法華玄義釋籤 1.30

1.30

次廣釋中二：先迹、次本。一據經文次第故爾；二據化儀，必先垂後拂；三據機緣，則先淺後深。若以華譬於迹、蓮譬於本，未可辨其前後。何者？從本垂迹則本前而迹後，由迹顯本則迹前而本後，約機雖爾，約佛終以本居於初，則蓮前而華後非譬次第。然望劫初種子皆從化生，等是化生蓮之與華皆可為始，故並順二義，迹中權實取譬蓮華。迹亦非實無以施權、非權無以顯實，然終以理實為本而一體權實前後同時，蓮華前後比說可知。今從事說現蓮為譬，以順譬故先施後開。又先開後廢亦且順喻，據其法體開廢俱時，此據最後開廢而說。若中間迭廢，則唯廢無開非今喻意，具如下說。

Next, within the detailed explanation, there are two parts: first the traces, then the origin. First, this is according to the sequence of the sūtra text; second, according to the teaching ritual, one must first establish [the traces] and afterwards brush [them away]; third, according to the faculties and conditions [of beings], it proceeds from the shallow to the deep. If one were to metaphorize the traces with the flower and the origin with the lotus fruit, their precedence could not yet be determined. Why is this? Proceeding from the origin to drop the traces, the origin comes first and the traces come after; manifesting the origin through the traces, the traces come first and the origin comes after. Although this is so in terms of the faculties, in terms of the Buddha the origin ultimately occupies the beginning, so that the fruit comes first and the flower after, which is not the sequence of the metaphor. However, looking back to the beginning of the kalpa, all seeds arise transformationally; since they are equally transformational arising, both the lotus fruit and the flower can be the beginning. Therefore, harmonizing with both meanings, the provisional and the real in the traces are metaphorized by the lotus. In the traces as well, without the real one cannot set forth the provisional, and without the provisional one cannot manifest the real; yet ultimately the principle-real is the root, and the single substance of provisional and real are simultaneous as prior and posterior, which can be understood by comparing the flower and the fruit in sequence. Now, speaking from the side of phenomena, the existing lotus is presented as a metaphor; to accord with the metaphor, setting forth comes first and opening comes after. Furthermore, opening first and abolishing after also merely accords with the metaphor; in terms of the Dharma-substance itself, opening and abolishing are simultaneous. This is spoken with respect to the final opening and abolishing. If it meant successive abolishing in between, then there would only be abolishing without opening, which is not the intention of the present metaphor, as explained fully below.