法華文句記 1.46

1.46

約本迹者，亦先舉廣辨妨；次「從須置指」下，釋出處中；次「故肇」下，引肇證成。初文者，應機舉前因緣，設教舉前約教，機多教異其迹必廣，當知本迹不名處中。若準門開之言，則唯圓處中，已如前說，今將本望迹中間今日，聲教感應開已復施，廢竟還設故云權實。一代尚廣況實成後，中間施化對機差別。言「淺深」者，權實理定、淺深義通，故重言之。次明處中者，前以聲教望於感應，故將娑婆而對十方，則娑婆聲教處中義足。今欲論一本故却對多迹，迹多雖廣如指一月眾影自歸，豈以能指四指有四，令所指一月非一？故置迹尋本處中明矣。次引肇者，但借其言不用其事。肇用融公九轍，九轍未當，引者如何？故彼本迹無生轍云「多寶不滅、釋迦不生，多寶本也、釋迦迹也。本不滅、迹不生，不生不滅本迹雖殊不思議一。」豈得以多寶之本，垂於釋迦之迹？若借彼顯今，以久為本、望今為迹，本迹雖殊不思議一也。

Regarding origin and traces: it likewise first raises the broad to determine the objection; next, following "From needing to discard the finger...", it explains and brings out [how it is] centered; next, following "Therefore Zhao...", it cites [Seng]zhao to corroborate and establish it. As for the first passage: "responding to capacities" raises the previous causes and conditions, and "establishing teachings" raises the previous "in terms of the teaching." Since capacities are many and teachings differ, their traces must be broad; one should know that origin and traces are not called centered. If judged according to the words "the gate opens," then only the perfect is centered, as explained before. Now, setting the origin against the traces, between the intermediate [period] and today, the stimulus and response of the teaching through voice was opened and then applied again, abrogated and then established again; hence they are called "provisional and real." Even [the teachings of] a single lifetime are vast, how much more so after the real attainment, when in the interim teaching activities were applied differently according to capacities. Regarding "shallow and deep": provisional and real are fixed in principle, while shallow and deep are pervasive in meaning; hence they are stated doubly. Next, explaining [how it is] centered: previously, setting the teaching through voice against stimulus and response, the Sahā [world] was contrasted with the ten directions, so that the Sahā teaching through voice was fully centered in meaning. Now, wishing to discuss the one origin, it is contrasted back with the many traces. Although the traces are many and broad, just as pointing to the one moon causes all shadows naturally to converge, how could the four fingers that are able to point, by being four, make the one moon pointed to not be one? Therefore, setting aside the traces to seek the origin is clearly centered. Next, citing Zhao: his words are merely borrowed without adopting his application. Zhao used Master [Dao]rong's nine tracks; since the nine tracks were not accurate, why cite them? Thus that "track of the non-arising of origin and traces" says: "Prabhūtaratna does not perish, Śākyamuni is not born. Prabhūtaratna is the origin, Śākyamuni is the trace. The origin does not perish, and the trace is not born; unborn and unperishing, though origin and trace differ, they are an inconceivable one." How could one take the origin of Prabhūtaratna and project it as the trace of Śākyamuni? If one borrows his [words] to illuminate the present: taking the remote [past] as the origin and looking at the present as the trace, though origin and traces differ, they are an inconceivable one.