法華玄義釋籤 13.18

13.18

五明麁妙中有五：初列五名，五中初理次言與第三所詮何別？答：初言理者唯約所詮，次云言者唯約能詮，此二並是跨節明義，是故但立一音一理，雖云麁妙義已當開。第三所詮即當分義，一一教下自明所詮仍判麁妙，以此異故與前二別。言五門者，即約《淨名》中旃延五義，謂苦義、空義、無常義、無我義、寂滅義。疏云：「約理名五義，以智緣理名為五行，約定明五門禪，此五為眾行之旨歸，故四教四門各明五義。」今文通說且云五門。由迦旃延為諸比丘，敷演三藏四門五義，為維摩詰通五義訶，故云「諸法畢竟不生不滅是無常義」，故知諸法生滅但是無常非無常義，四句推此生本無生滅亦非滅，方得名為無常之義。「五受陰洞達空無所起是苦義，諸法畢竟無所有是空義，於我無我而不二是無我義，法本不生今則無滅是寂滅義」，餘例初句，思之可知。

Fifth, in explaining the coarse and the subtle, there are five parts: first, listing the five names. Among the five, what is the difference between the first, 'principle,' and the second, 'words,' and the third, 'the signified'? Answer: First, what is called 'principle' is solely in terms of the signified; next, what is called 'words' is solely in terms of the signifier. Both of these explain the meaning by transcending stages; therefore they merely posit one voice and one principle. Although called coarse and subtle, their meaning already ought to be opened. The third, 'the signified,' refers to the meaning intrinsic to each division: under each respective teaching, it explains its own signified while still judging coarse and subtle; because of this difference, it is distinct from the former two. What are called the 'five gates' are based on Kātyāyana's five meanings in the Vimalakīrti, namely the meaning of suffering, the meaning of emptiness, the meaning of impermanence, the meaning of non-self, and the meaning of quiescent extinction. The commentary says: 'In terms of principle, they are called five meanings; when wisdom takes principle as its object, they are called five practices; in terms of concentration, they explain the five-gate dhyānas. These five are the ultimate destination of all practices; therefore each of the four gates of the four teachings explains the five meanings.' Now the text speaks generally, temporarily calling them the five gates. Because Kātyāyana expounded the five meanings of the four gates of the Tripiṭaka to the monks, he was reproved by Vimalakīrti using the five meanings; hence it says: 'That all phenomena are ultimately unborn and unceasing is the meaning of impermanence.' Thus we know that the arising and ceasing of all phenomena is merely impermanence, not the meaning of impermanence. Only when one investigates through the four propositions that this arising is fundamentally without arising and ceasing is also not ceasing, can it be called the meaning of impermanence. 'Thoroughly penetrating the five skandhas of grasping as empty and without arising is the meaning of suffering; all phenomena being ultimately non-existent is the meaning of emptiness; non-duality between self and non-self is the meaning of non-self; phenomena being fundamentally unarisen and now without cessation is the meaning of quiescent extinction.' The rest follow the pattern of the first line; by reflecting on this, one can know it.