法華玄義釋籤 15.3

15.3

通論中二：先列，亦名生起；次釋。初中言「事理」者，秖是真俗。「理教」者，真俗是理，說此真俗名之為教。教行等，可解。次釋中且為二：先釋，次「若約下」結攝。初文自六，一一文中皆簡通以出別。又一一文皆三，謂先釋本迹相，次明本迹相顯理融，三引文證。初理事中云「從無住本立一切法」者，無明為一切法作本，無明即法性，無明復以法性為本，當知諸法亦以法性為本，法性即無明，法性復以無明為本，法性即無明，法性無住處，無明即法性，無明無住處，無明法性雖皆無住，而與一切諸法為本，故云「從無住本立一切法」。無住之本既通，是故真諦指理也；一切諸法事也，即指三千為其森羅。言「從本垂迹」者，此理性之本迹，由此方有外用本迹，是故始從理事終乎已今。六重本迹，前之五重通已通今通本通迹，恐濫迹，故於一一重顯了釋云，本時實相乃至最初實得實相。又以第六已今一重，判前五重有本有迹，驗知前五皆屬於本。又六重末相顯理融中皆云「本迹雖殊不思議一」者，借肇公言歎本迹理。肇公雖有本迹之言，本之與迹皆屬於迹。今言不思議者，約事則本昔迹今，約理則無復今昔，故知理體皆不思議。若約今之五重本迹準義說者，約事則有本中事理、迹中事理，約理則無復本迹事理之殊，是故皆云「不思議一」。乃至餘四亦復如是。第六已今，「已」即是迹，即指迹門及諸迹教；「今」即是本，即指本門，本門已前皆名為已，涌出已後方名為今，故云已說事理乃至權實名之為迹。今說事理乃至權實皆名為本，故知若無迹中事理乃至權實，何能顯於長遠之本？又已今之言雖異前五，亦是一往指於壽量，名為今本。若望初本則應又簡已今不同。法華已前諸經已今仍屬於迹，今經所明乃是真明久遠之本，即是已說已今為迹，今說已今為本，方是實說。所以六門引證之文，前三引迹、後三引本者何？然前三復通本之與迹，俱有事理乃至教行、體用等三，通中復別，既云本用本權，非迹文能顯，況以本門為今，灼然不可引迹，為是義故，三引迹文、三引本文。又前之三文，既在於因，本因狹故，但以迹倒本，故但引迹門。

In the general discussion, there are two parts: first, listing, also called the genesis; second, the explanation. In the first part, "phenomena and principle" are simply the ultimate and the conventional. As for "principle and teaching," the ultimate and conventional are the principle, and stating this ultimate and conventional is called teaching. Teaching and practice, etc., can be understood. In the second part, the explanation, there are for now two: first, the explanation; second, the summary and subsumption from "If according to…" downward. The first text naturally has six [sections], and in each and every text, the general is sorted out to bring forth the specific. Furthermore, each and every text has three [aspects]: namely, first explaining the characteristics of origin and traces; second, clarifying that as the characteristics of origin and traces are displayed, the principle harmonizes; and third, citing texts as proof. In the first, phenomena and principle, where it says "From the root of non-abiding, all dharmas are established": ignorance serves as the root for all dharmas; ignorance is itself dharma-nature; ignorance again takes dharma-nature as its root; one should know that all dharmas also take dharma-nature as their root; dharma-nature is itself ignorance; dharma-nature again takes ignorance as its root; dharma-nature is itself ignorance, and dharma-nature has no abiding place; ignorance is itself dharma-nature, and ignorance has no abiding place. Although both ignorance and dharma-nature are non-abiding, they serve as the root for all dharmas; hence it is said, "From the root of non-abiding, all dharmas are established." Since the root of non-abiding is general, the ultimate truth therefore designates principle; all dharmas are phenomena, designating the three thousand in their dense array. As for "descending traces from the origin," this is the origin and traces of principle-nature, from which the origin and traces of external application come to exist; thus, it begins with phenomena and principle and ends with past and present. Regarding the sixfold origin and traces, the preceding fivefolds generally apply to past, present, origin, and traces; fearing confusion with the traces, in each and every fold it is clearly explained, saying "the real mark of the original time" up to "initially truly obtaining the real mark." Furthermore, using the sixth fold of past and present to judge the preceding fivefolds as having origin and traces proves that the preceding five all pertain to the origin. Moreover, at the end of the sixfolds where characteristics are displayed and principle harmonizes, all state "Although origin and traces are distinct, they are inconceivably one": this borrows the words of Master Sengzhao to praise the principle of origin and traces. Although Master Sengzhao has the words "origin and traces," both origin and traces pertain to traces. Now when we say "inconceivable," in terms of phenomena, the origin is past and the traces are present; in terms of principle, there is no longer present and past; therefore we know the substance of principle is entirely inconceivable. If one speaks according to the principle of the present fivefold origin and traces, in terms of phenomena there are phenomena and principle within the origin, and phenomena and principle within the traces; in terms of principle, there is no longer any distinction between phenomena and principle of origin and traces; therefore all are said to be "inconceivably one." Up to the remaining four, it is likewise. In the sixth, past and present: "past" is traces, designating the trace gate and the various trace teachings; "present" is the origin, designating the origin gate. Everything before the origin gate is called past; only after the springing forth from the earth is it called present. Hence it says that previously explained phenomena and principle, up to the provisional and real, are called traces; presently explained phenomena and principle, up to the provisional and real, are all called origin. Thus we know that without the phenomena and principle, up to the provisional and real, within the traces, how could the remote origin be revealed? Furthermore, although the terms "past" and "present" differ from the previous five, they provisionally point to the [Chapter on] the Lifespan, calling it the present origin. If viewed from the initial origin, one should again distinguish the difference between past and present. In the sūtras prior to the Lotus Sūtra, past and present still pertain to the traces; what the present sūtra clarifies is truly clarifying the origin of remote antiquity; that is, the past explanation of past and present is traces, and the present explanation of past and present is origin; only then is it the real exposition. Why is it that among the passages cited as proof in the six gates, the first three cite the traces and the latter three cite the origin? The first three generally apply to both origin and traces, both having phenomena and principle up to teaching and practice, substance and function—these three; within the general there is again the specific; since it speaks of original function and original provisional, they cannot be revealed by trace texts, much less taking the origin gate as the present, so one clearly cannot cite traces; for this reason, three cite trace texts and three cite origin texts. Moreover, since the first three texts concern the cause, and because the original cause is narrow, they merely trace back to the origin from the traces, and therefore only cite the trace gate.