法華玄義釋籤 4.40

4.40

言「隨情」等者，三藏生滅，生滅是事，事附物情，故云「隨情」。通教即空，空即附理，故云「隨理」。三假之義今不暇釋，意但且論，展轉相望，以明諸絕顯於圓教，無復能絕。若委釋三假，具如《止觀》第五記。故此中圓絕，廣引文證、譬類釋出圓絕相狀。於中初正釋四教不同。前三如文。四圓教中為二：初正釋，次以空有二門判前所釋。初文為三：初依圓教出絕待體，次「今法」下出今文意，三「降此」下斥偽。初又三：初引正教出體，次「大經」下引經，三「妙亦」下以今意會經。初文又二：初正出體，次明絕相。初文者既云「圓教若起說無分別」，教所譚絕，絕前諸教，故云「亡泯」。次「豈更」下明絕待相狀，明法界體一無復形待。「待誰為麁」等者，明無能待，能即是妙，法外無法，待誰麁妙？「無所可待」等者，明無所絕，所即是麁，法外無法故無所絕。次引《大經》中三：謂法、譬、合。三會今經意，中二：先會，次「若謂」下破情計。若謂有能絕，此計大於所絕。何者？若於所絕起計，猶有能絕之大，於能起計，計大於所，故云「大有所有」。能翻成所，故不名絕。次「今」下正出今文絕妙之相，又二：先出，次引證。證中二：先證非見聞等，次證不可說示。初文二：先引、次釋。次文二：先引、次釋。釋中二：先總、次別。總中但云「亦是絕歎之文」，即指經中絕歎文也。別中又二：先釋，次引文三證。初文者，不可以相待示、不可以絕待示，待絕俱絕，故名滅待滅絕。次「又云」下引文三中初引今經，空為能絕，此空亦空，能所俱絕。次引《中論》者，借成今文待不名絕。「若法為待成」者，待麁而得妙。「是法還成待」者，是妙還成待。今妙不因麁，故云「無因待」。既無所待麁，亦無能待妙，妙即所成法。既能所俱亡，故云「亦無所成法」。此引《中論》以絕破待，待謂緣生，故唯絕無待，故且引絕以證今經，持絕俱妙同在《法華》，亦非碩異，由待知妙，妙體是絕，絕亦無寄，妙體無二，《華首》文意，亦同此也。故引《華首》成《中論》意。次從「降此已」下斥偽顯正。若未見理徒謂為絕，若論文意非必見理，但應六即以判絕理，是則六即名為六絕。於中又二：先明斥偽，次「若能」下舉正顯偽，各有法、譬。初文法中又二：先直明偽，次「乃是」下出偽相，偽即不絕。又二：先出偽相，次「何者」下釋偽所以，由心慮故。次舉譬，偽故不絕。次「若能」下復初顯正，「如黠」下舉譬顯正。初言「寰中」，如《止觀》第六記。名字如塊，真理如人，無明癡犬逐名言塊，種智師子得理亡名，故知言語從覺觀生，息覺觀則名言絕，言思絕則待絕亡。「妙悟」下明二門。門能入絕，門從教入故。「如快馬」下譬入門之人，此中多意不復委釋，尋意可見。

