法華文句記 3.172

3.172

次約能所者，亦自有三文，並將能所兩字以簡能所是非。釋初文者，且指三教，但是法用尚非能通，況是所通？是故三教非能非所，故三方便悉皆為麁。釋次意者，門是三教得是能通，不云三教即是圓故，故非所通，既其不即故猶是麁。釋第三文者，亦開前二，非能非所及以能通並開成所，所中善巧名為方便，故妙方便異於方法及能通門。「故知」下結斥，先結名體若同若異，雖俱名方便有此三異，豈但聞名便解其義？故三釋皆有方便之言，二非今品，故云「義異」。「世人」下總斥世人，豈大師帶偏情有阿黨耶？其如理何？其如文何？其如行何？其如證何？生公天真獨秀，尚云「從昔題品」，若從昔題，何故稱歎？若稱歎昔，豈非毀今？若以昔歎今又失於昔，則使體內之權全闕，體外之用又虧，乃成內外俱亡，安得歎佛權智？五佛開顯便濫初施，三周善巧仍為徒設，若言品雖題昔品內在今，縣額牓州惑亂行者。又初釋中，既以隨他等三通後二釋，次釋復以門通初後，理應亦以妙通前二，文無者略，但注「云云」，應云初釋方便是祕而非妙，次釋方便祕堪入妙，後釋方便祕即是妙，此乃從佛內解以說，今成顯露故闕不論。

Next, regarding that which [expresses] and that which is [expressed], it also naturally has three passages, and jointly takes the two words "expresses" and "expressed" to differentiate the correctness and incorrectness of that which expresses and that which is expressed. Explaining the first passage: pointing provisionally to the three teachings, they are merely method and function and cannot yet lead through, let alone be that which is entered; therefore, the three teachings are neither that which expresses nor that which is expressed, and thus the three skillful means are all crude. Explaining the intent of the second: the gate is the three teachings and can be that which leads through, but because it does not say that the three teachings are precisely the perfect, it is not that which is entered; since it is not identical, it is still crude. Explaining the third passage: it also opens the previous two; that which is neither that which expresses nor that which is expressed, as well as that which leads through, are both opened to become that which is entered, and the dexterity within that which is entered is called skillful means; hence the wondrous skillful means differs from methods and from the gate that leads through. From "therefore one knows" onward concludes with a rebuke: first concluding on the identity or difference of name and essence—although all are called skillful means, there are these three differences; how could one understand its meaning merely by hearing the name? Thus all three interpretations contain the words "skillful means," yet two are not the present chapter; hence it says "the meanings differ." From "worldly people" onward provides a general rebuke of worldly people: Could the Great Master harbor one-sided bias and act with partiality? How would that stand with respect to principle? How would that stand with respect to the text? How would that stand with respect to practice? How would that stand with respect to realization? Master [Dao]sheng was uniquely gifted with natural brilliance, yet he still said, "The title of the chapter is derived from the past." If it were titled from the past, why would it be praised? If it praises the past, does it not disparage the present? If one uses the past to praise the present, one also loses the past, which causes the provisional within the essence to be entirely lacking and the function outside the essence to be diminished, resulting in the loss of both internal and external; how then could one praise the Buddha's provisional wisdom? The opening and revealing of the five buddhas would then be conflated with the initial dispensation, and the dexterity of the three cycles would still be set forth in vain. If one says that although the chapter is titled from the past, the interior of the chapter rests in the present, this is like putting up an administrative plaque for a prefecture [in the wrong place], confusing and misleading practitioners. Furthermore, in the first interpretation, since the three [terms] such as "according with others" penetrate the latter two interpretations, and the next interpretation again uses "gate" to penetrate the first and last, by principle "wondrous" should also penetrate the former two. Its absence in the text is due to abbreviation, merely noting "and so forth." One should say: in the first interpretation skillful means is secret and not wondrous; in the next interpretation skillful means is secret and can enter the wondrous; in the latter interpretation skillful means is secret and is precisely the wondrous. This is spoken from the perspective of the Buddha's internal understanding; now that it has become explicit, it is omitted and not discussed.