法華玄義釋籤 2.89

2.89

次文又四：先引三論，次引兩經，三「何者」下責失，四「若欲」下示得。初文《大論》四句評聞慧者，具如《止觀》第一記。此四句中具舉得失，第三句得，餘三並失。次引《百論》單引兩失。云「百論有盲跛」等者，《百論》「外人計云：若神無觸身不能到，如盲跛二人相假能到。內破曰：盲跛二觸二思惟故是故能到，身神無二故不能到。」今借喻邊相假能到，不取所計神我及身。今言盲而不跛如有行無解，跛而不盲如有解無行，若解行具足猶如二全。次引牟子雙失顯得，云「牟子有說行之義」者，如《止觀》第一記。以此二喻例釋《大論》四句，可知。次引《華嚴》及今經，可知。次「何者」下責失中以言教之風吹無室之燈，室如定也。照於理境諸法不了，且略舉一慢應具足諸惑，執妙教之刃、傷智照之手。若但暗證觀心之人起增上慢，前是我慢與此中別，抱暗證之炬、燒勝定之手。「若欲」下示得，為二：先示，次結。初文先略示，次釋六即。「脩心」下結，又二：初結、次益。眼明慧聞隔字為對，所益蓋廣，何得不以觀解五章之文，令眼智具耶？

The second text again has four parts: first, citing three treatises; next, citing two sūtras; third, from "Why is this?" downward, reproaching faults; fourth, from "If one desires..." downward, demonstrating attainment. In the first text, the four lines of the Da zhidu lun evaluating wisdom gained from hearing are fully as in the first record of the Zhiguan. Within these four lines, gains and losses are fully set forth: the third line is gain, and the remaining three are all losses. Next, citing the Śata-śāstra (Bailun), it solely cites two losses. Regarding "The Śata-śāstra has the blind and the lame..." and so on, the Śata-śāstra states: "The outsider posits: If the spirit has no contact, the body cannot reach; like two persons, one blind and one lame, relying on each other they can reach. The Buddhist refutes: Because the blind and the lame have two contacts and two intentions, they can reach; the body and spirit are not two, therefore they cannot reach." Here, borrowing the metaphorical aspect that relying on each other they can reach, one does not accept the posited spirit-self and body. Here, "blind but not lame" is like having practice without understanding; "lame but not blind" is like having understanding without practice; if understanding and practice are complete, it is like both being whole. Next, citing Mouzi, both losses are stated to reveal attainment; regarding "Mouzi has the meaning of speech and practice," it is as in the first record of the Zhiguan. Using these two similes to explain the four lines of the Da zhidu lun by analogy, it can be understood. Next, citing the Avataṃsaka and the present sūtra, it can be understood. Next, from "Why is this?" downward, reproaching faults: blowing out the lamp without a room with the wind of verbal teachings—the room is like concentration (samādhi). Illuminating the realm of principle, all dharmas are not comprehended; briefly bringing up one instance of arrogance, it should fully include all delusions: grasping the blade of the wonderful teaching, one wounds the hand of wisdom's illumination. If one who only has dark realization in contemplating the mind gives rise to excessive pride—the former was arrogance (māna), which is distinct from this—embracing the torch of dark realization, one burns the hand of superior concentration. From "If one desires..." downward, demonstrating attainment has two parts: first, demonstrating; next, concluding. In the first text, it first demonstrates briefly, and next explains the six identities. From "Cultivating the mind..." downward is the conclusion, which again has two parts: first, concluding; next, the benefits. Clear eyes and hearing wisdom form a contrast across words; what is benefited is exceedingly vast; how could one not use the contemplation and understanding of the text of the five chapters to cause eye and wisdom to be complete?