Regarding the words “in accordance with sentiments” and so forth: in the Tripiṭaka [Teaching], there is arising and perishing. Arising and perishing are concrete phenomena, and concrete phenomena pertain to the sentiments of sentient beings; hence it is called “in accordance with sentiments.” The Shared Teaching is identical to emptiness, and emptiness pertains to principle; hence it is called “in accordance with principle.” I have no leisure now to explain the meaning of the three kinds of provisionality; the intention here is simply to discuss them as they correspond to one another in succession, in order to clarify the various kinds of transcendence so as to reveal the Perfect Teaching, beyond which there is no further transcendence. If one were to explain the three kinds of provisionality in detail, they are fully set forth as in the notes to the fifth fascicle of the Zhiguan. Therefore, regarding the transcendence of the Perfect [Teaching] here, scriptural citations are broadly adduced and metaphorical analogies are explained to demonstrate the characteristics of this perfect transcendence. In this, first it correctly explains the differences among the four teachings. The first three are as in the text. Fourth, regarding the Perfect Teaching, there are two parts: first, it correctly explains it; next, it evaluates the preceding explanation by means of the two gates of emptiness and existence. The first passage has three parts: first, it brings out the essence of the absolute (transcendence of relativity) according to the Perfect Teaching; next, from “Now, the Dharma...” downward, it brings out the intention of the present text; third, from “Falling below this...” downward, it refutes false [views]. The first [part] also has three: first, it cites the correct teaching to bring out the essence; next, from “the Great Sūtra...” downward, it cites the sūtra; third, from “the marvelous also...” downward, it reconciles the sūtra with the present intention. The first text also has two: first, it correctly brings out the essence; next, it clarifies the characteristics of transcendence. In the first text, since it says, “If the Perfect Teaching arises, it speaks of non-differentiation,” the transcendence discussed by this teaching transcends the preceding teachings; hence it says “extinguished and obliterated.” Next, from “How could it further...” downward, it clarifies the characteristics of the absolute, explaining that the essence of the dharma realm is one, having no further comparative relativity. “Relative to whom would it be coarse?” and so forth clarifies that there is no subject of relativity: the subject is precisely the marvelous; since there is no dharma outside of the Dharma, relative to whom could there be coarseness or marvelousness? “There is nothing that can be related to” and so forth clarifies that there is no object of transcendence: the object is precisely the coarse; since there is no dharma outside of the Dharma, there is nothing to be transcended. Next, in citing the Great Sūtra, there are three parts: namely, principle, metaphor, and application. Third, in reconciling the intention of the present sūtra, there are two parts: first, it reconciles them; next, from “If one considers...” downward, it refutes attachments based on sentiment. If one considers that there is a transcending subject, this attachment is even greater than that regarding the transcended object. Why so? If one gives rise to an attachment toward the transcended object, there still remains the greatness of the transcending subject; but if one gives rise to an attachment toward the transcending subject, this attachment is greater than that toward the object; hence it says, “greatly possessing what is possessed.” The subject turns into an object, and therefore it is not named transcendence. Next, from “Now...” downward, it directly brings out the characteristics of the marvelousness of transcendence in the present text, again in two parts: first, it brings them out; next, it cites proofs. In the proofs, there are two: first, it proves that it is not what is seen or heard; next, it proves that it cannot be spoken of or indicated. The first text has two: first, citing; next, explaining. The next text has two: first, citing; next, explaining. In the explanation, there are two: first, general; next, specific. In the general, it merely says, “It is also a passage of praising by transcendence,” which refers to the passage in the sūtra that praises through transcendence. In the specific, there are again two: first, explaining; next, citing three proofs from the text. In the first text, it cannot be indicated through relativity, nor can it be indicated through the absolute; relativity and the absolute are both transcended, and therefore it is called “extinguishing relativity and extinguishing transcendence.” Next, from “It also says...” downward, among the three textual citations, the first cites the present sūtra, where emptiness is the transcending subject; this emptiness is also empty, so both subject and object are transcended. Next, the Da zhidu lun is cited to help establish the point in the present text that relativity cannot be named transcendence. “If a dharma is established dependent on relativity” means that through dependence on coarseness one attains the marvelous. “This dharma in turn becomes relative” means that this marvelous in turn becomes relative. The present marvelous does not depend on the coarse; hence it says, “without cause or relativity.” Since there is no coarse that is depended upon, neither is there a marvelous that depends; the marvelous is precisely the dharma that is established. Since both subject and object are obliterated, it says, “and there is also no dharma that is established.” Here, the Da zhidu lun is cited to refute relativity by means of transcendence. Relativity refers to conditioned arising, and therefore there is only transcendence without relativity. Thus, transcendence is provisionally cited to verify the present sūtra: both relativity and transcendence are marvelous, together present in the Lotus Sūtra; nor is there any profound discrepancy between them. It is through relativity that the marvelous is known; the essence of the marvelous is transcendence, and transcendence also has nowhere to rest; the essence of the marvelous is non-dual. The intention of the text in the Huashou [jing] is also identical to this. Therefore, the Huashou [jing] is cited to complete the meaning of the Da zhidu lun. Next, from “Falling below this...” downward, it refutes the false and reveals the correct. If one has not yet seen the principle, it is futile to claim transcendence. If one considers the intention of the text, one does not necessarily have to have seen the principle; one ought merely to evaluate the transcendent principle through the six identities: in this way, the six identities are called the six transcendences. In this, there are also two parts: first, it clarifies the refutation of the false; next, from “If one is able...” downward, it adduces the correct to reveal the false. Each has principle and metaphor. In the principle of the first text, there are also two parts: first, it directly clarifies the false; next, from “it is merely...” downward, it brings out the characteristics of the false, showing that what is false is not transcendence. There are again two: first, bringing out the characteristics of the false; next, from “Why so?” downward, explaining the reason for the false, which is due to mental deliberation. Next, it adduces a metaphor: because it is false, it is not transcendence. Next, from “If one is able...” downward, it returns to the beginning to reveal the correct; from “Like a clever...” downward, it adduces a metaphor to reveal the correct. The earlier term “within the realm” is as in the notes to the sixth fascicle of the Zhiguan. Names are like a clod of earth, and true principle is like a person: an ignorant, foolish dog chases the clod of names and words, whereas a lion of all-knowledge attains the principle and forgets the name. Hence we know that speech arises from applied and sustained thought; if one calms applied and sustained thought, then names and words are transcended; when words and thoughts are transcended, relativity and transcendence both vanish. From “Marvelous awakening...” downward clarifies the two gates. The gates can enter transcendence, because gates are entered from the teaching. From “Like a swift horse...” downward is a metaphor for the person who enters the gate. There are many meanings here which will not be explained again in detail; they will become apparent if one searches the meaning.