法華文句記 1.30

1.30

言「若過」等者，以此望古進退俱失，是則曇鸞亦未全許碎擘經文。廬山龍兩解，前云身方便等者，意云，自〈寶塔〉已前說權說實，亦以《法華》前權為言方便，至《法華》為言真實也。從〈寶塔〉下，古佛現全身、今佛集分身，古身命今身、今身詣古身，二身俱處塔，表法今古同，身方便也。壽量久成塵點尚倍，中間被拂伽耶非真，身真實也。道理必然，偏立成失，前可無身後豈無說，但依權實本迹，任運俱收身說，若但語身說則本迹事昏，但譚本迹乃身說自顯。故〈壽量〉中云「或說己身，或說他身」，故身說具足。方便已下說必有身，何須致惑？第二釋中《玄》文廣破，以今二門各有因果故也。

Regarding the words “If one goes to excess,” and so forth: judging the ancient [commentators] by this, [whether they were too detailed or too brief,] they fell into error in both ways. Thus, even Tanluan did not entirely approve of chopping up the sūtra text into fragments. Regarding the two interpretations of Master Long of Mount Lu: the former says “the skillful means of the body,” and so forth, meaning that from the “Precious Stūpa” chapter backwards, [the Buddha] spoke of the provisional and spoke of the real, also regarding the provisional prior to the Lotus [Sūtra] as the skillful means of speech, and reaching the Lotus [Sūtra] as the reality of speech. From the “Precious Stūpa” chapter onwards, the ancient buddha reveals his whole body and the present buddha gathers his emanation bodies; the ancient body invites the present body, and the present body approaches the ancient body; both bodies sit together in the stūpa, manifesting that the Dharma is identical in present and ancient times—this is the skillful means of the body. In the “Life Span” [chapter], [the buddhahood] attained in the remote past surpasses [the sands of even multiple] dust-mote [eons], while [the attainment] intermediate [between then and now] is set aside and [the awakening at] Gayā is not the real—this is the reality of the body. The principle is necessarily so, but establishing one side exclusively constitutes an error: could the earlier part be without body, and how could the later part be without speech? If one simply relies on the provisional and the real, origin and traces, then both body and speech are spontaneously encompassed. If one only speaks of body and speech, the matters of origin and traces become obscured; only when one discusses origin and traces are body and speech naturally made apparent. Therefore, in the “Life Span” [chapter] it says: “I have spoken sometimes of my own body, sometimes of another’s body”; thus body and speech are both complete. Since from the “Skillful Means” [chapter] onwards speech must entail a body, why must one give rise to confusion? In the second interpretation, the text of the Profound Meaning extensively refutes it, because here both gates each possess cause and effect.