法華玄義釋籤 20.43

20.43

次「他會通」去會第二義，又二：先古師會，次今會。初又二：先會，次問答釋疑。初文二：初古會，次「然密」下今判。初文中初至「其事難」者，此亦明他會義未周，他亦不知指何為昔？何教二乘不能具破？故但（云云）。然判法華勝般若，此則可然。又準論文言「法華是祕密」者，須知密祕，語同意別，如前云是顯非密，謂非覆隱之密，如前教有二乘發心，不令未發者知，故是覆密。今望般若為密者，此是祕妙之密，般若中無，法華為勝。前已委釋不能重敘，故復（云云）。又他人引論譬者，昔以煩惱生死為毒，今以入生死，不斷煩惱，如用毒為藥，亦不知指何菩薩斷與不斷？又言菩薩是佛因者，如般若中三種菩薩，二教菩薩至果無人，用何菩薩為何佛因？而言易解非祕密耶？具如破光宅中說。又復方等般若中圓，何曾不明二乘作佛？何時不明用毒為藥？但不顯露對二乘說，則名為祕。次今判中，欲辨別意助明祕妙之密，是故顯密通大小等，則大密小顯，故明衍中菩薩斷惑，於密復更以一意直顯，即般若不明二乘作佛，故云「闕此一條」等也。

Next, from "Another reconciliation..." onward, it reconciles the second meaning, which again has two parts: first, the ancient master's reconciliation; second, the present reconciliation. The first further has two: first, the reconciliation; second, questions and answers resolving doubts. The first part has two: first, the ancient reconciliation; next, from "However, secret..." onward, the present evaluation. In the first part, from the beginning up to "that matter is difficult": this also clarifies that the other's reconciliation is not comprehensive in meaning; he also does not know what is pointed to as "the past," or in which teaching the two vehicles could not completely eradicate [afflictions], and therefore he merely says so on and so forth. However, evaluating the Lotus as surpassing Prajñā is indeed acceptable. Moreover, based on the text of the treatise stating that "the Lotus is secret," one must know that for the characters secret (mi) and hidden (bi), the word is the same but the meaning is different. As stated earlier, it is manifest, not secret—meaning it is not the secrecy of concealment; like the previous teaching where there was the bodhicitta aspiration of the two vehicles, which was kept from the knowledge of those who had not aspired, and was therefore concealed and secret. Now, viewed in contrast to Prajñā as secret, this is the secrecy of the subtle secret, which does not exist in Prajñā, so the Lotus is superior. Since this was previously explained in detail, it cannot be recounted again, and is therefore again indicated by so on and so forth. Moreover, when others cite the treatise's analogy—in the past taking affliction and birth-and-death to be poison, and now entering birth-and-death without severing afflictions, like using poison as medicine—they also do not know which bodhisattva's severing and non-severing is being pointed to. Furthermore, regarding the statement that the bodhisattva is the cause of the Buddha: as with the three kinds of bodhisattvas in Prajñā, the bodhisattvas of the two teachings do not have any person reaching the fruit; which bodhisattva is used as the cause of which Buddha? How could one say that being easily understood is non-secret? This is fully as expounded in the refutation of Guangzhai. Furthermore, in the round teaching within the Vaipulya and Prajñā, when did it ever fail to clarify the two vehicles attaining Buddhahood? When did it ever fail to clarify using poison as medicine? It is simply that it was not openly expounded directly to the two vehicles, and is therefore termed "secret." Next, in the present evaluation, wishing to distinguish the separate meaning to assist in clarifying the secret of the subtle secret, therefore manifest and secret apply across Mahāyāna and Hinayāna, etc.; thus the Mahāyāna is secret and the Hinayāna is manifest. Hence it clarifies that bodhisattvas in the Mahāyāna sever delusions, and regarding the secret, it further directly reveals it with a single meaning: namely, that Prajñā does not clarify the two vehicles attaining Buddhahood, which is why it says "lacking this one clause," and so forth.