法華玄義釋籤 17.16

17.16

次解釋中三：初去小乘八門不與大濫，故置不論。次例四句。三「初句者」下正解。解釋中二：先釋，次「前三句」下判前所列。前三屬別，後一屬圓。初文初句，先釋，次結。次判中二：先斥，次判中二：先略明諍由，次示諍相。初中云「最不融」者，初句俱同，但在當門尚是不融，今於當門三自不融，是故云「最」。言「不得意」者，通論謂地前乃至博地初心，別論若已入十住終不生諍。諍相中二：初略明諍相，次「何者」下釋諍意。初言「或小陵盜大奪」者，明此四門雖即大小名同體異，然有強弱致諍不同。釋諍意中二：初明半奪，次明俱奪。初文者，大小二門更互陵奪，是以小乘諍他大乘二四兩門，謂為己典，大乘奪小初三兩門，謂非小教，是故大小各互輸二而存於二。次從「若知」去大乘俱奪小乘四門，又二：初正明俱奪，次俱奪意。初文者，可由大乘知於空門為不但空，雙非以為第一義諦，則謂小乘都無能通，故四門俱奪。小既被奪，終不敢諍亦空亦有及以有門，而但苦諍第二第四，以並不知大小各四，是故生諍。次從「又大乘」去釋俱奪之意，又二：先釋，次譬。初釋中別教不融當教四門尚互相噬，況復小乘？故譬意云，若小奪大猶如野干而奪師子，寧不俱噉汝四門耶？二門先輸今又失二，野干不奪師子，師子尚欲噉之，今野干輒奪師子，師子豈不噉耶？故曰「寧當」。合譬可知。次從「三句」去，結前三句屬於教道，非今經體，唯第四句為經體也。名義雖異，四門體同，體既互融不諍名義，故第四屬圓。於中又二：初明諸名諸義並是實相之名，次「復次」下互為名體。初文又三：初略標門意，次「其相」下略釋門相，三「如是」下結歸經體。初如文。次文又二：初引經立體，次「實相之相」下列前十二名，並是實相異名，其名既異不妨名異而體是同，不可圓理不異而諸名盡同，將何以為四隨之巧？此中最後非有非無，準前理亦合有三名，文中但有中道及第一義，文闕微妙寂滅一句。此中諸名既盡以實相為體，名數多少於理未妨，故闕一無妨。

Next, within the explanation, there are three parts: first, setting aside the eight gates of the Hinayana so that they do not become confused with the Mahāyāna, and thus leaving them undiscussed; second, applying the pattern to the four phrases; third, from "the first phrase" downward, the actual explanation. Within the explanation, there are two: first, explaining; second, from "the preceding three phrases" downward, judging what was listed earlier. The first three belong to the Separate [Teaching], and the latter one belongs to the Perfect [Teaching]. In the first text, for the first phrase: first, explain; second, conclude. Within the next, judging, there are two parts: first, rebuking; second, judging. Within judging, there are two: first, briefly clarifying the origin of dispute; second, showing the characteristics of dispute. In the first, where it says "most unharmonious": all are the same in the first phrase, but even within that gate it is still unharmonious; now, within that gate, the three are themselves unharmonious, and therefore it says "most." The words "not grasping the intent" refer generally to [those] before the bhūmis down to ordinary persons in their initial mind; specifically, if one has already entered the ten abidances, disputes will never arise. Within the characteristics of dispute, there are two: first, briefly clarifying the characteristics of dispute; second, from "why" downward, explaining the intent of the dispute. In the first, saying "either the small encroaches and steals, or the great usurps": this clarifies that although these four gates share names between the Great and Small [vehicles] while their substances differ, differences in strength lead to differing disputes. Within explaining the intent of the dispute, there are two: first, clarifying partial usurpation; second, clarifying total usurpation. In the first text, the two gates of Great and Small mutually encroach and usurp: thus the Hinayana disputes the Mahāyāna's second and fourth gates, claiming them as its own scriptures; the Mahāyāna usurps the Hinayana's first and third gates, claiming they are not the Hinayana teaching. Therefore, Great and Small each lose two to each other while retaining two. Next, from "if one knows" onward, the Mahāyāna totally usurps the four gates of the Hinayana. This also has two parts: first, directly clarifying total usurpation; second, the intent of total usurpation. In the first text: because the Mahāyāna understands that the gate of emptiness is not merely empty, and takes the double negation as the supreme truth, it then asserts that the Hinayana has nothing capable of penetrating [the truth], and therefore totally usurps all four gates. The Small [Vehicle], having been usurped, ultimately dares not dispute the gate of both emptiness and existence and the gate of existence, but merely disputes fiercely over the second and fourth; because neither knows that the Great and Small each possess four, disputes thus arise. Next, from "furthermore, the Mahāyāna" onward, it explains the intent of total usurpation. This also has two parts: first, explanation; second, simile. In the first explanation, the Separate Teaching is unharmonious, and its own four gates still prey upon each other; how much more so with the Hinayana? Therefore, the simile's meaning says: if the small usurps the great, it is like a jackal usurping a lion; would it not completely devour your four gates? Two gates were already lost previously, and now another two are lost; when the jackal did not usurp the lion, the lion already wished to devour it; now that the jackal rashly usurps the lion, will the lion not devour it? Therefore it says "would it not?" Applying the simile can be understood. Next, from "three phrases" onward, it concludes that the preceding three phrases belong to the way of teaching and are not the present sūtra's substance; only the fourth phrase is the sūtra's substance. Although names and meanings differ, the substance of the four gates is identical; since their substance is mutually harmonious, there is no dispute over name and meaning; therefore the fourth belongs to the Perfect [Teaching]. Within this, there are also two parts: first, clarifying that the various names and various meanings are all names of the true mark; second, from "furthermore" downward, their serving mutually as name and substance. The first text also has three parts: first, briefly designating the intent of the gate; second, from "its characteristic" downward, briefly explaining the characteristics of the gate; third, from "such" downward, concluding by returning to the sūtra substance. The first is as in the text. In the second text, there are two: first, citing the sūtra to establish the substance; second, from "the characteristic of the true mark" downward, listing the twelve names mentioned earlier, which are all different names for the true mark. Since their names are different, there is no impediment to names being different while substance is identical; it is impossible that while the perfect principle is not different, all the names should be entirely identical—how could that serve as the skillfulness of the four conformities? Here, regarding the last [gate of] neither existence nor non-existence, according to the preceding principle there should also be three names; in the text there are only "Middle Way" and "supreme [truth]," lacking the phrase "subtly quiescent cessation." Since the various names here all completely take the true mark as their substance, the quantity of names poses no impediment to the principle; hence the omission of one poses no impediment.