法華玄義釋籤 19.42

19.42

次難常宗，指涅槃，於中為二：先以八術並難，次「彼云」下重述彼救重破。又五：初述計；次「宗則」下重破其宗，教真不真等不應別立；三「彼引楞伽」下破其謬引失意；四「若爾」下以因緣假名為例；五「覆却」下結難。初文言「彼云誑相不真宗」等者，彼云四宗家自判云，不真宗是通教，常宗是真宗，彼依《楞伽》作如此判，具如下引。今以真不真及宗教有無却覆並決，令二名齊等，使宗必有教、教必有宗，教是能詮、宗是所詮，必互相有，不可孤然。既無此義，當知汝之所立真及不真亦須互有，既不別立其名便齊，何須別立宗教二耶？說大意竟。更重消文，從初至「者」字，有二十二字，先述彼定計二宗，次從「宗則」下重破中，初至用教二句有十五字，難其不真不合無宗。從「真宗」去至「立宗」有九字，難其有宗不合無教。次從「宗若」去至「知真」有八字，重徵其無教之失，宗為所詮，教為能詮，真宗既無能詮之教，如何得知所詮之真？次從「真宗若沒」去至「通教」，有十二字，以真却並不真，若使真宗還例不真無宗有教，則真與不真同名通教。次從「若俱沒教」去至「通宗」，有十一字，復以不真却並於真，若使不真還例於真無教有宗，則真與不真同名通宗。次從「若俱安」去至「宗教」有一十字，立理難其宗教合俱，若真與不真俱有教有宗，則真與不真俱名通宗及教。次從「若留」去至「宗教」有十六字，以真不真却覆並難宗之與教，宗教既等，不應復分真不真別，是則宗教之上俱有真與不真，真與不真既同，宗之與教復等，是則但成一句，謂通不真真宗教。文中似開為兩句者，為開次文，難勢未畢，故云「通不真宗教」、「通真宗教」。次從「通不真宗」去至「脩也」，有二十一字，以法却覆難其行人，法既一例俱有教宗，人不合分大小之別。若言不真通三乘人，真宗亦應通三乘人。亦應更覆並云，真既獨教菩薩之人，不真亦應獨教菩薩。亦應更並云，三乘通有真與不真，如何輒分宗教等別？次「若言」去至「真也」，有十九字，縱難也。借使真宗是融通之通，亦不應獨無教而立宗也。通教亦是通宗之真，豈得無宗而立於教？從「此則」下總結宗教二義既其齊等，真不真名亦皆混同。三從「彼引」去出其謬引，所憑便成不曉教旨。彼經明於三乘共位，即簡二乘，名為「童蒙」。說秖是教，以教通故，不隔童蒙，故云「說通兼教童蒙」，雖通童蒙，宗在菩薩，是故宗通本教菩薩。教是能詮，何故立云真宗無教？兼被於小則童蒙有教，何故立云無宗但教？彼人不知三乘之真兼空不空，不空復有教證兩別，他不見此，望聲釋義，徒分宗教，失旨逾深。四從「若爾」去例難。且依彼立，以難因緣假名二宗，同成不真；若更並決，亦應準前，故云「不便」。

