法華玄義釋籤 20.6

20.6

○四研詳中二：先釋章名，次「若五時」下正為研詳，次第詳前南三北七所用宗教，尋之可見，不復分節。「全失三門亦失七門」者，以般若中有共不共故，不共雖有別圓不同，且總言之名為「不空」，對共中四以為八門；既但得一，全失共三及不共四，故云「失七」。「此得斥小一種聲聞，全失七種聲聞者」，藏通八門各有聲聞，若斥有相，但斥三藏有門一種，全失餘三及通中四，故云「失七」。「會五」者，五謂人天及三。「不會七」者，「七」謂聲聞支佛各有二故。「永失七術」者，常樂等四及非常非無常等四，總成八術，故知但常唯得八術中之一耳。又「八術」如《止觀》第八記。「二鳥俱遊」者，《大經》第八〈鳥喻品〉云：「善男子！鳥有二種，一名迦鄰提，二名鴛鴦，遊止共俱不相捨離。」此品答前云何共聖行？「娑羅迦鄰提」，舊云「娑羅」是雙、「鄰提」是鳥，然「娑羅」翻堅固，不應云「雙」。或云娑羅一雙，鄰提一雙。或云娑羅一隻，鄰提一隻。引文云「鳥有二種」也。或「娑羅」翻為「鴛鴦」，引證云「問中云娑羅，答中云鴛鴦，類異義同」，故以鴛鴦替於娑羅。或云「娑羅」翻為「天鶴」，引六卷《泥洹》云「雁鶴舍利」。章安云：然漢不善梵音，秖增諍競，意在況喻，取其雌雄共遊止息，譬一中無量、無量中一。問：為凡與聖共、聖與凡共、凡與凡共？他云：若觀常時不識生死無常，若觀生死無常不識涅槃常住，二解不分，如識金不識鍮、識鍮不識金，精識二物是名雙觀；餘三亦爾。凡聖俱然，故云雙遊。此釋違喻，一鳥窮下之生死，一鳥窮高之涅槃，升沈永乖，雙遊何在？又有人約半滿以明雙遊。夫雙遊者，生死涅槃各有常與無常，取生死涅槃中雙常為一雙滿，取生死涅槃中一雙無常為一雙半。今明不爾，兩常俱起乃是二雄，兩無常俱起乃是二雌，亦與喻乖，是故不用。今言雙遊者，生死涅槃中俱有常無常，在下在高雙遊並息，事理相即，二即中、中即二，非二中而二中，事理雌雄義並成也。故此雙遊須約六即，此中具有凡共聖等，如前三句。

Part four, Detailed Examination, has two sections: first, it explains the chapter title; next, from "If the five periods" onward, it engages in the detailed examination proper, consecutively examining the doctrines and tenets used by the three Southern and seven Northern [schools]. This is discernible by consulting [the text] and is not divided further into sub-sections. As for "completely missing the three gates and also missing the seven gates": because in Prajñā there are the shared and unshared, although the unshared has the differences of Separate and Perfect, when spoken of collectively it is named "non-empty," which, matched against the four of the shared, makes eight gates. Since one obtains only one, one completely misses the three of the shared and the four of the unshared; hence it says "missing seven." As for "this can rebuke one kind of voice-hearer of the Small, but completely misses seven kinds of voice-hearers": the eight gates of the Tripiṭaka and Shared teachings each have voice-hearers. If one rebukes possessing characteristics, one only rebukes the single kind belonging to the gate of existence in the Tripiṭaka [teaching], completely missing the other three as well as the four in the Shared; hence it says "missing seven." As for "uniting five": "five" refers to humans, gods, and the three [vehicles]. As for "not uniting seven": "seven" refers to voice-hearers and pratyekabuddhas each having two. As for "eternally losing the seven methods": the four of permanence, bliss, etc., and the four of neither-permanence-nor-impermanence, etc., make eight methods in all; thus we know that with permanence alone one only obtains one of the eight methods. Furthermore, the "eight methods" are as recorded in the eighth fascicle of Zhiguan. As for "two birds flying together": the eighth fascicle of the Great Sūtra, in the "Chapter on the Parable of the Birds," says: "Good sons! There are two kinds of birds: one is called kalaviṅka (jialinti), and the second is the yuanyang (mandarin duck). In flying and resting they are together and never separate." This chapter answers the earlier question: "How does one practice together with the noble?" Regarding "sālakalaviṅka" (suoluo jialinti): old accounts say sāluo means "a pair" and linti means "bird." However, sāluo translates as "firm" (sāra); it should not be rendered "a pair." Some say there is one pair of sāla and one pair of linti. Some say there is a single sāla and a single linti, citing the text which says, "Birds are of two kinds." Some say that sāluo translates as "yuanyang," citing the evidence that "the question mentions sāla, and the answer mentions yuanyang; the categories differ but the meaning is identical," so yuanyang was substituted for sāla. Others say that sāluo translates as "heavenly crane," citing the six-fascicle Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] which says "wild geese, cranes, and śāris." Zhang'an says: However, the people of Han are not skilled in Sanskrit pronunciation and only increase disputes. The intention lies in the metaphor, taking their male and female flying and roosting together as an analogy for immeasurable within the one, and one within the immeasurable. Question: Is it ordinary beings together with the noble, the noble together with ordinary beings, or ordinary beings together with ordinary beings? Another says: If when contemplating permanence one does not recognize the impermanence of birth-and-death, or when contemplating the impermanence of birth-and-death one does not recognize the eternal abiding of nirvāṇa, the two understandings are not distinguished—like knowing gold but not brass, or knowing brass but not gold. Precisely knowing both objects is called dual contemplation; the other three are also like this. It is so for both the ordinary and the noble; hence it is called flying together. This explanation contradicts the metaphor: one bird exhausts the depths of birth-and-death, while one bird exhausts the heights of nirvāṇa; rising and sinking are eternally opposed—where is there flying together? Moreover, someone uses the half and the full to explain flying together: for those who fly together, birth-and-death and nirvāṇa each have permanence and impermanence; taking dual permanence in birth-and-death and nirvāṇa constitutes one pair of the full, and taking one pair of impermanence in birth-and-death and nirvāṇa constitutes one pair of the half. Now we clarify that it is not so: two permanences arising together would be two males, and two impermanences arising together would be two females; this also contradicts the metaphor, and therefore is not adopted. Now when we speak of flying together: within both birth-and-death and nirvāṇa there are permanence and impermanence; in the depths and in the heights they fly together and roost together; phenomena and principle are mutually identical, the two are identical to the middle, the middle is identical to the two, yet neither two nor middle while being both two and middle—the meanings of phenomena and principle, male and female, are both accomplished. Therefore, this flying together must be understood in terms of the six identities; herein it fully contains ordinary beings together with the noble, etc., as in the preceding three phrases.