法華玄義釋籤 18.34

18.34

料簡中二：標、釋。釋中二重問答，初重約兩種四句分別，次重約教互顯分別。初中先問，次答。答中三：標、列、釋。初標中云「兩種四句」者，一漸圓四句，二賢聖四句。次釋中三：正釋、引譬、結益。釋初四句又為二意：一者以圓對偏應作四句，二者從「復次」去於圓自為四句。今初通列一種四句，次釋文中方兼兩義。於初四句，復分兩四，初四句中但以漸圓一句相對，餘三不釋但注「云云」。若欲釋者，「圓漸」謂初住已上，「圓圓」謂唯妙覺，「漸漸」謂七方便各自有因，若《止觀》中與此稍別，不得一例，彼以三教各自有因名為漸漸，各有果頭名為漸圓。次四句者，亦以初文以為初句；次從初發心住進修二住為圓漸也；漸漸自是圓因之位非七方便漸家之漸，是故須以兩種漸漸簡前引文漸漸修學之難，餘如文。次賢聖四句者，重舉例釋漸圓四句以申前難。漸中尚有賢聖之名，何得但聞漸漸之名，便一概為漸家之漸？於中初略立賢聖二句，亦應更以妙覺對住前為二句。言「三十心雖同賢聖義」者，望於十地名之為賢，斷無明故名之為聖，此準《仁王》立賢聖名。若準此文，應云住前名為賢賢，妙覺名為聖聖，餘之兩意其義易知，是故文中更為異釋。「十住為賢聖」者，即是地前為賢，是賢家之聖。「二十心為聖賢」者，約斷名聖，據位仍賢，即指十地為聖，故是聖家之賢。「十地等覺名為聖」者，準《仁王經》地前名賢，故以十地名之為聖。「妙覺是聖聖」者，初地已上已名為聖，故妙覺位是聖中之聖，名為聖聖。次問答中先問云「既稱圓漸復云圓別」等者，漸即同別，前釋四句圓既有漸，亦可名為圓家之別；若許圓家有於別者，亦應許於圓家有藏通耶？故云「乃至藏通」。答中二：初正答，次例漸圓及開顯等。初正答意者，名許互有，義必不通。故知藏中通別圓三，並屬於藏，不關餘三；通別圓三，例此可知。次例中三：先例前四句，次例結因果，三例開顯。初文云「此義既通，亦應漸圓漸圓四句皆得」者，四教之文，本分四別，今一一教義通四名，何妨漸圓義本區別，圓等四句一一義通。應云漸圓圓漸，恐文誤故，故閒書之。

The critical analysis has two [parts]: marking out and explaining. The explanation contains two rounds of question and answer. The first round distinguishes with respect to two kinds of tetralemmas; the second round distinguishes with respect to the reciprocal manifestation of the teachings. In the first [round], there is first a question, followed by an answer. The answer has three [parts]: marking out, listing, and explaining. In the initial marking out, "two kinds of tetralemmas" refers to, first, the tetralemma of gradual and perfect, and second, the tetralemma of worthy and noble. In the subsequent explanation, there are three [parts]: the correct explanation, adducing analogies, and concluding the benefit. The explanation of the first tetralemma further contains two senses: first, contrasting the perfect with the biased, which should form a tetralemma; second, from "furthermore" onward, forming a tetralemma internally within the perfect itself. Now, it first generally lists one tetralemma, and only in the subsequent explanatory text does it combine both senses. Within the first tetralemma, it is further divided into two sets of four. In the first four propositions, it only contrasts the single proposition of gradual-perfect, while the remaining three are not explained, merely annotated with "and so forth." If one wishes to explain them: "perfect-gradual" refers to the first abodement and above; "perfect-perfect" refers solely to wondrous enlightenment; "gradual-gradual" refers to each of the seven expedients having its own causes. In the *Zhiguan*, however, it is slightly different from this and must not be treated as identical: there, the three teachings each having their own causes is called gradual-gradual, and each possessing its own ultimate fruit is called gradual-gradual-perfect. As for the next four propositions, the initial text is likewise taken as the first proposition; next, progressing from the abodement of the initial arousal of the mind to cultivate the second abodement is "perfect-gradual"; "gradual-gradual" is itself the stage of causes within the perfect, not the gradual of the gradualists of the seven expedients. Therefore, one must use two kinds of gradual-gradual to resolve the earlier objection citing the text about gradually training and learning; the rest is as in the text. Next, the tetralemma of worthy and noble re-cites examples to explain the tetralemma of gradual and perfect in order to elaborate on the earlier objection. Since within the gradual there are still the designations of "worthy" and "noble," how can it be that merely hearing the designation "gradual-gradual" one indiscriminately takes it to be the gradual of the gradualists? Within this, it first briefly establishes the two propositions of worthy and noble; one should also further contrast wondrous enlightenment with the pre-abodement [stages] to form two propositions. The statement that "the thirty minds, although sharing the meaning of worthy and noble" means: looking toward the ten bhūmis, they are called worthy; because they sever ignorance, they are called noble. This establishes the designations of worthy and noble on the authority of the *Renwang [jing]*. According to this text, it should say that the pre-abodement [stages] are called worthy-worthy, and wondrous enlightenment is called noble-noble; since the meaning of the other two senses is easily known, the text therefore provides a different explanation. "The ten abodements are worthy-noble": that is, being prior to the bhūmis, they are worthy, yet they are the noble among the worthy. "The twenty minds are noble-worthy": in terms of severance they are called noble, but based on stage they are still worthy—that is, pointing to the ten bhūmis as noble, thus they are the worthy among the noble. "The ten bhūmis and equal enlightenment are called noble": on the authority of the *Renwang jing*, prior to the bhūmis is called worthy, hence the ten bhūmis are called noble. "Wondrous enlightenment is noble-noble": the first bhūmi and above are already called noble, hence the stage of wondrous enlightenment is the noble among the noble, called noble-noble. In the next question and answer, the initial question states: "Since it is called perfect-gradual, does one further say perfect-separate, etc.?" The gradual is identical with the separate; since the earlier explanation of the tetralemma showed that the perfect has the gradual, it can also be called the separate of the perfect. If one allows that the perfect has the separate, should one also allow that the perfect has the Tripiṭaka and Shared? Hence it says: "up to Tripiṭaka and Shared." The answer has two [parts]: first, the direct answer; next, extending by analogy to gradual and perfect, open revelation, and so on. The intent of the initial direct answer is: although names may be reciprocally possessed, the meaning is strictly non-communicating. Thus one knows that within the Tripiṭaka [Teaching], the Shared, Separate, and Perfect all pertain to the Tripiṭaka, and have nothing to do with the other three; the Shared, Separate, and Perfect are to be understood by analogy with this. In the subsequent extension by analogy, there are three [parts]: first, extending by analogy to the previous tetralemma; second, extending by analogy to concluding cause and effect; third, extending by analogy to open revelation. The initial text says: "Since this principle holds universally, the gradual-gradual and gradual-perfect tetralemmas should also all be admissible": the texts of the four teachings are fundamentally divided into four distinctions, yet now the meaning of each teaching admits of all four names; what harm is there if the principles of gradual and perfect are fundamentally distinct, yet each of the tetralemmas of the perfect and so forth universally admits of all meanings? It should read "gradual-perfect, perfect-gradual"; fearing a textual error, it was written with a space between them.