法華玄義釋籤 5.39

5.39

次從「然」下廣破古師，先依《勝鬘》重立無作四諦。彼勝鬘師但以一滅為無作者，故知非圓。於中為四：先重敘勝鬘師意，次敘達磨破，三「答」下明勝鬘師救，四「今難」下今家判。初文為二：先指彼所立，次「何者」下釋彼所立。初文者，觀彼經意合從無作以立意旨，彼師別指一滅歎釋是常是諦是依。釋中二：先釋三，次釋一。次引達磨欝多羅難者又二：初難、次結。初文難者，依彼經文道亦是常，何故總判三為無常？言「如眾流入海」等者，以道常故諸法皆常，如眾流入海同一鹹味。次「那云」下結，彼判道等三皆是無常，道既是常，故知餘二謬判。三勝鬘師救意者，若以理為言四諦皆常，何但道諦前苦？「滅諦」下釋滅是常，從「無始無作」下釋道是常，「說如來法身」下釋集是常，言如來藏理本是法身是故名常。說「苦諦隱」下釋苦諦是常，明如來法身為陰所覆、理體是常。「二乘於四不顛倒境不見不知」者，明二乘人非但不見亦乃不知如來藏理，此是有量不知無量。「今欲顯說」下明向雖說四諦是常，猶未顯現，若顯說者灼然如前一常三無常。從「有對」去次約顯說，苦集道三猶是無常，有對治故，道是無常；障須除故，集是無常；身須顯故，苦是無常，是故且說滅諦為常。四今師難又為三：先斥；次從「當知」下今師結判，乃是無量四諦之中，別指滅顯位在初地，名為無作；三從「涅槃」下引《大經》證結。次判中然前所列四四諦相，從淺至深是辨優劣，未是灼然判其優劣。所以判者，今《法華經》約此四諦，為是何教四諦所攝？故今此經獨得稱妙，所以須此判麁妙來。若秖判四教中圓，名之為妙，諸經皆有如是圓義，何不稱妙？故須復更約部約味，方顯今經教圓部圓。是故判中又分為二：先約四教判，次約五味判，若不約教則不知教妙，若不約味則不知部妙。下去一切判麁妙文悉皆例此。初約四教判麁妙中教行證等，例下乘妙，應約位判，四教並以外凡為教，內凡為行，聖位為證。前之兩教但證真諦，是故俱麁，別教若準上下諸文，應云證融教行不融，以從初地證道同故。此之《玄》文凡判別義，未開顯邊多順教道；今此亦然，教譚中理是故名融，行證次第故名不融。若作證同，應如前說，俱融是圓，是故稱妙。次約五味中言「一破三」者，圓破通等。「二不入」者，藏通不入中也。「二一雖入一教不融」者，於圓別二教雖俱入中，別教不融。「熟蘇一破二」者，圓破通別。「一入一」者，別入中也。「一不入一」者，通鈍根也。「一雖入一教不融」者，重判別也。

