法華玄義釋籤 18.38

18.38

三別釋用中，文自分二，各自為十。初釋迹中二：先列，次釋。釋中二：先釋，次對十妙。釋又二：釋、結。釋中二：先通，次別。通略不釋，但注云云。「通歷十妙皆具十意」者，且如境妙有六境不同，且妙因緣自分四教，圓教為一，三教為三，謂破三因緣顯一因緣等，乃至住一因緣用三因緣等，如是乃至行位利益皆有麁妙，麁妙相對皆有三一，以通十意，思之可知。於別釋中，自為十文，前六文中皆有三意，後四不假。初文三者，先屬對所以，次敘昔，三述證此經。初文初意如文，次「何者」下敘昔，三「今破」下明今經意。次文初如文，「雖破」下次意，三「正直」下述今。言「樹想還生」等者，所詮實理猶如一根，能詮權教猶如杖葉，若其不廢逗緣諸教，則千枝萬葉權想還生，以想生故亡其實本。開中初如文，次文兩重舉昔，三「今開」下述今。會中初如文。「大品」下次文，「此經」下第三文。住中初如文，「而眾生」下次文，「故言」下第三文。住三中初如文，「尋念」下次文，「又昔」下第三文。住非三中，初文闕，次文事理二重，但述今不敘昔，既言住雙非而顯一，故無昔可敘，覆三亦然。三既被覆無三可述，所以文中但語除病，謂除執三之病法何所傷？所言「但除其病」者，病謂執權為實，法謂一切權法，執權之病若除，即此權法是實，是故除病不須除法。

In the third [part], distinguishing the functions individually, the text is divided into two, each containing ten [points]. First, the explanation of the traces has two parts: first, listing; next, explaining. The explanation also has two parts: first, the explanation; next, the correlation with the ten subtleties. The explanation also has two parts: explaining and concluding. The explanation also has two parts: first, general; next, specific. The general is briefly omitted and not explained, merely noted with "and so forth." As for "pervading through the ten subtleties, each possesses the ten meanings": for example, regarding the subtlety of objects, there are six different objects; and the subtlety of causes and conditions is itself divided among the four teachings, with the Perfect Teaching being the one and the three teachings being the three—meaning refuting the three causes and conditions to reveal the one cause and condition, and so on, up to abiding in the one cause and condition to employ the three causes and conditions, and so forth; in this manner, extending to practice, ranks, and benefits, all have the crude and the subtle. When the crude and the subtle are set in contrast, they all have the three and the one, so as to pervade the ten meanings; this can be known by contemplation. Within the specific explanations, there are ten passages; each of the first six passages possesses three points, whereas the latter four do not require them. The three [points] in the first passage are: first, the reason for the correlation; next, recounting the past; third, setting forth the scriptural proof from this sūtra. In the first passage, the first point is as in the text; next, from "Why is this?" downward recounts the past; third, from "Now refuting..." downward clarifies the intent of this sūtra. In the next passage, the first is as in the text; from "Although refuting..." downward is the second point; third, from "Direct and upright..." downward sets forth the present. As for "the conception of the tree arises again" and so forth: the real principle that is expressed is like a single root, while the provisional teachings that express it are like branches and leaves; if the various teachings adapted to conditions are not abolished, then the provisional conception of thousands of branches and ten thousand leaves will arise again, and because the conception arises, the real root is lost. In "opening," the first is as in the text; the second passage twice adduces the past; third, from "Now opening..." downward sets forth the present. In "converging," the first is as in the text; from "Large Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra..." downward is the second passage; from "This sūtra..." downward is the third passage. In "abiding," the first is as in the text; from "Yet sentient beings..." downward is the second passage; from "Therefore it is said..." downward is the third passage. In "abiding in the three," the first is as in the text; from "Contemplating and thinking..." downward is the second passage; from "Also, formerly..." downward is the third passage. In "abiding in the non-three," the first passage is absent; the second passage has two levels of phenomena and principle, merely setting forth the present without recounting the past; since it speaks of abiding in the double negation to reveal the one, there is no past to recount; the same is true of "concealing the three." Since the three are concealed, there are no three to recount; therefore the text merely speaks of removing the disease—meaning, when the disease of clinging to the three is removed, what harm can there be to the teaching? As for "merely removing its disease": the "disease" refers to clinging to the provisional as real; the "teaching" refers to all provisional dharmas; if the disease of clinging to the provisional is removed, then these very provisional dharmas are the real; therefore, one removes the disease without needing to remove the teaching.