法華玄義釋籤 7.43

7.43

次歎用判功能者，若不約四教五味兩重判妙，焉知《法華》居一代之最？比見讀此教者，尚反指《華嚴》，豈不與夫震地逸敷而不聞不見同耶？哀哉！傷哉！於中為三：先總述，次解釋，三「此中」下結意。初如文。次「何者」去釋中引《華嚴》者，一顯華嚴未會，二所顯三教猶麁。於中又四：先引《華嚴》，次明謬釋，三「此釋」下難，四「若得」下顯正。初如文。次文中「世人釋云」等者，世人意言初住如實智與佛如實智不殊，故俱不知。作此說者非但初濫於後，亦乃顯佛愚癡，故次文斥云「其實不允」。次難又二：先通難，次歷教中約三教破云藏通二佛自無如實智，故不得云於自如實智，不知別佛雖得如實智，別初住不得如實智，云何言亦不知初住如實智？若其別佛不知別教斷見思位真諦如實智，大成可笑。今言別教初住不得如實智者，即顯圓教初住得如實智，佛是究竟如實智，此義可爾。若言不知，全是落漠。故《大論》八十六云：「如實智者有二種：一者具足謂諸佛，二者不具足謂大菩薩。」上能知下，豈有具足而不知不具足耶？四顯正中云「事理二釋俱無滯」者，藏不知圓，於事無滯；下不知上，於理無滯。

Next, praising the efficacy of using classification: if one did not classify subtlety with the two layers of the four teachings and five flavors, how could one know that the Lotus Sūtra ranks as supreme throughout the [Buddha's] lifetime? Lately I see those who read this teaching even point back instead to the Avataṃsaka Sūtra; is this not the same as the earth quaking and flowers blooming profusely while they neither hear nor see? How lamentable! How grievous! Here there are three parts: first, a general account; next, explanation; third, from "Herein..." onward, concluding the intent. The first is as in the text. Next, in the explanation from "Why so?" onward, the Avataṃsaka Sūtra is cited: first, to show that the Avataṃsaka has not yet integrated; second, that the three teachings it reveals are still coarse. Here there are also four parts: first, citing the Avataṃsaka; next, explaining the mistaken interpretation; third, from "This interpretation..." onward, raising objections; fourth, from "If one grasps..." onward, revealing the correct [view]. The first is as in the text. In the next text, regarding "Worldly people interpret it as saying...", etc.: worldly people mean that the wisdom of true reality of the first abodal stage does not differ from the Buddha's wisdom of true reality, and thus neither knows. Those who make this statement not only confuse the beginning with the end, but also portray the Buddha as foolish; therefore the next text refutes them, saying, "In truth it is not appropriate." Next, the objection also has two parts: first, a general objection; next, in traversing the teachings, refuting in terms of the three teachings by saying that the Buddhas of the Tripiṭaka and Shared teachings themselves lack the wisdom of true reality, so one cannot speak of not knowing in their own wisdom of true reality; the Buddha of the Separate Teaching, though attaining the wisdom of true reality, does not permit that the first abode of the Separate Teaching attains the wisdom of true reality—how can one say he also does not know the wisdom of true reality of the first abode? If that Buddha of the Separate Teaching did not know the wisdom of true reality of the truth of cessation in the position of severing view and thought delusions in the Separate Teaching, that would be greatly laughable! Now, saying that the first abode of the Separate Teaching does not attain the wisdom of true reality reveals that the first abode of the Perfect Teaching attains the wisdom of true reality, and the Buddha has the ultimate wisdom of true reality—this meaning is acceptable. If one says they do not know, it is completely nonsensical. Therefore Fascicle 86 of the Da zhidu lun says: "The wisdom of true reality has two kinds: the first is complete, referring to the Buddhas; the second is incomplete, referring to the great bodhisattvas." The higher can know the lower; how could the complete not know the incomplete? In the fourth, revealing the correct view, saying "Both the phenomenal and noumenal interpretations are unhindered": the Tripiṭaka not knowing the Perfect is unhindered in phenomena; the lower not knowing the higher is unhindered in principle.