法華玄義釋籤 11.18

11.18

次明圓教，中四：初直明不廢，次「大經」下明不廢意，三「昔從」下明不廢之意，四「文云」下引證。初如文。次文云「大經一切江河悉有迴曲」等者，第十經中「佛說偈云：一切江河必有迴曲，一切叢林必有樹木，一切女人必懷諂曲，一切自在必受安樂。文殊難云：是義不然。於此大千有洲名拘耶尼，其洲有河，端直不曲，名娑婆耶，猶如直繩，直入西海，如此直河佛未曾說。種種金銀琉璃寶樹是亦名林，亦有女人善持禁戒，功德成就有大慈悲，釋梵諸天雖得自在悉皆無常。」今以迴曲及叢林等以譬有餘，金沙河等以譬無餘。次釋三法，又三：初立所行不廢，次明三乘須廢，三重述所行不廢。次釋四果中二：初正辨四果，次以教行等例更分別。初約四果又二：先釋、次結。釋中約四果以論三廢一不廢，此中言果即是羅漢，前明二乘即指三果等。前言二乘但是通舉意論聲聞，故今別語更加支佛。前言菩薩，並是方便位中，如通教人，但在六地已前，藏別準此。若言四佛者，則聲聞菩薩並不須用，如向會通。此中言「破化城」等者，且語二乘，二乘既破，兩教佛果亦破，別教或廢聖人賢，或廢高歸下，令同成一佛果故也。次「若從」下結文，可知。

Next, explaining the Perfect Teaching, which has four parts: first, directly showing that it is not abolished; next, from "The Great Sūtra..." onwards, showing the intention behind not abolishing it; third, from "Formerly from..." onwards, explaining the principle of not abolishing it; fourth, from "The text says..." onwards, citing proof. The first is as in the text. In the next passage, where it says "The Great Sūtra states: 'All rivers and streams must have bends and turns'" and so forth, in the tenth fascicle "the Buddha spoke a verse: 'All rivers and streams must have bends and turns; all thickets and forests must have trees; all women must harbor deceit and crookedness; all sovereign beings must experience peace and joy.' Mañjuśrī raised an objection, saying: 'This meaning is not so. In this great chiliocosm there is a continent named Aparagodānīya. In that continent there is a river, straight and without bends, named Śvabhaya, like a straight cord running directly into the Western Sea; of such a straight river, the Buddha has not yet spoken. Trees of diverse jewels—gold, silver, and lapis lazuli—are also called a forest. There are also women who observe prohibitions and precepts well, are endowed with merits, and have great compassion. Although Śakra, Brahmā, and the gods attain sovereignty, they are all impermanent.'" Here, the bends and thickets are used as a metaphor for [nirvāṇa] with remainder, while the Golden Sand River and so forth are used as a metaphor for [nirvāṇa] without remainder. Next, in explaining the three dharmas, there are again three parts: first, establishing that the practice performed is not abolished; next, explaining that the three vehicles must be abolished; third, reiterating that the practice performed is not abolished. Next, in explaining the four fruits, there are two parts: first, directly distinguishing the four fruits; next, further differentiating by analogy with teachings, practices, and so forth. The first, on the four fruits, again has two parts: first, explaining, and next, concluding. In the explanation, he discusses abolishing three and not abolishing one in terms of the four fruits. Here, "fruit" refers to the arhat; the earlier discussion of the two vehicles refers to the [first] three fruits and so forth. The earlier mention of the "two vehicles" was only a general designation intending to discuss the śrāvakas, so now, speaking separately, the pratyekabuddhas are added. The earlier mention of the "bodhisattvas" all referred to those in the stages of expedient means—such as persons of the Shared Teaching who are only before the sixth bhūmi, and the Tripiṭaka and Separate Teachings should be understood accordingly. If one speaks of the four Buddhas, then neither śrāvakas nor bodhisattvas need to be employed, as reconciled earlier. When it says here "destroying the conjured city" and so forth, it speaks for the time being of the two vehicles; since the two vehicles are destroyed, the Buddha fruits of both teachings are also destroyed, and the Separate Teaching either abolishes sages and enters worthies, or abolishes the high and returns to the low, in order to make them all equally accomplish the one Buddha fruit. Next, the concluding text from "If from..." onwards is understandable.