法華玄義釋籤 5.46

5.46

次「然執者」下約近世凡執又三：初執佛果不同，次執世諦不同，次執破立不同。初文者，「佛果出二諦外」等，如《止觀》第三記。次文者，「梁世執世諦不同」者，初師云「皆有」者，如云瓶即是名，項細腹麁以銅為體，盛持盥洗以之為用。次師云「無體」者，名用如前，體無自性。若言項細腹麁是瓶體者，人應是瓶；若銅為體，鈴應是瓶。第三師云「無體用」者，有名無體，如前所說。若言盛持盥洗是瓶用者，盆應是瓶，及不假手。又遍銅無瓶，瓶體尚無，誰為瓶用？體用雖無，世諦立名，名不可廢，是故更無第四師計。第三文者，破古來二十三家明二諦義，如《止觀》第三記，文在梁昭明集。三總結中，「古」即聖者往因及梁世已前，「今即」陳世諸德。次「今謂」下今家正判，復為融通，使古今諸釋咸屬隨情。於中又四：初總明立意，次「略有」下列三，三「隨情」下解釋，四「若解」下結。初中根欲，如《止觀》十力中釋。次意，如文。第三釋中云「隨情」等者，如《止觀》第三記。初釋隨情又五：初略明所以，次引教示相，三「如順」下譬執教之失，四「眾師」下重斥，五「若二十三家」下去取。初如文。次文云「世第一法有無量種」者，亦約多人，如下智妙中說，一人無，多人有，既可分為二品，亦可分為無量品，「際真尚爾」者，舉世第一，況前三位。自世第一已前皆屬隨情，如世第一隣近於真，尚有多品，況復忍位乃至停心，故隨情多。次釋隨情智中為四：初立相，次「如五百」下引事，三「經云」下復引教證，四「如此」下結。合前文隨情及後文隨智，相對得為一種二諦，故有此意來也。若不爾者，經有此文，判屬何釋？五百身因，如《止觀》第二記。三引證者，合世人心所見二諦為一世諦，合出世人所見二諦為第一義諦，共為一番二諦也。結文，可見。

Next, from "However, regarding those who cling..." onwards, on the attachments of ordinary people of recent generations, there are also three parts: first, differing attachments regarding the Buddha-fruit; second, differing attachments regarding the conventional truth; third, differing attachments regarding refutation and establishment. As for the first passage, "the Buddha-fruit lies outside the two truths" and so forth, it is as in the third fascicle of the Notes on the Zhiguan. As for the second passage, regarding "Differing attachments to the conventional truth in the Liang dynasty", the first master said, "All exist": for instance, it is said that "pitcher" is merely the name, having a narrow neck and wide belly and being made of bronze is its substance, and containing, holding, and washing constitute its function. The second master said, "It has no substance": name and function are as before, but the substance has no self-nature. If one says that having a narrow neck and wide belly is the substance of a pitcher, then a human should be a pitcher; if bronze is the substance, then a bell should be a pitcher. The third master said, "It has neither substance nor function": it has a name but no substance, as spoken of before. If one says that containing, holding, and washing are the function of a pitcher, then a basin should be a pitcher, and it would not depend on hands. Furthermore, nowhere throughout the bronze is there a pitcher; since even the substance of the pitcher does not exist, what could serve as the pitcher's function? Although substance and function are absent, names are established in the conventional truth, and names cannot be abolished; therefore, there is no fourth master's theory. As for the third passage, refuting the ancient twenty-three houses' explanations of the meaning of the two truths, it is as in the third fascicle of the Notes on the Zhiguan; the text is found in the Liang dynasty Collection of Prince Zhaoming. In the third [passage], the general conclusion, "ancient" refers to the past causes of the sages and prior to the Liang dynasty; "modern" refers to the venerable masters of the Chen dynasty. Next, from "Now I say..." onwards, this master's proper judgment further harmonizes and integrates them, making all the explanations, ancient and modern, fall under "conforming to emotional capacities". Within this, there are also four parts: first, generally clarifying the intention in establishing [this]; second, from "briefly, there are..." onwards, listing the three; third, from "conforming to emotional capacities..." onwards, explaining [them]; fourth, from "if one understands..." onwards, concluding. In the first part, faculties and desires are as explained under the ten powers in the Zhiguan. The second intention is as in the text. In the third explanation, where it says "conforming to emotional capacities" and so forth, it is as in the third fascicle of the Notes on the Zhiguan. The first explanation, of conforming to emotional capacities, has five parts: first, briefly clarifying the reason; second, citing the teachings to show the marks; third, from "just as obeying..." onwards, using an analogy for the error of clinging to teachings; fourth, from "the various masters..." onwards, reiterating the censure; fifth, from "if the twenty-three houses..." onwards, accepting and rejecting. The first is as in the text. As for the next passage stating that "the supreme worldly dharmas are of immeasurable kinds", this is also spoken in terms of multiple persons, as explained below under the subtlety of wisdom: one person does not have them, but multiple persons do; since they can be divided into two grades, they can also be divided into immeasurable grades. As for "approaching the real it is still thus", this cites the supreme worldly [dharmas] to compare them with the preceding three stages. From the supreme worldly [dharmas] and before, all belong to conforming to emotional capacities; just as the supreme worldly [dharmas], bordering on the real, still have multiple grades, how much more so the stage of patience down to the stopping of the mind? Hence conforming to emotional capacities is abundant. Next, the explanation of conforming to emotional capacities and wisdom has four parts: first, establishing the marks; second, from "like the five hundred..." onwards, citing facts; third, from "the sūtra says..." onwards, further citing scriptural testimony; fourth, from "thus..." onwards, concluding. Combining the preceding text on conforming to emotional capacities and the subsequent text on conforming to wisdom, being paired together they can form one kind of two truths; thus this intention comes about. Were it not so, when the sūtra has this text, under which explanation would it be classified? The past causes of the five hundred bodies are as in the second fascicle of the Notes on the Zhiguan. In the third [part], citing testimony, combining the two truths seen by the minds of worldly people into one conventional truth, and combining the two truths seen by transworldly people into the ultimate truth, together they constitute one round of the two truths. The concluding text is obvious.