法華玄義釋籤 4.9

4.9

次明大師依南嶽意更廣分別，於中為三：初標，次釋，三「問」下略料簡。釋中二：初略明得名所依，言「若廣眾生法一往通論諸因果及一切法」等者，然眾生義通故云「通論」。若其通論，義非究竟，故云「一往」。一往雖通，二往則局，不通於佛，及唯在因。佛法及心不云一往者，佛法定在於果，心法定在於因，故此三法得名各別。何者？如眾生身中佛法心法猶通因果，況眾生名通通凡通聖？

Next, clarifying that the Great Master further broadly discriminated according to Nanyue's intention; within this there are three: first the heading, next the explanation, and third, from 'question' onward, a brief analysis. In the explanation there are two: first, briefly clarifying that on which the derivation of the name relies. Regarding the statement 'if broadly [explaining] the sentient-being dharma, speaking generally of various causes and fruitions and all dharmas', etc.: however, because the meaning of sentient beings is broad, it says 'speaking generally'. If spoken of generally, the meaning is not ultimate; hence it says 'speaking generally' (provisionally). Although provisionally general, upon second consideration it is restricted: it does not extend to the Buddha, and is exclusively in the cause. That the Buddha-dharma and mind do not say 'provisionally' is because the Buddha-dharma is definitely in the fruition, and the mind-dharma is definitely in the cause; hence these three dharmas derive their names distinctively. Why? Just as within the bodies of sentient beings, the Buddha-dharma and mind-dharma still run through cause and fruition, how much more does the name 'sentient beings' run through, pervading worldlings and sages?