法華玄義釋籤 18.8

18.8

次明圓教中三：初明圓門融妙，次明四悉機異，三「此就」下更結圓門判麁妙意。初文者具如《止觀》第五圓無生門後，及第六四門料簡中圓四門相。次文者，先徵起，若依圓門，四尚非四，豈況更有門中四悉根性不融耶？但由物情各殊，故使門中四緣各異。於中為五：先明赴機四異，次「何者」下釋異所由，三「欲樂」下明機感之相，四「以世界」下正明赴機，五「緣既」下結成妙門。三更結判中二：初總標，次釋。釋中二：先明釋判意，次正判。又二：初明《地論》教道多諍，次與別門辨諍輕重。初文云「如地論有南北二道」者，陳梁已前弘地論師二處不同，相州北道計阿黎耶以為依持，相州南道計於真如以為依持，此二論師俱稟天親，而所計各異同於水火，加復《攝大乘》興，亦計黎耶以助北道。又《攝大乘》前後二譯，亦如地論二計不同，舊譯即立菴摩羅識，唐三藏譯但立第八。次文者二：先舉圓門唯通無塞，次「但四」下正對辨輕重，又二：初標，次釋。則別重圓輕，輕中又三：初正明輕相，次明益相，三引論。初文云「如快馬見鞭影」者，如《止觀》第五記。次益相如文。三引論中二：先引論，次釋。釋中三：先明皆實，各各實故，當位益故實，有淺深故虛。次「亦俱虛」者，相望成虛非無當位，對前乃成亦虛亦實。三「實故」下判。「實故為妙」者，當位雖妙，望第一義故三悉皆虛，是故圓中須此一判。

Next, in clarifying the Perfect Teaching, there are three parts: first, clarifying the fused subtlety of the perfect doors; next, clarifying the differences in capacity for the four siddhāntas; third, from "This is according to..." onward, concluding with the intention of judging coarse and subtle in the perfect doors. As for the first text, it is fully as in the Zhiguan, fascicle five, after the door of the perfect non-arising, and the characteristics of the four perfect doors in the appraisal of the four doors in fascicle six. As for the second text, it first raises [the point]: if relying on the perfect doors, the four are not even four, how much less could there be four siddhāntas within the door whose capacities are not fused? It is only because the sentiments of beings are each different that the four conditions within the door are made to be each different. In this there are five parts: first, clarifying the four differences in responding to capacities; next, from "As to which..." onward, explaining the reason for the differences; third, from "desire and joy..." onward, clarifying the characteristics of capacity and resonance; fourth, from "using the mundane..." onward, properly clarifying the response to capacities; fifth, from "since the conditions..." onward, concluding to form the subtle doors. In the third part, further concluding the judgment, there are two parts: first, a general indication; next, the explanation. In the explanation there are two parts: first, clarifying the intention of explaining and judging; next, the proper judgment. Again there are two: first, clarifying that the doctrinal paths of the Daśabhūmikā Sūtra-śāstra involve much dispute; next, distinguishing the gravity of disputes with the doors of the Separate [Teaching]. In the first text, the statement "As in the Daśabhūmikā Sūtra-śāstra there are the northern and southern paths": before the Chen and Liang dynasties, the masters propagating the Daśabhūmikā Sūtra-śāstra differed in two places; the northern path of Xiangzhou posited the ālayavijñāna as the support, while the southern path of Xiangzhou posited tathatā as the support. These two treatise masters both received their tradition from Vasubandhu, yet what they posited differed from each other like fire and water; furthermore, when the Mahāyānasaṃgraha arose, it also posited the ālaya to support the northern path. Moreover, the earlier and later translations of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha also differed in two positions like the Daśabhūmikā Sūtra-śāstra: the old translation established the amala-vijñāna, whereas the translation by the Tang Tripiṭaka Master only established the eighth [consciousness]. In the next text, there are two parts: first, citing that the perfect doors have only passage and no blockage; next, from "Only four..." onward, properly comparing and distinguishing gravity, which again has two parts: first an indication, next an explanation. Thus, the Separate is grave and the Perfect is light. Within the light, there are again three parts: first, properly clarifying the characteristic of lightness; next, clarifying the characteristic of benefit; third, quoting a treatise. In the first text, the statement "like a swift horse seeing the shadow of the whip" is as recorded in fascicle five of the Zhiguan. Next, the characteristic of benefit is as in the text. In the third part, quoting a treatise, there are two: first, quoting the treatise; next, explaining it. In the explanation there are three: first, clarifying that all are real, because each is real; they are real because of the benefit at their own stage, yet unreal because of being shallow or deep. Next, "also all unreal" means that they are unreal in relation to one another, not that they lack their own stage; in contrast to the former, they constitute both unreal and real. Third, from "Because of being real..." onward, judging: "Because of being real, it is subtle" means that although it is subtle at its own stage, looking toward the primary truth, the three siddhāntas are all unreal; therefore, this single judgment is necessary within the Perfect.