法華玄義釋籤 7.46

7.46

四斥謬立今經意中為八，先舉宗以質非，次「若破」下明宗所憑意，三「方便」下約今法斥彼人法，四「若作」下正顯其破相，五「若但」下明教法功能，六「世人」下結斥，七「今若」下重歎，八「如此」下形論意未周。初文中三：先示法相，次質偏，三「既不」下示宗承所用。初如文。次文中云「頗用世人」等者，今家章疏附理憑教，凡所立義不同他人隨其所弘偏讚己典。若弘《法華》，偏讚尚失，況復餘耶？何者？既言開權顯實，豈可一向毀權？施本為開，開無異趣。世人解經，或添以莊儒，或雜以綺飾，亦不同諸論偏申一門，或復通論直申大小。今採以佛經申《法華》意，遍破遍立，明教指歸，餘意可知。次明宗所憑教又二：初正指經部，次「若巧」下明宗中所破，並如文。四破相中先舉七二之相，次舉三意之相。初如文，次文云「又縱廣引諸經論」等者，世人釋二諦義，但廣引教釋二諦之名，不能分別名下之旨，況七種二諦一一復有隨情等三？是故世人但各執教，不知教是赴機異說。既迷教旨，當知所引但成三藏隨情二諦，能觀之智秖成化他權實二智。既不出於初番隨情，當知尚闕初教隨智及隨情智，況餘六三意耶？五功能中二：初舉初番以況後諸番，次「若尋」下廣舉下六番所破，言「凡破幾外見」等者，破一切外人諸宗僻計也。「凡破幾權經論，立幾權經論」者，今以《法華經》意以為破立故，得遍破遍立，施權故立，廢權故破，或權實俱立，或權實俱破，若開若會，準例可知。六七可知。第八形論意中云「如此破會莫以中論相比」者，依向所說，豈比《中論》末代通經，雖兼別含通，豈能委明二十一種單複開合適時破會逗物之妙結撮始終耶？

Part four, on refuting errors and establishing the intent of the present sūtra, has eight [sections]: first, adducing the lineage to cross-examine their errors; second, from 'If refuting' onward, explaining the intended basis of the lineage; third, from 'Expedient' onward, refuting those people and their doctrines in terms of the present teaching; fourth, from 'If making' onward, directly revealing the manner of refutation; fifth, from 'If only' onward, explaining the function of the teaching; sixth, from 'Worldly people' onward, concluding the refutation; seventh, from 'Now if' onward, praising it once more; eighth, from 'Such' onward, comparing [this] to treatises whose intended meaning is not yet complete. Within the first section there are three: first, demonstrating the character of the teachings; second, cross-examining one-sidedness; third, from 'Since neither' onward, demonstrating what the lineage transmits and uses. The first is as in the text. In the second section, where it says 'rather utilizing worldly people' and so forth: the commentaries of our school adhere to principle and rely on the teachings; whenever they establish a doctrine, unlike others who merely praise their own texts exclusively according to what they propagate, [they do not do so]. If in propagating the *Lotus Sūtra* an exclusive praise is still a failing, how much more so for others? Why is this? Since it speaks of opening the provisional and revealing the real, how could one wholly disparage the provisional? Setting up [the provisional] was originally for opening it; when opened, there is no separate destination. When worldly people explain sūtras, they either supplement them with Zhuangzi and Confucianism, or mix them with flowery embellishments; neither do they resemble the various treatises that one-sidedly set forth a single portal, or general treatises that directly set forth the Greater and Lesser [Vehicles]. Here, we extract Buddhist sūtras to set forth the intent of the *Lotus Sūtra*, comprehensively refuting and comprehensively establishing, illuminating the culmination of the teachings; the remaining meaning can be known. Next, explaining the teachings relied upon by the lineage also has two: first, directly pointing to the scriptural sections; second, from 'If skillfully' onward, explaining what is refuted within the lineage; both are as in the text. In the fourth, on the manner of refutation, it first adduces the characteristics of the seven [types of] two truths, and next adduces the characteristics of the three perspectives. The first is as in the text. In the next section, where it says 'Furthermore, expansively quoting various sūtras and treatises' and so forth: when worldly people explain the meaning of the two truths, they only expansively quote teachings to explain the names of the two truths, but cannot distinguish the purport beneath the names, much less that each of the seven kinds of two truths has the three [perspectives of] according with subjective feelings and so forth. Therefore, worldly people each grasp their own teachings, not knowing that the teachings are disparate discourses adapted to capacities. Since they are confused about the purport of the teachings, you should know that what they quote merely forms the Tripiṭaka's two truths according with subjective feelings, and the observing wisdom merely forms the provisional and real wisdoms for transforming others. Since it does not go beyond the first round of according with subjective feelings, you should know that it still lacks the according with wisdom and according with both feelings and wisdom of the first teaching, how much more so the three perspectives of the remaining six [two truths]? In the fifth, on function, there are two: first, adducing the first round to compare it with the subsequent rounds; second, from 'If investigating' onward, extensively adducing what is refuted in the lower six rounds. Where it says 'How many external views in all are refuted' and so forth, it means refuting all the mistaken views of non-Buddhists and various schools. Where it says 'How many provisional sūtras and treatises are refuted, and how many provisional sūtras and treatises are established': because it now takes the intent of the *Lotus Sūtra* as the refuting and establishing, it is able to comprehensively refute and comprehensively establish; because of setting up the provisional, it establishes, and because of discarding the provisional, it refutes; or it establishes both provisional and real, or refutes both provisional and real; whether opening or converging, it can be understood by analogy. The sixth and seventh can be understood. In the eighth, comparing the treatise's intent, where it says 'Such refuting and converging must not be compared with the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā*': based on what was stated above, how can it compare with the *Mūlamadhyamakakārikā* as a sūtra-exegesis for the final age, which, although it combines the Separate and contains the Common, how could it meticulously elucidate the wonder of the twenty-one kinds of simple and compound, opening and converging, refuting and converging at the appropriate time to suit living beings, grasping the beginning and the end?