法華文句記 3.167

3.167

《正法華》題稱「善權品」，及至釋文皆云「善權方便」，當知法護亦以善權而釋方便，善是巧之異名耳。文自分二，初略中自二，初正釋中文自為三，初一從字訓，後二從意義。又初二從昔教，後一屬今經。雖有三釋，並以三教而為方便，但有能通非能通及以即不即異，致成三釋，然須略譚三種大旨，方可消文。然於三中初約能用三教得名，法是所用、用是能用，雖法之與用俱通四教，但有方圓差會之殊，故方便之稱從權立名，權不即實故對昔辨，成體外權非今品意，文中舉圓即屬真實，相對來耳。故知在昔不應以祕妙釋方便也，乃是祕而不說名為方便。況圓於昔乃是兼帶之圓，是故遍圓咸非今意。次第二釋權屬能通三教，亦得名為方便，然雖不即，以能為圓作遠詮故，所詮之圓亦帶能詮為方便故，故知並非今品意也。前釋不云三為能者，權實逗會各致其極故方法不同，至第三釋方乃三權即是一實，指此即實之權，方名今經方便。

The Zheng fahua jing gives the chapter title as 'Skillful Expedients' (shanquan), and coming to the exposition, it consistently speaks of 'good expedients and skillful means'; one should know that Dharmarakṣa also used 'skillful expedients' to explain 'skillful means' (upāya), 'good' (shan) merely being another name for 'skillful' (qiao). The text naturally divides into two parts. In the first, the brief [explanation], there are two sections. In the first, the proper explanation, there are three sections: the first is based on the etymological gloss, while the latter two are based on the conceptual meaning. Furthermore, the first two pertain to the past teachings, while the latter one belongs to the present sūtra. Although there are three explanations, all take the three teachings as skillful means; yet because of the distinctions between able to lead through and not able to lead through, and between identical and not identical, they result in three explanations. However, one must briefly discuss the three great purports before one can elucidate the text. Among the three, the first derives its name from being able to employ the three teachings: the Dharma is what is employed, and employment is that which is able to employ. Although both Dharma and employment extend across the four teachings, there are distinctions of square and round, divergence and convergence; therefore, the designation 'skillful means' derives its name from the provisional. Since the provisional is not identical with the real, it is distinguished in contrast to the past; it constitutes the provisional external to the essence, not the intent of the present chapter. The mention of the perfect in the text belongs to the real, coming into view by way of contrast. Thus we know that in the past, one should not explain skillful means through the secret and wonderful; rather, it is keeping it secret and not preaching it that is called skillful means. What is more, the perfect in the past was a perfect that was accompanied and carried along; therefore, both pervasiveness and the perfect were not the present intent. Next, in the second explanation, the provisional belongs to the three teachings that can lead through, which may also be named skillful means; yet although they are not identical, because they can serve as a distant expression for the perfect, and the perfect that is expressed also carries what expresses it as a skillful means, we therefore know this is also not the intent of the present chapter. The previous explanation did not speak of the three as that which is able [to lead through], because the provisional and the real match capacities, each reaching its culmination, so the methods and directions differ. Only arriving at the third explanation are the three provisionals identical with the one real; pointing to this provisional that is identical with the real is alone named the skillful means of the present sūtra.