法華玄義釋籤 4.33

4.33

次正釋中自二：先待、次絕。初待中二：先釋、次問答料簡。初文又三：初總敘來意，次正釋，三「妙義」下結意。初文意者，今家即以三教為滿，故對三藏為半簡之。「亦是常無常」等者，大小可爾，常等仍含，以通教遠，能通常理故，故且對藏以為無常；餘例可知。次正釋中即以鹿苑對後三味中三教為滿，下文以涅槃在法華前者，以同味故前後無殊。又欲以今經顯獨妙，故在後明之。「淨名滿中云說法」等者，具如《淨名疏》、《止觀》第一記略釋。次「般若云於閻浮提見第二法輪轉」者，《大品》十二「諸天子云：我於閻浮提見第二法輪轉，是中無量百千諸天子得無生忍。」乃至方等法華亦望鹿苑以為初轉。次明今經，如文。所以重敘前諸經者，明今經相待不應對三教文，亦且同諸教所待故，亦指鹿苑而為所待。結中意者，一往以所待之麁，對圓為能待之妙，諸味不殊，與法華何別？故須更有料簡釋疑。於中有兩重問答，先約法，次約譬。初約法中，先問者，如上釋，不應法華獨稱為妙。答中二：初總責，次別答。初總責云「今亦不尅教定時」者，但云從通教去且名為滿，亦不尅定通別圓中俱取三教，生蘇已去的取一時，那忽難云齊方等來滿理無殊？又更與之，故云「縱令爾者別有所以」。從「何者」下別答，中三：先釋，次引證，三判麁妙。初釋中二：先約機，次約教。初約機中又三：先總立利鈍二機，次歷味分別，三「此妙」下判同異。初言「利根」者，即圓別也。二乘之人及通菩薩即此以論方便，別教雖帶地前方便處處得入，是故此等更須生熟二蘇調之，故此二味復名「方便」。云「方等帶生蘇論妙以待麁」者，二乘鈍根於方等中得生蘇益，帶此益故以論圓妙；熟蘇比說。今經既無方便，故判文中今經與諸經雖同名滿，帶不帶異故復不同。次約教者，既並云「門」故知是教，可見。次引論證中雙證機教，為說即教、弟子是機。不生不滅帶不帶等已如前簡，故註「云云」。「中論偈云云」者，不能列名，直釋其義證利鈍根意，初句為鈍，餘三為利，亦且一往，故「云云」耳。三判中還以論偈意判初句對析故云「不即」；此析拙故，故名為「麁」。「若能即空」去釋下三句。初且通舉，言此即空能通中道為中方便。次從「通中方便」去釋通別菩薩，雖能通中以帶麁故，故總名麁。通教中根帶於即空、下根帶假，別教亦然，是故皆麁。言「直通」者，空即假中，是故名妙。此亦是判未得名開，開無復麁，空假皆妙。

