法華玄義釋籤 16.20

16.20

私破古人此體通因果及引經論，初中云「為變為不變」等者，夫因為能通、果為所通，若因變為果，則無能所，故變則不可。若不變者，因至果邊，因與果並，故無斯理，故不變不可。次從「若別有法」去縱難，若因自住因不變為果，別立一法通因至果者，當知此因非果家之因，果亦非是因家之果，因果自住則非佛果之經體也。云何乃言體通因果耶？「法華」至「果德也」者，初句述古人上引文立體，此乃下破古立體。經文上句雖云「佛自住大乘」，下句既云「如其所得法，以此度眾生」，故知乘本證得之理，以御眾生。御謂控御，制勒眾生，此之制勒非住果德實相之體，是故不得偏用自住之言以為果體。「普賢」至「今皆不用」者，此責古人引彼因果，以證經體，彼文正可用證經宗。經文但云因之與果不離實相，是故可證因果為宗。若證經體，應云實相不離因果，此則宗家之體。故知古人所引，但成證於體家之宗，是故不取。又有人云：因之與果，各立本末，薩婆若是果智，餘者謂果上萬德；今明乘體，何須因果之上各立本末？本末為體與體永殊，廣狹與一體異體等亦復非體。古人之意，以一體乘為今經體，以異體乘為餘經體；今家意以實相為體，彼人既云般若相應，為與何等般若相應？故不可也。又人云：無所得相應行等並是具度，不應為體。又人云：六度等者有理度事度，名為世出世雜，去果既遠，故名遠乘；道品一向是出世法，去果近故，名為近乘。是故近遠俱是乘體亦不可依。乃至廣破又四句者，初句云度之與品，俱與無所得心相應，俱是出世；俱有得者，有所得心相應，俱是世間。第三句如向釋也。第四句者，意言道品有約位故，則有有漏及以無漏，是故名為世出世雜。大乘六度，一向無雜，所以四句互有遠近及俱遠近。

In my private refutation of the ancients regarding this essence encompassing cause and fruit and their citations of sūtras and treatises: regarding what is stated at the beginning, "Is it changing or unchanging?" and so forth: cause is that which traverses, and fruit is that which is traversed. If cause changed into fruit, there would be neither that which traverses nor that which is traversed; therefore, changing is impermissible. If it does not change, then when the cause reaches the fruit, cause and fruit would stand side by side; thus there is no such principle, and so unchanging is impermissible. Next, from "If there were a distinct dharma" onward, the objection is conceded: if the cause abides in itself as cause and does not change into fruit, and one separately posits a single dharma that traverses from cause to fruit, one should know that this cause is not the cause belonging to the fruit, and the fruit is also not the fruit belonging to the cause. With cause and fruit each abiding in themselves, this would not be the sūtra essence of the Buddha's fruit. How then could one say that the essence encompasses cause and fruit? As for "The Lotus Sūtra" down to "the virtues of the fruit": the first phrase states the ancient master's quotation above to establish the essence, and this is followed below by the refutation of the ancient master's establishing of the essence. Although the former line of the sūtra text states, "The Buddha himself abides in the Great Vehicle," the latter line also states, "According to the dharma he has attained, he uses it to save sentient beings." Thus we know that the vehicle is fundamentally the principle realized and attained, which is used to guide sentient beings. "Guide" means to direct and control sentient beings; this controlling is not the essence of the true character of abiding in the fruit's virtues. Therefore, one must not exclusively use the words "himself abides" to take it as the fruit's essence. As for "Samantabhadra" down to "none are accepted now": this rebukes the ancients for quoting those causes and fruits to prove the sūtra essence; that passage can properly be used only to prove the sūtra's central theme (zong). The sūtra text merely states that cause and fruit are not apart from the true character; therefore, it can prove that cause and fruit are the central theme. If it were to prove the sūtra essence, it should say that the true character is not apart from cause and fruit; this would then be the essence of the central theme. Thus we know that what the ancients cited only succeeded in proving the central theme of the essence; therefore it is not accepted. Furthermore, someone said: "Cause and fruit each establish root and branches; sarvajña is the wisdom of the fruit, and the rest refers to the myriad virtues upon the fruit." Now, in clarifying the essence of the vehicle, why is it necessary to establish root and branches upon cause and fruit respectively? Root and branches being taken as the essence is ever disparate from the essence; broadness and narrowness, or single essence and different essences, and so forth, are also not the essence. The intention of the ancients was to take the vehicle of a single essence as the essence of this sūtra, and to take the vehicle of different essences as the essence of other sūtras. The intention of our school is to take the true character as the essence. Since that person already said "conjunction with prajñā," what kind of prajñā is it conjoined with? Therefore it is impermissible. Another said: "The practices conjoined with non-apprehension and so forth are all fully endowed pāramitās, and should not be the essence." Another said: "Regarding the six pāramitās and so forth, there are the pāramitā of principle and the pāramitā of phenomena, which are called a mixture of worldly and world-transcending; being far from the fruit, it is called the distant vehicle. The factors of awakening are exclusively world-transcending dharmas; being close to the fruit, they are called the near vehicle." Therefore, taking both the near and the distant as the essence of the vehicle likewise cannot be relied upon. As for further refuting at length through four propositions: the first proposition states that both the pāramitās and the factors [of awakening] are conjoined with the mind of non-apprehension and are both world-transcending; if both have apprehension, they are conjoined with the mind of apprehension and are both worldly. The third proposition is as explained just before. As for the fourth proposition, the meaning is that because the factors of awakening are classified by stages, there are both contaminated and uncontaminated; therefore they are called a mixture of worldly and world-transcending. The six pāramitās of the Great Vehicle are exclusively unmixed. Therefore, the four propositions mutually have near and distant, as well as both near and both distant.