法華玄義釋籤 6.8

6.8

次釋即空二諦者，亦二：初釋二諦，次明三意。初文為五：初立名，次斥前，三正釋相，四引證，五結名，並可見。次三意中二：先列、次分別。此教三乘所入真諦不殊三藏，然所照俗二教不同，故須更此分別釋疑。於中為二：先標，次釋。標中云「小當」者，未暇廣及，且略辨異，故云「小」耳。次「何者」下釋，中四：先出同異，次釋同異，三「如百川」下舉譬，四「秖就」下引例。前二可知。譬中二：先譬、次合。初譬中言「復局還源江河則異」者，會海如真同，江河如俗異。由觀俗故契真如，由眾水故成海，會海雖同却尋本源，江河則異，如會真不異却尋本俗，俗則不同。「俗是」下合譬釋疑。次「秖就」下將藏通出假不同，以例藏通兩俗。二人出假是一，而三根不同，何妨二教真同而所觀俗各異。

Next, in explaining the two truths of identity-with-emptiness, there are also two parts: first, explaining the two truths; next, clarifying the three intents. The first text has five parts: first, establishing the name; next, reproving the prior [teaching]; third, directly explaining the characteristics; fourth, citing evidence; fifth, concluding with the name; all are discernible. In the next [part on] the three intents, there are two: first, listing; next, distinguishing. The ultimate truth entered by the three vehicles of this teaching does not differ from the Tripiṭaka, yet the conventional illuminated [by them] differs between the two teachings; hence it is necessary to make this further distinction to resolve doubts. Therein are two parts: first, indicating; next, explaining. In the indication, saying "partially corresponds" means that having no leisure to treat it extensively, it tentatively distinguishes the difference in brief; hence it merely says "partially." Next, under "How so?", it explains, with four parts: first, bringing out identity and difference; next, explaining identity and difference; third, under "Like a hundred rivers...", adducing an analogy; fourth, under "Merely in terms of...", citing a precedent. The prior two are discernible. In the analogy, there are two: first, the analogy; next, the application. In the first analogy, the statement "Upon returning to the source, the rivers and streams are different" means: converging into the ocean is like the identity of the ultimate; the rivers and streams are like the difference of the conventional. It is because of contemplating the conventional that one tallies with true thusness; it is because of the manifold waters that the ocean is formed. Although converging into the ocean is identical, when one conversely traces back to the original source, the rivers and streams are different; just as tallying with the ultimate does not differ, but when one conversely traces back to the original conventional, the conventional is not the same. From "The conventional is..." downward, it applies the analogy and resolves doubts. Next, from "Merely in terms of..." downward, it takes the difference between the Tripiṭaka and Shared [Teachings] in emerging into the provisional as a precedent for the two conventionals of the Tripiṭaka and Shared. For the two people emerging into the provisional is one, yet the three faculties are different; what is there to prevent the ultimate of the two teachings from being identical while the conventional contemplated [by each] is distinct?