Next is the refutation of the Eternal School, referring to the [Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra], which has two parts: first, refuting it collectively with the eight techniques; second, from "They say" onward, restating their defense and refuting it again. This also has five parts: first, stating their assertion; second, from "The school then" onward, refuting their school again, showing that teaching, true, untrue, and so forth ought not to be established separately; third, from "Their citation of the Laṅkāvatāra" onward, refuting their erroneous citation and missing of the meaning; fourth, from "If so" onward, taking the [schools of] causes-and-conditions and nominal designations as a precedent; fifth, from "Inverting and reversing" onward, concluding the refutation. In the first part, the statement "They say that the deceptive-characteristics untrue school..." means that the masters of the four schools themselves determine that the Untrue School is the Shared Teaching and the Eternal School is the True School; they make this determination relying on the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, as cited in full below. Now, by inverting, reversing, and resolving together [the categories of] true and untrue, and the presence or absence of school and teaching, we make the two terms completely equal, ensuring that a school must have a teaching and a teaching must have a school. The teaching is that which expresses, and the school is that which is expressed; they must mutually co-exist and cannot stand alone. Since this principle does not hold, one should know that your established "true" and "untrue" must also mutually co-exist; since they are not established separately, their designations are equal, so why separately establish the two of school and teaching? This finishes explaining the general meaning. To explain the text again in detail: from the beginning to the word "zhe" (者), there are twenty-two characters, which first describe their fixed assertion of the two schools. Next, in the renewed refutation from "The school then" onward, the first part up to "uses teaching" consists of two sentences and fifteen characters, challenging that the untrue should not be devoid of a school. From "True School" down to "establishes a school", there are nine characters, challenging that having a school should not be devoid of a teaching. Next, from "If the school" down to "know the true", there are eight characters, examining again the error of lacking a teaching: the school is that which is expressed, and the teaching is that which expresses; since the True School lacks the expressing teaching, how can one know the expressed true? Next, from "If the True School is submerged" down to "Shared Teaching", there are twelve characters, which match the true with the untrue: if the True School were also to follow the precedent of the untrue in lacking a school and having a teaching, then both the true and the untrue would equally be called the Shared Teaching. Next, from "If both submerge the teaching" down to "Shared School", there are eleven characters, which again match the untrue with the true: if the untrue were also to follow the precedent of the true in lacking a teaching and having a school, then both the true and the untrue would equally be called the Shared School. Next, from "If both establish" down to "school and teaching", there are ten characters, setting up the reasoning to challenge their having both school and teaching: if both the true and the untrue have both teaching and school, then both the true and the untrue are equally called the shared school and teaching. Next, from "If retaining" down to "school and teaching", there are sixteen characters, which, by inverting and reversing the true and the untrue, collectively challenge both school and teaching: since school and teaching are equal, one should no longer distinguish the true from the untrue; thus above school and teaching there are both the true and the untrue, and since the true and the untrue are identical, and school and teaching are also equal, this merely forms a single sentence, namely "shared untrue and true school and teaching". The text appears to divide into two sentences only to open up the subsequent text; because the thrust of the challenge is not yet finished, it says "shared untrue school and teaching" and "shared true school and teaching". Next, from "shared untrue school" down to "cultivate", there are twenty-one characters, which use the Dharma to inversely challenge their practitioners: since the Dharma uniformly has both teaching and school, practitioners should not be divided into the distinction between the Great and Small [Vehicles]. If one says the untrue is shared by the practitioners of the three vehicles, the True School should also be shared by the practitioners of the three vehicles. One should also inversely match them, saying: since the true exclusively teaches people who are bodhisattvas, the untrue should also exclusively teach bodhisattvas. One should also match them further, saying: the three vehicles universally have the true and the untrue, so how can one arbitrarily distinguish differences between school and teaching? Next, from "If one says" down to "true", there are nineteen characters, which is a concessionary challenge. Even if the True School were the "shared" of pervasive fusion, it still should not exclusively lack a teaching while establishing a school. The Shared Teaching is also the true of the shared school; how could it lack a school while establishing a teaching? From "This then" onward, it concludes that since the two meanings of school and teaching are equal, the designations of true and untrue are also thoroughly conflated. Third, from "Their citation" onward, it points out their erroneous citation: that which they rely upon turns out to show their ignorance of the teaching's import. That sūtra explains the common stages of the three vehicles and isolates the two vehicles, naming them "the childish and ignorant". "Exposition" is simply teaching; because the teaching is shared, it does not exclude the childish and ignorant; hence it says "the shared exposition additionally teaches the childish and ignorant". Although it is shared with the childish and ignorant, its essential aim lies with the bodhisattvas; therefore, the shared essential aim originally teaches bodhisattvas. Teaching is that which expresses; why establish that the True School has no teaching? In additionally covering the small, the childish and ignorant have teaching; why establish that there is no school, but only teaching? Those people do not know that the truth of the three vehicles encompasses both emptiness and non-emptiness, and non-emptiness further has the two distinctions of teaching and realization. Others do not see this; explaining the meaning based on mere words, they vainly divide school and teaching, straying ever deeper from the intended import. Fourth, from "If so" onward, it makes a challenge by analogy: taking their assertion for the moment, it challenges the two schools of causes-and-conditions and nominal designations as equally becoming untrue; if one were to match and resolve them further, it would also follow the previous [logic], hence it is said to be "inappropriate".