法華玄義釋籤 3.55

3.55

次跨節中四：先斥當分，次「若開」下立跨節相，三「如此」下結意，四「作如此」下融會。初文又二：初正斥，次「秖隱」下明當分意。立當分者以施權竟，權實相對故有四主，各各不同。故明意者無別當分，秖是隱實施權且云當分。初至「金輝」現當分身也。「不說」下說當分法也。略語身法，餘二略無。「不說甘甜常樂之味，說於醎酢無常辛辣」者，《大經》第四云：「苦為酢味，無常鹹味，無我苦味，樂為甜味，我為辛味，常為淡味；煩惱為薪，智慧為火，以是因緣，成涅槃食。彼破三脩，故但三味，勝劣相對，故成六味，故略不說淨及不淨。」今文從劣，故云「不說甘甜」等也。「棄王者服飾」重語隱妙現麁，亦與前隱功德現丈六意同。如窮子見父豪貴尊嚴等，無量功德莊嚴纓珞為王者服飾，當知秖是一種身口行理更無別途。今棄此服飾，即當分義施權意也。言「糞器」者，生滅道品。「若開方便」下正明跨節相，此句總開。即向身向法向行等者，指前方便身口行理等也。三結意中歷三意結，初言「通是一音之教，而小大差別」者，今此是法華跨節一音，不同小乘當分一音，具如《止觀》第一記。故依《婆沙》但三藏佛一音耳。準例通別，皆應有當分一音。前當分義中分四教主，各有所說所行理體，故義易解。理無種種，何故四教各有所詮？所詮異故理不應異，故云難融。跨節義中不分四教各別詮理，故云易明。諸經所說因果各別，今越彼別義唯論一理，故相難解。若二義相成則理相俱易，若二義隔越則二俱難明，是故二義相須，當分乃成今經相待義邊，跨節乃成今經開權義邊。又若方等般若及華嚴等當分義者，仍是施權；若來至法華，當分義邊成判權實，判已即廢，廢已即開，開廢相即不可異時。

Next, in overarching transcendence, there are four [parts]: first, it rejects intrinsic purview; next, beginning with "If opened," it establishes the characteristics of overarching transcendence; third, beginning with "Like this," it concludes the meaning; fourth, beginning with "Making such," it reconciles. The first passage also has two [parts]: first, it correctly rejects; next, beginning with "Merely concealing," it clarifies the intention of intrinsic purview. Those who establish intrinsic purview do so because the provision of expedients is complete, and relative to the provisional and real, there are four masters, each different. Therefore, clarifying the intention means there is no separate intrinsic purview; it is merely concealing the real and providing the expedient that is provisionally termed intrinsic purview. From the beginning up to "golden radiance" presents the body of intrinsic purview. Beginning with "not preaching" preaches the dharma of intrinsic purview. It briefly speaks of body and dharma, the other two being omitted for brevity. Regarding "not preaching the sweet, permanent, and blissful flavor, but preaching the salty, sour, impermanent, and pungent": the fourth fascicle of the *Great Sūtra* says, "Suffering is the sour flavor, impermanence the salty flavor, non-self the bitter flavor, bliss the sweet flavor, self the pungent flavor, and permanence the bland flavor; defilements are firewood, and wisdom is fire—by this cause and condition the food of nirvāṇa is perfected. That [passage] refutes the three cultivations, hence there are only three flavors; with superior and inferior contrasted, they make six flavors; hence it briefly omits the pure and impure." The present text follows the inferior, and hence says "not preaching the sweet," etc. "Discarding the royal robes and ornaments" speaks again of concealing the subtle and manifesting the coarse, which also shares the same intent as the earlier concealing of merits to manifest the sixteen-foot body. Just as the impoverished son sees the father's magnificent and dignified stature, the ornaments of immeasurable meritorious adornments are the royal garments; one should know that this is merely a single body, speech, practice, and principle, with no separate path. Now discarding these garments is the intention of providing expedients in the meaning of intrinsic purview. Regarding "vessels for dung": these are the arising-and-perishing factors of awakening. Beginning with "If one opens the expedients," it directly clarifies the characteristics of overarching transcendence; this sentence opens them generally. "Namely the previous body, previous dharma, previous practice, etc.," points to the previous body, speech, practice, and principle of the expedients. In the third [part], concluding the meaning, it concludes across the three meanings; first, where it says, "Commonly it is the teaching of a single voice, yet there are differences of small and great": this present one is the single voice of overarching transcendence in the *Lotus Sūtra*, unlike the single voice of intrinsic purview in the Hinayana, fully as in the first record of the *Zhiguan*. Therefore, relying on the *Mahāvibhāṣā*, it is only the single voice of the Buddha of the Tripiṭaka Teaching. By analogy to the Shared and Separate, all should have a single voice of intrinsic purview. In the previous meaning of intrinsic purview, it distinguished the four masters of the teachings, each possessing that which is preached, that which is practiced, and the principle-essence; hence the meaning is easy to understand. Principle is without diversity; why then does each of the four teachings have its own expression? Because the expressions are different, principle should not be different, and hence it is called difficult to reconcile. In the meaning of overarching transcendence, it does not distinguish the four teachings as each separately expressing the principle, and hence it is called easy to clarify. The causes and fruits preached in the various sūtras are each distinct; now, transcending those separate meanings, it discusses only the single principle, and hence the characteristics are difficult to understand. If the two meanings accomplish each other, then principle and characteristics are both easy; if the two meanings are separated and disjointed, then both are difficult to clarify. Therefore, the two meanings are mutually required: intrinsic purview becomes the aspect of the relative meaning of the present sūtra, while overarching transcendence becomes the aspect of the meaning of opening the provisional of the present sūtra. Furthermore, if it is the meaning of intrinsic purview in the Vaipulya, Prajñā, and *Avataṃsaka*, etc., it is still the provision of expedients; if it comes to the *Lotus Sūtra*, the aspect of the meaning of intrinsic purview becomes the evaluation of the provisional and real: once evaluated, they are discarded; once discarded, they are opened; opening and discarding are identical, and cannot be at different times.