法華玄義釋籤 19.19

19.19

○三明難中，先難南三，次難北七。初南三中，先難五時，次「今更」下重難前文用三時義。初文二，先難五時，次「五時之失」下結難。初文正難用《涅槃》五味五時，又三：初難五時，次難共用頓等三教，三難用涅槃五味。初文又二：初敘意，次正難。初言「先難五時」者，以初二師立三四時，攝在五時中故。先總標意竟。次「若言」下次第難其五時，即自為五文，初難十二年前有相教者，先牒其所立，次難。難中又四：初總難十二年前及以有相，次「又阿含」下單以空難，三「又成道」下難十二年前唯小，四「復次」下以《成論》破意難。初文中言「成論」等者，論屬十二年前，論文自明空義，論師判之為有相教，豈非以有加誣己宗為有相教。次文者，《阿含》即是十二年前，及《大論》所指皆明空義，如何云有？言「是老死」等者，如《止觀》第六記。次論所指云「三藏中明法空為大空」者，他云三藏通大小，何為但屬小？今明如《法華》云「貪著小乘三藏學者」。又《大論》中處處以三藏對衍而辨大小，故準此文以三藏為小。若論通者，小衍二門俱有三藏，自是通途非別意也。若唯通途，如何銷通《法華》、《大論》，具如《四教》本中廣明。故十二年前約顯露教，秖可通云三藏教耳。故不可云見有得道，若唯見有，妨於三門，是故文中且破存於計有之見。又三藏教，準不定教亦非獨在十二年前，如食檀耳是涅槃時，其事亦在四《阿含》內，迦留陀夷亦復如是。故顯露教十二年前定唯在小。三難唯小中二：初文引《央掘》仍是大乘明空，亦在十二年前。次又如《大論》得道已後十二年中，亦說般若。四《成論》斥意難中三：初直以論師斥意難教成虛設。次「又拘隣」下以得道人難得道不無，則教成無相。三「又若」下以得道與無相雙折。又為三：初難得道不得道教同無相及以邪說；次難得道仍存有相，道亦成外；三結成過相。

Third, in clarifying the refutations: first, he refutes the three southern [masters]; next, he refutes the seven northern [masters]. Within the first [part], on the three southern [masters]: first, he refutes the five periods; next, from "Now, further..." downward, he re-refutes the meaning of employing the three periods in the preceding text. The first section has two [parts]: first, he refutes the five periods; next, from "The fault of the five periods..." downward, he concludes the refutation. The first section directly refutes the use of the five flavors and five periods of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra], and again has three [parts]: first, he refutes the five periods; second, he refutes the shared use of the three teachings—sudden, etc.; third, he refutes the use of the five flavors of the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra]. The first section again has two [parts]: first, he explains the purpose; next, he proceeds to the direct refutation. In the first, saying "first refuting the five periods," it is because the first two masters established three and four periods, which are subsumed within the five periods. First, stating the overall purport is finished. Next, from "If it is said..." downward, he successively refutes their five periods, which in itself forms five texts. First, regarding the refutation of the teaching of characteristics within the first twelve years: first, he cites what they established; next, he refutes it. Within the refutation, there are again four [parts]: first, an overall refutation of the first twelve years and of having characteristics; second, from "Furthermore, the Āgamas..." downward, he refutes it solely with emptiness; third, from "Furthermore, after attaining the Way..." downward, he refutes that the first twelve years were solely Hīnayāna; fourth, from "Furthermore..." downward, he refutes it with the intent of the refutations in the Satyasiddhi-śāstra. In the first text, speaking of "the Satyasiddhi-śāstra," etc.: the treatise belongs to the first twelve years, and the treatise text itself clarifies the meaning of emptiness; yet the treatise master classified it as the teaching of characteristics. Is this not to falsely slander his own tradition with 'having [characteristics]' by calling it the teaching of characteristics? Regarding the second text: the Āgamas are precisely the first twelve years, and what is indicated by the Da zhidu lun all clarify the meaning of emptiness—how could they be said to be 'having'? Speaking of "this is old age and death," etc.: as recorded in the sixth fascicle of the Zhiguan. Next, what is pointed out by the treatise, saying "in the Tripiṭaka, clarifying dharma-emptiness is great emptiness": others say the Tripiṭaka permeates both the Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna; why does it belong only to the Hīnayāna? Now we clarify that it is as the Lotus Sūtra says: "Those who are greedily attached to the Hīnayāna and study the Tripiṭaka." Furthermore, throughout the Da zhidu lun, it differentiates Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna by contrasting the Tripiṭaka with the Great Vehicle (vaipulya); therefore, based on this text, the Tripiṭaka is taken as Hīnayāna. If one discusses its common usage, both the Hīnayāna and Great Vehicle gateways have a Tripiṭaka, but this is naturally a general usage, not a specific meaning. If it were solely the general usage, how could one harmonize the Lotus Sūtra and the Da zhidu lun? It is fully clarified in the original root text of the Four Teachings. Therefore, in terms of the explicit teaching, the first twelve years can only be generally called the Tripiṭaka Teaching. Thus one cannot say that one attains the Way by seeing 'existence'; if one only saw 'existence', it would obstruct the other three gateways; therefore, the text provisionally dismantles the view of clinging to 'existence'. Furthermore, according to the indeterminate teaching, the Tripiṭaka Teaching also did not exist solely in the first twelve years: for example, eating the candana mushroom occurred at the time of nirvāṇa, and that event is also within the four Āgamas; Kālodāyin was also likewise. Therefore, the explicit teaching in the first twelve years was definitely only in the Hīnayāna. Within the third, refuting that it was solely Hīnayāna, there are two [parts]: the first text cites the Aṅgulimālīya Sūtra, which is still the Mahāyāna clarifying emptiness and also belongs to the first twelve years. Next, as in the Da zhidu lun, during the twelve years after attaining the Way, the Buddha also taught the Prajñāpāramitā. In the fourth, refuting with the intent of the Satyasiddhi's rebuke, there are three [parts]: first, directly refuting that the teaching becomes a superfluous establishment by means of the treatise master's intent of rebuke. Next, from "Furthermore, Kauṇḍinya..." downward, using those who attained the Way to refute: if attaining the Way is not non-existent, then the teaching becomes signless. Third, from "Furthermore, if..." downward, he breaks down both attaining the Way and signlessness together. This again has three [parts]: first, he refutes that whether the Way is attained or not attained, the teaching is the same as signless and as heterodox views; second, he refutes that if attaining the Way still retains characteristics, the Way also becomes heterodox; third, he concludes by establishing the characteristics of the fault.