[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [法華玄義釋籤](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1717) › 3.58 # 法華玄義釋籤 3.58 法華玄義釋籤 3.58 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.58](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1717.3.58) 四融通者，秖緣前後無乖，故解釋中則從義便，故知前後並不乖理。舊解中二：初出諸師，次今家難。初文中前三師大師不破者，以下文云「餘者望風故」也。若欲薄知得失者，例光宅意破，無非不遣。如道場觀云：三非真實。不知何教之三為非真實？既不知三外別有菩薩，歸一與無上，顯妙未彰。若引今經以證妙者，理稍可然，其如所證，無妙可論，餘皆不了。「無上故妙」者，引經「是乘微妙，清淨第一」，具足應云於諸世間為無有上。有本無第三句。并前二句，方可證無上故妙也。又云「寄言譚於像外」等者，意云：妙理無形言譚託像，寄有形言以譚像表，像表為妙，有形為麁，但像表之理精麁是亡，亡精麁故故名為妙。亦不知像表絕精絕麁為何所詣？引經文證義亦如前。「會稽基」即法華寺基也。言「表同」者，不知昔何教三為異，表會何教令同？亦不知指何為昔三因？故亦令妙不成。北地師三，意趣亦爾。三師之三並不出光宅之見，故云「望風」。如順風破陣，陣首既破，餘者望風。次光宅師者，所感天華志公尚云嚙蚤。武帝欲請雨，問志公。志公云：雲能致雨。便請雲公講《法華經》，至其雨普等四方俱下，降雨便足。又雲法師未生之前有人於水中得《法華疏》，題云「寄與雲法師」，廣如別傳。感應若斯猶不稱理，況他人乎？驗靈山親承理無差忒，然三師稍同光宅，而不及光宅菩薩用三僧祇，故知光宅有三可會，但無一可歸，無一可歸故破不成妙，指昔通漫故破麁非麁，所以招於二十四難，良有以也。 > Fourth, regarding the harmonization: simply because the sequence does not conflict, in the explanation one then follows the convenience of the meaning; hence one knows that neither before nor after conflicts with principle. In the old interpretations there are two \[parts\]: first, the various masters are brought forward; next, our school refutes them. In the first passage, as for why the Great Master does not refute the first three masters: it is because the later text says, "the others flee at the mere wind of it." If one wishes to have a slight understanding of their merits and flaws: following the analogy of refuting the view of Guangzhai, none fail to be dispelled. For example, Daocangguan said: the three are not real. But he did not know the three of which teaching are not real. Since he did not know that outside the three there is separately a bodhisattva, returning to the one and the unexcelled, the revelation of the subtle was not manifested. If he cited the present sūtra to prove the subtle, the principle might be somewhat acceptable; yet as for what was proved, there was no subtlety that could be discussed, and the rest were all non-definitive. Regarding "subtle because of being unexcelled": citing the sūtra's "this vehicle is subtle, pure, and foremost," in full it should say, "in all worlds it is unexcelled." Some editions lack the third phrase. Together with the previous two phrases, it can only then prove "subtle because of being unexcelled." Again, where it says "resorting to words to speak outside of images," etc.: the idea is that the subtle principle is formless, and words and speech rely on images; resorting to visible words to speak of what is beyond images, what is beyond images is subtle, while what has form is coarse; but in the principle beyond images, fine and coarse are both eliminated, and because fine and coarse are eliminated, it is called subtle. Nor did he know where eliminating the fine and eliminating the coarse ultimately leads. The sūtra passage cited to prove the meaning is also as before. "Ji of Kuaiji" is Fayun of Fahua Temple. Regarding "signifying sameness": he did not know the three of which former teaching were different, and which teaching was signified and unified to make them the same; nor did he know what was designated as the former three causes; hence he also caused the subtle to fail to be established. The intent of the three masters of the Northern Region was also like this. The "three" of these three masters did not go beyond Guangzhai's view, and hence it says "flee at the mere wind." Like routing an army in the direction of the wind: once the vanguard is broken, the rest flee at the mere wind of it. Next, as for Master Guangzhai: regarding the heavenly flowers he moved, Master Zhi even called them biting fleas. When Emperor Wu wished to pray for rain, he asked Master Zhi. Master Zhi said: Yun can bring rain. He then invited Master Yun to lecture on the \*Lotus Sūtra\*; when it came to the rain falling universally from all four quarters, the rainfall was sufficient. Moreover, before Master Yun was born, someone obtained a commentary on the \*Lotus Sūtra\* from the water, with the title saying, "Sent to Dharma Master Yun," as explained extensively in his Separate Biography. If one with such supranormal responses still did not accord with principle, how much less so others! This verifies that receiving it personally on Vulture Peak has no error in principle. However, while the three masters were somewhat similar to Guangzhai, they did not match Guangzhai's bodhisattva using three asaṃkhyeyas; hence one knows that Guangzhai had three that could be unified, but had no one to return to. Because there was no one to return to, his refutation did not accomplish the subtle; because he referred to the past vaguely, his refutation of the coarse was not truly the coarse. Therefore, that he incurred twenty-four objections was truly with good reason. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.57](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1717.3.57) - [Next: 3.59](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1717.3.59) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1717.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1717~en-mt.3.58) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1717.3.58](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1717.3.58) · Pramāṇa