法華玄義釋籤 1.33

1.33

第三「廢」者，「捨是廢之別名」，開已俱實、無權可論，義當於廢，權轉為實所廢體亡。若留逗後緣，復屬於施，非此中意。若爾，開廢何別？答：約法乃開時即廢，約喻必義須先開。若爾，法喻差違，何成喻法？答：據理似與喻有違，據事似先開後廢，如先示方便即是真實，既識實已永不用權。若約理者開廢俱時，開時已廢故也。

Third, regarding "abolishing": "relinquishing is another name for abolishing"; once opened, all are the real, and there is no provisional that can be discussed; its meaning corresponds to abolishing. When the provisional turns into the real, the substance that was abolished perishes. If it were retained to accommodate future conditions, it would again belong to "setting forth", which is not the meaning here. If so, what is the difference between opening and abolishing? Answer: In terms of the Dharma, at the very time of opening it is abolished; in terms of the metaphor, by logical necessity one must first open. If so, Dharma and metaphor disagree—how can it serve as a metaphor for the Dharma? Answer: In terms of principle, it seems to disagree with the metaphor; in terms of phenomena, it seems that opening comes first and abolishing after. For instance, first one shows that the skillful means is itself the true and real; once the real is recognized, one never again uses the provisional. If in terms of principle, opening and abolishing are simultaneous, because at the time of opening it is already abolished.