法華玄義釋籤 15.8

15.8

次同異中二：先立，次「作此」下釋。釋中又二：先明開合意，次「迹中」下正明開合。於中四：先明迹中因開果合，次明感應等不開不合，三「本開」下明本中因合而果開，四利益一亦同感應等意。初文迹中離因為四，合果中壽命涅槃為一三法，合此本門涅槃壽命。次感應等本迹俱有二處名同，同是果上之用。三明本中因合如前，但明果開，迹中無果名，即成離三法以為果等三，本中有果名，故但云「離二」。於中為三：先釋開意，今佛法華未入滅故未論涅槃，往佛既於法華唱滅皆是淨機。次「又往事」下約事已定正明開出。三「迹中」下重釋迹中不用所以。最後一妙二處名同，而今昔時異，既本迹十開合之殊，若不了迹中十門，安能曉此理等六義及以因等十妙旨歸？

Next, in similarity and difference, there are two parts: first, establishing; second, from "Making this…" downward, explaining. In the explanation there are again two: first, clarifying the intention of opening and combining; second, from "Within the traces…" downward, directly clarifying opening and combining. Within this there are four: first, clarifying that within the traces cause is opened and fruition is combined; second, clarifying that response and capacity, etc., are neither opened nor combined; third, from "The origin opens…" downward, clarifying that within the origin cause is combined while fruition is opened; fourth, that the single subtlety of benefit also shares the intention of response and capacity, etc. In the first text, within the traces, cause is separated into four, and lifespan and nirvāṇa within fruition are combined into a single threefold dharma, combining the nirvāṇa and lifespan of this origin gate. Next, response and capacity, etc., exist in both origin and traces, with identical names in both places, both being functions upon fruition. Third, clarifying that within the origin cause is combined as before, merely clarifying that fruition is opened; within the traces there is no name of fruition, which amounts to separating the threefold dharma to make fruition and the other three; within the origin there is the name of fruition, hence it merely says "separating two." Within this are three parts: first, explaining the intention of opening: since the present Buddha has not yet entered extinction in the Lotus Sūtra, nirvāṇa is not discussed; past buddhas proclaimed extinction in the Lotus Sūtra, all being pure capacities. Second, from "Furthermore, past events…" downward, directly clarifying the opening based on matters already settled. Third, from "Within the traces…" downward, re-explaining the reason it is not used within the traces. The final subtlety has identical names in both places, yet past and present times differ; since the origin and traces have the distinction of ten openings and combinations, if one does not comprehend the ten gates within the traces, how could one understand these six meanings of principle, etc., and the purports of the ten subtleties of cause, etc.?