法華玄義釋籤 20.42

20.42

初文為四：初料簡般若與法華以辨同異，二明經論諸藏離合，三明四教名義所憑，四破古五時七階不同。初文二：先難，次「有人」下會通。初文者，初列經文竟，次結問云此三種云何通者？一者據會宗大明似般若勝於法華，二者據第百卷則法華勝於般若，三者但是異名則似二經齊等。一論三文似如相反，云何會通？次會通中但會前二不會第三，以會前二知同異故。於前二中先會般若勝，次會法華勝。初文二：先引他會，次明今會。初他會中二：先會，次問答釋疑。初文三：初義立二慧，次「又般若」下引證，三「善眾經」下結勝。初又二：先立，次「般若」下結。結中云「謂盛明此二」者，謂自契無相及以化物，自行為實、化物為權，般若盛明權實二慧，此乃通方未足申於般若為勝。次引證中先引第一義悉檀意，次一部以明二慧，與難意同此意未顯。次釋疑中問如文。答大品最初專明此二，故當名耳。「今謂」去章安破，先斥云「還是大論文」者，前之三文既有相違，還引論語，何名會通？故於諸經法華為最。從「會通者」去章安會通，但語般若部中有不共理，則所引三文理自無違。何者？不共般若攝一切法，何妨法華亦入其中。法華開顯無非一切種智，此則初義無違，雖同種智般若，不明二乘作佛，此則第二義無違。般若秖是種智，種智不過權實，妙法秖是開權顯實，況五佛章門皆是種智？故知名異意義不殊，此則第三義無違。

The first section has four parts: first, examining and discerning Prajñā and the Lotus to distinguish their sameness and difference; second, explaining the separation and combination of the various storehouses in the sūtras and treatises; third, explaining what the names and meanings of the four teachings are based upon; fourth, refuting the differences in the old theories of the five periods and seven stages. The first part has two: first, an objection; second, from "Someone says..." onward, the reconciling explanation. As for the first part: first, it finishes citing the passages of the treatise, and then concludes with the question, asking: "How are these three reconciled?" The first is that, according to the great illumination of synthesizing the tenets, it seems Prajñā surpasses the Lotus. The second is that, according to the hundredth fascicle, then the Lotus surpasses Prajñā. The third is that they are merely different names, so it seems the two sūtras are equal. Three passages in a single treatise seem to be mutually contradictory; how are they to be reconciled? Next, within the reconciling explanation, it only reconciles the first two and does not reconcile the third, because by reconciling the first two, one knows sameness and difference. Within the first two, it first reconciles Prajñā's superiority, and next reconciles the Lotus's superiority. The first part has two: first, citing another's reconciliation; next, clarifying the present reconciliation. Within the first, another's reconciliation, there are two: first, the reconciliation; next, questions and answers resolving doubts. The first part has three: first, theoretically establishing the two types of wisdom; next, from "Moreover, Prajñā..." onward, citing proof; third, from "Expert in the various sūtras..." onward, concluding its superiority. The first further has two: first, establishing it; next, from "Prajñā..." onward, concluding it. In the conclusion, regarding the statement "meaning it abundantly clarifies these two": this means self-realization of the signless and converting beings—self-practice being the real, and converting beings being the expedient; Prajñā abundantly clarifies the two wisdoms of expedient and real. This is merely a broad principle, insufficient to demonstrate that Prajñā is superior. Next, in citing proof, it first cites the intention of the supreme truth siddhānta, and next cites the entire work to clarify the two wisdoms; this is identical with the intention of the objection, and this meaning has not yet been made clear. Next, in resolving doubts, the question is as in the text. The answer is that the Large Perfection of Wisdom Sūtra at the very beginning exclusively clarifies these two, hence it corresponds to the name. From "I now consider..." onward, Zhang'an refutes it, first censuring it by saying: "It is still a passage from the Great Treatise"; since the previous three passages are already contradictory, how can citing the words of the treatise again be called a reconciliation? Therefore, among the various sūtras, the Lotus is supreme. From "As for reconciling them..." onward, Zhang'an reconciles them: if one simply speaks of the unshared principle within the Prajñā section, then among the three passages cited, the principle is naturally free from contradiction. Why? Unshared Prajñā subsumes all dharmas; what prevents the Lotus from also entering into it? The opening and revealing of the Lotus is nothing other than the knowledge of all aspects (sarvākārajñatā); thus the first meaning is free from contradiction. Although sharing the knowledge of all aspects, Prajñā does not clarify the two vehicles attaining Buddhahood; thus the second meaning is free from contradiction. Prajñā is simply the knowledge of all aspects, and the knowledge of all aspects is nothing more than expedient and real; the Wonderful Dharma is simply opening the expedient and revealing the real; furthermore, the chapters on the five Buddhas are all the knowledge of all aspects. Therefore one knows that the names are different but the meaning is not distinct; thus the third meaning is free from contradiction.