟子果。彼義偏略，故不用。且助成其語，如四微色法，不當華之與蓮，而約微論華論蓮；今實相之理，不當本迹因果，而約理明於本迹因果耳。又如四微不當開之與合，而約微論開合；實相不當權實，而約實相論開權顯實，發迹顯本耳。

As Guangzhai says: Other flowers do not have flower and fruit simultaneously, illustrating that other sūtras explain cause and effect in a biased manner; this lotus flower necessarily has flower and fruit simultaneously, illustrating that this sūtra discerns both cause and effect together. The disciple's approach clarifies the cause, and the master's approach clarifies the fruit, which is why the lotus flower is borrowed as a metaphor. Now we maintain that this explanation is brief in wording and one-sided in meaning. If we speak of master and disciple in the trace gate, each has cause and effect. The text says: 'I have fully practised all the dharmas of the path of all Buddhas... and attained the fruit at the bodhimanda.' This is the master's cause and effect. Uniting the three and returning to the one is the disciple's cause; receiving vyākaraṇa to become a Buddha is the disciple's fruit. In the origin gate, it says: 'When I originally practised the bodhisattva path,' which is the master's cause; 'Since I attained Buddhahood, it has been extremely long,' which is the master's fruit; 'In the past I instructed them to first generate the aspiration,' which is the disciple's cause; 'Now they all abide in non-retrogression and will all attain Buddhahood,' which is the disciple's fruit. Because his meaning is one-sided and brief, it is not used. Let us, for now, help complete his statement: just as the four subtle physical elements do not correspond to the flower and the lotus fruit, yet one discusses flower and fruit with reference to the subtle elements, so the principle of the true mark does not correspond to the causes and effects of origin and trace, yet with reference to the principle one clarifies the causes and effects of origin and trace. Moreover, just as the four subtle elements do not correspond to opening and closing, yet with reference to the subtle elements one discusses opening and closing, so the true mark does not correspond to provisional and real, yet with reference to the true mark one discusses opening the provisional and revealing the real, and disclosing the traces and revealing the original source.