法華玄義釋籤 5.42

5.42

《涅槃》言「追」者，退也。却更分別前諸味也。「泯」者，合會也。自法華已前諸經皆泯，此意則順《法華》部也。至《大經》中更分別者，為被末代，故《大經》中具斯二說。於中又二：先列二品文意，次解釋。初如文，釋中但釋追泯，於中又三：先列，次釋，三「如此」下結意。釋中二：先釋，次料簡。釋中但釋初句，次餘三句例初句中意，其理既即，故說不可偏言。「那可偏作生生而說」者，此中意圓不偏說，故名不可說。若《止觀》破法遍中明圓理無說，故不可說；今為成教，從說便故，故知一句皆具四句。次料簡中，「問：佛何故作偏解耶」者，問意者義意既通佛於經中，何故但將第二句而解初句？答意者，若解第二即是初句，即解三四同於初句。次「或三種」下重判權實。前已明諸經若開若合，今欲開顯，故更重判多種權實，是權咸開皆令使妙。初可說、不可說兩番可解。次從「或四皆可說為麁」者，有言教故。「或四皆不可說為妙」者，契無說理故。「或四可說有麁有妙」者，實語是虛語故麁，如說而證故妙。「或四不可說有麁有妙」者，契如實理故妙，起默然見故麁。「或四可說非麁非妙」者，當教文字體非麁妙故。「或四不可說非麁非妙」者，當教之理亦不當麁妙，雖有妙及非麁非妙，猶屬相待有麁有妙。

When the Nirvāṇa [Sūtra] speaks of "pursuing" (zhui), it means "stepping back"; it turns back to re-differentiate the preceding flavors. "Obliterating" (min) means "uniting"; from the Lotus Sūtra backward, the various sūtras are all obliterated, and this intention accords with the Lotus Sūtra section. That it re-differentiates them upon reaching the Great Sūtra is done to address the final age; hence the Great Sūtra fully contains these two explanations. Therein are again two parts: first, he lists the textual meaning of the two chapters; next, he explains them. The first is as in the text. In the explanation, he only explains "pursuing and obliterating." Therein are again three parts: first he lists them, next he explains them, and third, from "In this manner" onward, he concludes the intention. In the explanation are two parts: first he explains, and next he analyzes. In the explanation, he only explains the first phrase, and next the remaining three phrases are modeled on the meaning in the first phrase; since its principle is identical, its explanation cannot be spoken of onesidedly. As for "How could one onesidedly explain it as arising from arising?", the meaning here is perfect and not onesidedly explained, and hence it is called "inexpressible." If, in the comprehensive refutation of phenomena in the Zhiguan, it clarifies that the perfect principle has no expression and is therefore inexpressible, now, in order to establish the teaching, it proceeds from the expediency of expression; thus one knows that one phrase fully contains all four phrases. Next, in the analysis: as for "Question: Why did the Buddha give a onesided explanation?", the meaning of the question is that since the doctrinal meaning is universally pervasive, why did the Buddha in the sūtra merely take the second phrase to explain the first phrase? The meaning of the answer is that if one explains the second, it is identical to the first phrase, and then explaining the third and fourth is identical to the first phrase. Next, from "Or the three kinds…" downward, he re-evaluates the provisional and the real. Previously he already clarified whether the various sūtras are opened or unified; now, wishing to open and reveal them, he again re-evaluates the multiple kinds of the provisional and the real: whatever is provisional is all opened, so that all are caused to be wonderful. The first two turns of the expressible and the inexpressible can be understood. Next, from "Or all four are expressible as coarse": this is because verbal teaching exists. "Or all four are inexpressible as wonderful": this is because of tallying with the principle of non-expression. "Or all four being expressible has both coarse and wonderful": true words being false words is coarse; verifying in accordance with what is spoken is wonderful. "Or all four being inexpressible has both coarse and wonderful": tallying with the principle of true suchness is wonderful; giving rise to the view of silence is coarse. "Or all four being expressible is neither coarse nor wonderful": the characters and texts of the corresponding teaching are fundamentally neither coarse nor wonderful. "Or all four being inexpressible is neither coarse nor wonderful": the principle of the corresponding teaching also does not pertain to coarse or wonderful; although there are "wonderful" and "neither coarse nor wonderful," they still belong to relative contrast and have coarse and wonderful.