法華玄義釋籤 4.32

4.32

正釋中，先例通別二門，次依門解釋。初通門中文自列二妙，次釋。釋中二：先略敘二意，次正釋。初文又二：初正敘，次破古。初文者，既云此經當知妙題兼此二義，故使今釋諸妙以二冠初，故迹門十妙，一一妙中開多科目，無不二釋。言「更無非待非絕」等者，理性實是非待非絕，秖向待絕約理論二，不同雙非二邊更有中道之理。恐有人疑，應更別有雙非待絕之理？故便釋云「文理俱無」，此待絕理，已破無明、已顯中道，故知雙非無復所顯，故云破何惑等。次破古中牒前破意，以前教中有麁有妙，故知光宅破昔意謬如前。

In the direct explanation, first the two gates of shared and distinct are introduced by analogy, and next the explanation proceeds according to the gates. Under the first, the shared gate, the text itself lists the two subtleties, and next explains them. In the explanation, there are two parts: first, a brief recounting of the two meanings; second, the direct explanation. The first part also has two: first, the direct recounting; second, refuting the ancients. In the first part: since it is said that in this sūtra one should know that the subtle title embraces these two meanings, this causes the present explanation of the various subtleties to head the beginning with these two; therefore, in the ten subtleties of the Trace Gate, each subtle section opens up many sub-headings, and none is without this twofold explanation. As for the statement "There is no non-relative and non-absolute": the nature of principle is indeed neither relative nor absolute, but only in facing the relative and absolute is the two spoken of with respect to principle; it is not like the double negation of the two extremes where there is still another principle of the middle path. Fearing that someone might suspect there should additionally be another separate principle of the double negation of relative and absolute, it therefore immediately explains: "In both text and principle there is neither." These principles of relative and absolute have already destroyed ignorance and already manifested the middle path; thus we know that the double negation has nothing further to manifest, which is why it asks what delusion is destroyed, and so forth. Next, in refuting the ancients, it takes up the preceding intent of refutation: because there is coarse and subtle in the earlier teachings, we know that Guangzhai's refutation of the ancient intent was erroneous, as explained before.