Next, within the direct explanation, there are two parts: first, relative; next, absolute. In the first, the relative, there are two: first, the explanation; next, questions and answers with analysis. The first part also has three: first, a general recounting of the reason for its coming; next, the direct explanation; third, concluding the meaning under "the meaning of subtle". The intention of the first part is that our school takes the three teachings to be complete (full), and so discriminates them as opposed to the Tripiṭaka as half. Regarding "also permanent and impermanent": for the Great and Small it is permissible, but permanence and the like are still implicit; because the Shared Teaching is remote yet capable of penetrating the principle of permanence, it is provisionally set against the Tripiṭaka as impermanent; the rest can be known by analogy. In the direct explanation, the Deer Park is set against the three teachings in the subsequent three flavors as complete. That the text below places the Nirvāṇa prior to the Lotus is because their flavors are identical, so their sequence makes no difference. Furthermore, wishing to use the present sūtra to manifest the solitary subtle, it is therefore explained afterward. In "The Vimalakīrti says in the complete that expounding the Dharma...", it is briefly explained as in the Commentary on the Vimalakīrti and the first record of the Zhiguan. Next, in "The Prajñā says: 'In Jambudvīpa I see the second turning of the wheel of the Dharma'": in the twelfth roll of the Large Sūtra, "The devaputras say: 'In Jambudvīpa I see the second turning of the wheel of the Dharma; herein immeasurable hundreds of thousands of devaputras attain the forbearance of the non-arising of dharmas.'" And so forth, extending to the Vaipulya and Lotus Sūtras which also look back upon the Deer Park as the initial turning. Next, the explanation of the present sūtra is as in the text. The reason for recounting the preceding sūtras again is to clarify that the relative of the present sūtra should not be opposed to the texts of the three teachings, but is also provisionally identical to what is contrasted with by the various teachings; thus it also points to the Deer Park as what is contrasted. As for the intention in the conclusion: summarily taking the coarse of what is contrasted against the perfect as the subtle that contrasts, the various flavors are not different; what difference then is there from the Lotus Sūtra? Therefore, there must be further analysis to resolve doubts. Therein are two sets of questions and answers: first in terms of dharma, next in terms of metaphor. In the first, in terms of dharma, first the question: as explained above, the Lotus Sūtra alone should not be called subtle. In the answer there are two: first, a general reproach; next, a distinct answer. In the general reproach, saying "Now we also do not rigidly determine the teaching to a fixed time": it merely states that from the Shared Teaching onward it is provisionally called complete, nor does it rigidly determine that among the Shared, Separate, and Perfect, all take the three teachings, or that from the fresh butter onward it definitely takes a single period; how could one suddenly object that since the Vaipulya onward the complete principle is without difference? Furthermore, conceding this to him, it says: "Even if it were so, there is a distinct reason." In the distinct answer from "Why?" onward, there are three parts: first, explanation; next, citing proof; third, judging coarse and subtle. In the first explanation, there are two parts: first in terms of capacity; next in terms of teaching. In the first, in terms of capacity, there are also three: first, generally positing the sharp and dull capacities; next, distinguishing them through the flavors; third, judging sameness and difference under "this subtlety". First, "sharp roots" refers to the Perfect and the Separate. People of the two vehicles and bodhisattvas of the Shared Teaching: this is where skillful means are discussed; although the Separate Teaching carries the skillful means prior to the bhūmis, entry is attained everywhere; therefore, these need to be further seasoned by fresh and clarified butter, and hence these two flavors are again called "skillful means". In "The Vaipulya carries fresh butter to discuss the subtle in contrast to the coarse": dull roots of the two vehicles obtain the benefit of fresh butter in the Vaipulya, and carrying this benefit, the perfect subtle is discussed; clarified butter is explained by comparison. Since the present sūtra has no skillful means, in the judgment text, although the present sūtra and the various sūtras are equally called complete, because carrying and not carrying differ, they are again not the same. Next, in terms of teaching: since they are all called "gates", we know they are teachings, which is apparent. Next, in citing treatises for proof, both capacity and teaching are proven: expounding is the teaching, and disciples are the capacities. Carrying or not carrying non-arising and non-ceasing has already been distinguished as above, hence the note says "and so forth". As for "The verse of the Madhyamaka-śāstra, and so forth": unable to list them by name, it directly explains their meaning to prove the intent of the sharp and dull capacities; the first line is for the dull, the remaining three are for the sharp, also only summarily, hence "and so forth". In the third, the judgment, it again uses the meaning of the treatise verse to judge: the first line corresponds to analysis, hence it says "not identical"; because this analysis is clumsy, it is called "coarse". From "If one can identify with emptiness" onward, it explains the lower three lines. First, it brings it up generally, stating that this identification with emptiness can penetrate the middle path and serves as a skillful means for the middle. Next, from "skillful means penetrating the middle" onward, it explains that although the bodhisattvas of the Shared and Separate can penetrate the middle, because they carry the coarse, they are collectively called coarse. The middling roots of the Shared Teaching carry identification with emptiness, and the lower roots carry the provisional; the Separate Teaching is also like this; therefore, they are all coarse. In "Directly penetrating": emptiness is identical to provisional and middle, and is therefore called subtle. This is also a judgment; it cannot yet be called "opening"; once opened, there is no longer any coarse: both emptiness and provisional are subtle.