法華玄義釋籤 1.108

1.108

次釋破中三聖為三：初破三藏中，頗梨、如意二珠相似，譬法性名同，初聞混大，故云「一往似真」，被斥茫然，故云「再研便偽」，方等尚止宿草菴，般若猶無心悕取，故至法華方知昔失，以昔不知空即有故，故為空即有之所破。次通教理通故名為共，通機如雜色，但真如色變，圓理如珠體，機發如物裹，故通教二乘亡實相體，逐詮小之教墮落二乘，鈍根菩薩義同二乘，復能出假，文略不說。次引《大經》明利根菩薩，一教之內利鈍不同，空中既殊故為所破。初不知中故不及別，次別教人雖不但名同，但中異故故云「逈出」，是故三教並為圓教所破。然破別者但破教道，邊本是中，今棄邊中之中而別求於中，故以雲外之月譬教道中，以捨空求空譬方便智。若知邊中不異即破此意，彼理有中、此邊無中，則實相正法不遍一切，故不名不盡。故以不盡破於不遍。前金剛藏四句破中，別教得二句，即此意也。

Next, the explanation of the refutation divides the three holy ones into three: First, in the refutation of the Tripiṭaka [Teaching], the crystal jewel and the wish-fulfilling jewel resemble each other, which illustrates that the name "dharma-nature" is the same. When first heard it is conflated with the Great [Vehicle], hence it is said, "At first glance it seems real"; when rebuked they are at a loss, hence it is said, "Examined again, it is false." In the Vaipulya period they still rested in a straw hut, and in the Prajñā period they still had no aspiration to grasp it; thus, only upon reaching the Lotus Sūtra did they recognize their past error. Because previously they did not know that emptiness is identical to existence, they are refuted by emptiness being identical to existence. Next, because the principle of the Shared Teaching is shared, it is called "common". The capacity of the Shared Teaching is like mixed colors; only true suchness undergoes color variation. The perfect principle is like the jewel's substance; the manifestation of capacities is like an object wrapped [around it]. Therefore, the two vehicles of the Shared Teaching lose the essence of the true aspect: pursuing the teaching that expounds the small, they fall into the two vehicles. Bodhisattvas of dull faculties are identical in meaning to the two vehicles; that they can further emerge from emptiness into the provisional is omitted in the text and not discussed. Next, citing the Great Sūtra to clarify the bodhisattvas of sharp faculties: within a single teaching sharp and dull differ; since they differ in emptiness, they are refuted. Initially, not knowing the middle, they do not equal the Separate [Teaching]; next, although for a person of the Separate Teaching it is not merely that the name is identical, because the middle is different, it is said to "far transcend". Therefore the three teachings are all refuted by the Perfect Teaching. However, refuting the Separate Teaching refutes only its instructional track. The extremes are fundamentally the middle; now, abandoning the middle of the extremes and the middle to seek separately for the middle, it is therefore illustrated by the moon outside the clouds for the middle of the instructional track, and by discarding emptiness to seek emptiness for the expedient wisdom. If one knows that the extremes and the middle are not different, one refutes this conception. If that principle possesses the middle while this extreme lacks the middle, then the correct dharma of the true aspect does not pervade everything, and hence is not called inexhaustible. Therefore inexhaustibility is used to refute non-pervasiveness. Earlier, in Vajragarbha's refutation through the four propositions, the Separate Teaching obtained two propositions; this is precisely the meaning.