法華玄義釋籤 6.30

6.30

次料簡中「問前二二諦一向是隨情」等者，問此中問文，判前兩教俱屬隨情，與《止觀》中判三假文及此文前第二卷中但以三藏而為隨情、餘並隨理，同異云何？答：此有三別：一者彼以小衍相對，是故三藏獨屬隨情；此以權實二理相對，是故前二俱屬隨情。二者彼為通申觀門，且斥三藏以為隨事；此為申於《法華經》意，須以中道而為隨理。三者彼明三假，三假是俗，藏通二俗即不即異，故彼文判事理不同。此判二諦，二諦俱權不會中理，是故此判俱屬隨情。答中以第一義對三悉者，前二無中故。次約五味，如文。

Next, in the analysis, regarding "Question: Are the former two [teachings'] two truths exclusively conforming to sentiments?" and so forth: it asks about the text of the question here, which classifies the former two teachings as both belonging to conforming to sentiments; how does this compare in identity and difference with the text classifying the three provisional designations in the Zhiguan, and earlier in the second fascicle of this text where only the Tripiṭaka is regarded as conforming to sentiments and the rest are all conforming to principle? Answer: There are three distinctions here. First, that text contrasts the Hinayāna and Mahāyāna, and therefore the Tripiṭaka solely belongs to conforming to sentiments; this text contrasts the two principles of provisional and real, and therefore the former two both belong to conforming to sentiments. Second, that text broadly expounds the gates of contemplation, temporarily rebuking the Tripiṭaka as conforming to phenomena; this text expounds the intention of the Lotus Sūtra, requiring the middle way to be conforming to principle. Third, that text clarifies the three provisional designations, which are conventional; the conventional truths of the Tripiṭaka and Shared teachings differ in whether they are identical or not identical [with ultimate], and therefore that text classifies phenomena and principle differently. This text classifies the two truths; both truths are provisional and do not converge with the principle of the middle, and therefore this classification regards them both as belonging to conforming to sentiments. In the answer, matching the supreme truth with the three siddhāntas is because the former two lack the middle. Next, in terms of the five flavors, it is as in the text.