法華玄義釋籤 16.47

16.47

四對偏簡中二：初明簡意，次「如摩訶」下正簡者，前對小簡即三藏小乘，今對偏簡即對通別二教及前四味中諸偏教，故今文中仍有二乘者，即通教二乘耳，故云「三人同斷」等。所以不云三藏菩薩者，義同凡故，雖無邪倒，未斷惑故。於中又二：初約教，次約五時。初約教中又三：初空對不空簡，次「見不空」下直就不空簡，三「釋論云」下約一相攝無量相簡。此之三文展轉生後。何者？由共位菩薩中有利根者，能見不空，即指不空為今經體，以此不空復有教道帶方便說，故云「但中不但中」，即次不次行相別故。此不但中攝一切法，中無中相，故云「一相」。此之一相入無量相，故云「相入」。故有第三文來，意在此也。初文二：初引《大品》示相，次引《大經》證成。初文者，即通教位，從始至終，待至法華，方乃被會，即其人也。初文又二：初正釋，次「共實相」下還引《大品》斥，次引《大經》言無智慧，亦斥奪之辭，非無自智慧也。又云「至二乘得寂」等者，且據但空與寂義等，以其未得即寂而照，故云「但寂」。次文中云「二乘但一即」，通教二乘也。「別教菩薩二即」者，兼通別入空出假兩菩薩也。以附論偈，且與即名，其實未即，唯獨圓教方具三即。今經體者，但是中即假空，尚簡假空即中，況但空偏假寧是經體？三引《釋論》「菩薩入於一相」等，例此可解。所以前之三義皆對二乘簡者，於共部中皆有二乘，此空不空及一相等，復在共部中明，故須節節相對簡出。於中又二：初正對教簡，次「如此」下結成圓意。

Fourth, in the elimination by contrast with the partial, there are two parts: first, explaining the intent of the elimination; next, from "As in the Mahā[prajñāpāramitā-sūtra]" onward, the direct elimination. The previous elimination by contrast with the small referred to the small vehicle of the Tripiṭaka [Teaching]. Now, the elimination by contrast with the partial refers to the Shared and Separate Teachings, as well as the various partial teachings among the previous four flavors. Therefore, the fact that the two vehicles are still present in the text here refers precisely to the two vehicles of the Shared Teaching; hence it says "the three persons together sever [delusions]," and so on. The reason it does not mention the bodhisattva of the Tripiṭaka Teaching is that their status is theoretically equivalent to ordinary beings—although without perverse error, they have not yet severed delusion. Within this, there are again two parts: first, according to the teachings; next, according to the five periods. In the first, according to the teachings, there are again three parts: first, elimination by contrasting emptiness with non-emptiness; next, from "seeing non-emptiness" onward, direct elimination with respect to non-emptiness; third, from "The treatise says" onward, elimination by contrasting one characteristic subsuming immeasurable characteristics. These three passages sequentially give rise to what follows. Why? Because among the bodhisattvas of the shared stages, there are those of sharp faculties who can see non-emptiness, they directly point to non-emptiness as the substance of the present sūtra. Yet since this non-emptiness is further explained with expedient means along the pedagogical path, it says "merely middle and not merely middle," which refers to the distinction between gradual and non-gradual practice. This not merely middle subsumes all dharmas, and the middle has no characteristic of a middle, hence it is called "one characteristic." This one characteristic enters into immeasurable characteristics, hence it is called "mutual entering." Therefore, the third passage follows, the intention lying precisely here. In the first passage there are two parts: first, citing the Large Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra to show the characteristics; next, citing the Great Sūtra to corroborate and establish it. As for the first passage, it refers to the stages of the Shared Teaching from beginning to end, where only upon waiting until the Lotus Sūtra are they finally integrated; these are the very persons. In the first passage there are again two parts: first, the direct explanation; next, from "shared real mark" onward, citing the Large Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra in turn to refute them. Next, citing the Great Sūtra's statement that there is no wisdom is also a phrase of refutation and deprivation, not that they lack their own wisdom. Furthermore, the statement "up to the two vehicles attaining quiescence," and so on, temporarily takes mere emptiness as equivalent in meaning to quiescence; because they have not yet attained quiescence that is identical with illumination, it is called "mere quiescence." In the next passage, the statement "the two vehicles have only one identity" refers to the two vehicles of the Shared Teaching. "The bodhisattvas of the Separate Teaching have two identities" combines the two bodhisattvas of the Shared and Separate [Teachings] who enter emptiness and emerge into provisionality. Drawing upon the treatise's verse, they are temporarily granted the name "identity"; in reality, they are not yet identical, and only the Perfect Teaching alone is fully equipped with the three identities. The substance of the present sūtra is only the middle being identical with the provisional and emptiness. It still eliminates the provisional and emptiness being identical with the middle; how much less could mere emptiness or partial provisionality possibly be the substance of the sūtra? Third, the citation of the treatise, "bodhisattvas enter into one characteristic," and so on, can be understood by analogy with this. The reason the preceding three meanings are all eliminated by contrast with the two vehicles is that within the shared category there are always the two vehicles, and these matters of emptiness, non-emptiness, and the one characteristic are also clarified within the shared category; therefore, they must be eliminated by contrast point by point. Within this there are again two parts: first, directly eliminating by contrast with the teachings; next, from "Thus" onward, concluding with the perfect meaning.