法華玄義釋籤 4.31

4.31

次釋妙者，今一家釋義名通義別蓋是常譚。又更略引小乘名通，以示其相，如《中含》第三，諸比丘歎舍利子所說妙中之妙，然舍利子但說事中行忍，是巧方便不損他境，名妙中妙。又四十三，佛告諸比丘，莫求欲樂極下賤法為凡夫行；亦莫自苦，苦非聖行，離此二邊則有中道成於眼智，歷一切法，皆悉如是。又四十九，歷一切法皆云不空。又《婆沙》中「問佛何故說四諦為食？答：為滿法身。如村落食但養人身，故禪中善根能養法身。」豈以如是妙中之妙中道不空法身等名能定法體，是故須以名下之義而簡別之。今尚不取別教教道通教含中，況三藏教離斷常中及阿含中離苦樂中等耶？又約部者，尚不取帶二對三兼一之中，況但空偏假而為妙耶？又約本門，尚不取中間今日相待絕待，況復今日兼帶妙耶？下去例然。

Next, in explaining "subtle" (miao): our school's explaining the meaning as having shared names and distinct meanings is a customary discourse. Moreover, to briefly cite the Hinayāna to illustrate that the name is shared and show its characteristics: for example, in the third roll of the Madhyama-āgama, the bhikṣus praise what Śāriputra spoke of as the "subtle among the subtle"; yet Śāriputra was merely speaking of practicing forbearance in phenomenal matters—that this is skillful means which does not harm the realm of others—and named it the subtle among the subtle. Again, in roll forty-three, the Buddha told the bhikṣus: "Do not seek sensual pleasures, which are extremely vile dharmas and the conduct of ordinary mortals; nor inflict suffering upon yourselves, for suffering is not noble conduct. Departing from these two extremes, there is the middle path that brings about eye and wisdom; passing through all dharmas, it is entirely like this." Again, in roll forty-nine, passing through all dharmas, they are all called "not empty". Again, in the Vibhāṣā: "Question: Why did the Buddha say that the four truths are food? Answer: To fulfill the dharma body. Just as food of the villages only nourishes the human body, the good roots in dhyāna are able to nourish the dharma body." How could such names as "the subtle among the subtle", "the middle path", "not empty", and "the dharma body" determine the substance of the dharma? Therefore, one must distinguish them by the meaning beneath the name. Now we do not even accept the teaching-path of the Separate Teaching or the Shared Teaching's inclusion of the middle, much less the Tripiṭaka Teaching's middle of departing from annihilation and permanence, or the Āgamas' middle of departing from suffering and pleasure. Furthermore, in terms of the divisions [of sūtras], we do not even accept the middle that carries two, confronts three, and combines one; how much less taking mere emptiness or biased provisionality to be subtle! Furthermore, in terms of the Origin Gate, we do not even accept the relative and absolute of the intermediate period and the present day; how much less the combined and carried subtle of the present day! Below, all cases are analogous to this.