法華玄義釋籤 17.4

17.4

第三譬者，教理共論，是故通約一切凡聖及以教法。於中為二：初約機異，次判同異。初機異又三：初譬，次合，三結示經體。此四人中第二含於兩教二乘及通菩薩，三藏菩薩亦同凡夫故也。次文中二：先判，次結意。言「與奪破會」者，金體不殊，故云「與」也。凡夫其實未得果理，與而言之，云理不二，是故云「與」。理雖不二，凡實未有果上之用，是故云「奪」。估客金匠，準此說之。所言「破」者，若廢權立實，丹尚異器，何況金石？若會權歸實，體既不殊，豈簡金石？凡夫亦然，準說可見。

As for the third simile, teaching and principle are discussed together, and therefore it universally applies to all ordinary beings and sages, as well as the teachings. Within this there are two parts: first, according to the differences in capacities; next, judging identity and difference. The first, differences in capacities, has three parts: first, the simile; next, the application; third, concluding by showing the substance of the sūtra. Among these four persons, the second contains the two vehicles of both teachings and the bodhisattvas of the Shared [Teaching], because the bodhisattvas of the Tripiṭaka Teaching are also identical to ordinary beings. In the next passage there are two parts: first, judging; next, the concluding intent. The statement "granting and depriving, refuting and integrating": because the substance of the gold does not differ, it says "granting." Ordinary beings have not actually attained the fruit-principle; speaking from the standpoint of granting, one says that principle is non-dual, and therefore it says "granting." Although principle is non-dual, ordinary beings in reality do not yet have the function of the fruit, and therefore it says "depriving." The merchant and the goldsmith should be explained according to this. As for the statement "refuting": if one abolishes the expedient and establishes the real, cinnabar is still a different vessel, how much more so gold and stone? If one integrates the expedient into the real, since the substance does not differ, how could one differentiate gold and stone? The same holds true for ordinary beings; it can be seen from the explanation.