Next, from "however" onward, it broadly refutes ancient masters, first re-establishing the unconditioned four truths based on the Śrīmālādevī Sūtra. Those masters of the Śrīmālādevī only took the single cessation to be unconditioned, which is why it is known not to be the Perfect [Teaching]. Within this there are four [parts]: first, restating the intent of the masters of the Śrīmālādevī; second, recounting Dharmottara's refutation; third, from "answering" onward, clarifying the defense of the masters of the Śrīmālādevī; fourth, from "now challenging" onward, our school's determination. The first part has two: first, pointing to what they established; second, from "what is it" onward, explaining what they established. The first text means: observing the intent of that sūtra, it ought to establish its essential meaning based on the unconditioned; that master specifically pointed to the single cessation, praising and explaining it as permanent, as truth, and as refuge. In the explanation there are two: first, explaining the three; next, explaining the one. Next, citing Dharmottara's challenge also has two: first, the challenge; next, the conclusion. The first text, the challenge, is: according to the text of that sūtra, the path is also permanent; why do they generally determine the three to be impermanent? The statement "just as all streams flow into the sea" and so forth means: because the path is permanent, all dharmas are permanent, just as all streams flow into the sea to share the same salty flavor. Next, from "how can it be said" onward, it concludes: they determined the path and the other two to all be impermanent; since the path is already permanent, one knows that their determination of the other two was erroneous. The third, the intent of the defense by the masters of the Śrīmālādevī: if speaking in terms of principle, the four truths are all permanent, so why only the path? Prior to suffering—from "the truth of cessation" onward explains cessation as permanent; from "beginningless and unconditioned" onward explains the path as permanent; from "explaining the Tathāgata's dharma body" onward explains arising as permanent, saying that the principle of the tathāgatagarbha is fundamentally the dharma body, and therefore it is called permanent; from "the truth of suffering is concealed" onward explains the truth of suffering as permanent, clarifying that the Tathāgata's dharma body is obscured by the aggregates, and the substance of the principle is permanent. "The two vehicles neither see nor know the four non-inverted realms" clarifies that people of the two vehicles not only do not see, but also do not know, the principle of the tathāgatagarbha; this is the measurable not knowing the immeasurable. From "now wishing to expound explicitly" onward clarifies that although the four truths were just expounded as permanent, they have not yet been manifested; if expounded explicitly, it is clearly as before, one permanent and three impermanent. From "having antidotes" onward, it next addresses the explicit exposition: suffering, arising, and the path—these three are still impermanent. Because there are antidotes, the path is impermanent; because obstacles must be eliminated, arising is impermanent; because the body must be revealed, suffering is impermanent; therefore, cessation truth alone is provisionally expounded as permanent. In the fourth, the challenge by our master, there are again three: first, the rebuke; second, from "one should know" onward, our master's conclusive determination that it is within the immeasurable four truths that one specifically points to the manifestation of cessation at the stage of the first bhūmi, naming it unconditioned; third, from "Nirvāṇa" onward, citing the Great Sūtra to verify and conclude. Next, regarding the determination: however, the characteristics of the four sets of four truths listed earlier, [arranged] from shallow to deep, distinguish superiority and inferiority, but have not yet clearly determined their superiority and inferiority. The reason for determining them is: with regard to these four truths, to which teaching's four truths does the present Lotus Sūtra belong? Thus, only this present sūtra attains the designation of "subtle," which is why this determination of coarse and subtle must come forth. If one merely determines the Perfect within the four teachings to be called subtle, then all sūtras have such a perfect meaning—why are they not called subtle? Therefore, one must further rely on the sections and the flavors; only then is it revealed that this sūtra is round in teaching and round in section. Hence, within the determination, it is again divided into two: first, determining by the four teachings; second, determining by the five flavors. If one does not rely on the teachings, one will not know the subtlety of the teaching; if one does not rely on the flavors, one will not know the subtlety of the section. All subsequent texts determining coarse and subtle are modeled on this. First, in determining the coarse and subtle by the four teachings: teaching, practice, and realization, and so forth, are modeled on the subtlety of the vehicle below and should be determined by stages: the four teachings all take the outer worldlings as the teaching, the inner worldlings as practice, and the noble stages as realization. The former two teachings only realize the true truth, and are therefore both coarse. In the Separate Teaching, if based on the various passages above and below, one should say that realization is harmonious while teaching and practice are not harmonious, because from the first bhūmi onward the realized path is identical. Whenever this text of the Xuanyi determines the meaning of the Separate [Teaching], on the side prior to opening and revealing it mostly accords with the teaching path; here it is also like this: the teaching discusses the principle of the middle and is therefore called harmonious, while practice and realization are sequential and therefore called non-harmonious. If one takes realization to be identical, it should be as stated earlier: when all are harmonious, it is the Perfect [Teaching], and is therefore called subtle. Next, in [determining] by the five flavors: the statement "one refutes three" refers to the Perfect refuting the Shared, and so forth. "Two do not enter" means that the Tripiṭaka and Shared do not enter the middle. "The two, while entering, one teaching is not harmonious" means that among the two teachings, the Perfect and the Separate, although both enter the middle, the Separate Teaching is not harmonious. "Cooked butter refutes two" means that the Perfect refutes the Shared and the Separate. "One enters one" means that the Separate enters the middle. "One does not enter one" means the dull faculties of the Shared. "The one, although entering, one teaching is not harmonious" re-determines the Separate [Teaching].