法華文句記 3.173

3.173

三約四句中初問意者，《正》本既云善權，當知權是方便異名，欲約異名料簡同異故先問起。答中四，先標列，次釋，三「三句」下判，四「故正法華」下引證。釋中相破一對分為兩句，相修相即各為一句，合四句也。他文或以此為三句，或為六句，隨其法相立意不同，句法常定。今立三對已乃開為四句者，欲以四句用對三釋，以前三句屬初二釋。若但為三句，以前二句判屬前二，有何不可？但相破中文相別故。又準相破，相修亦可分為兩句，四句屬前亦無大失，名句隨時不可一準。言相破者，權與方便今昔並有二名，於昔則偏圓二名相破，於今則偏圓名體相即，此對初釋故云相破。在今則三教並妙，亦名為權亦名方便。在昔則三種並麁，亦名為權亦名方便，故將昔二互破昔二，以成二句，即二酥三教對彼圓教，故昔教中三，於圓教人俱成祕妙及以同體，故云「四種皆是祕妙及同體」也。故相破言但從於名不從於體，今從名釋其體常定。言相修者，亦並在昔二名互立，但是三教二名互修圓教二名，是故異前相破句也。雖昔圓人亦見四種俱是祕妙，然於彼教不得顯說相即之言，故但依向於昔對論，故相修者，亦對三教以辨一圓。何者？若捨三修圓還同破句，若即三是圓乃同後句，不破不即從權入實，故得修名。若於爾前二味三教，利根菩薩有顯露得，兩教二乘唯祕密得，由得入故即稱為門。言相即者，即秖是開，故相破屬初釋，相修者屬第二釋，相即是第三釋。言「云云」者，更以四句約味比決，若開若判具如餘文，準說可見。下復廣明故不重說。三判可見。四證者，《正》本名即，今乃體即，三權三方便即一權一方便故。次釋方便者，亦應言方便即權，舉彼釋今故不繁耳。當知體外方便即體內之權，名雖更互，名下之體既開，體上之名本實，由昔分於體外體內，則令二處名下體殊，故知今經「方便」即是《正法華》「善權」，《正法華》「善權」是今經「方便」，無二無別。「低頭」等者，尚開人天況復三教，若被開已一體無殊，前已三重總貫八門，下第五門雖結權實寄彼便明三番釋品，正意須以三種釋品通貫八門，思之不謬乃可解釋。況一一門十雙之中，雙雙須解三番解釋，一部之內一代教中不出八門十雙故也。

Third, regarding the four propositions, the intent of the initial question is: Since the Zheng [fahua jing] translation says "Good and Expedient," one should know that "expedient" (quan) is another name for "skillful means" (fangbian); wishing to differentiate their identity and difference based on these different names, it is raised as a question first. In the answer there are four [parts]: first, listing them; next, explaining them; third, from "the three propositions" onward judges them; fourth, from "therefore the Zheng fahua" onward cites scriptural proof. In the explanation, the pair of mutual refutation is divided into two propositions, while mutual cultivation and mutual identity each form one proposition, totaling four propositions. In other texts, this is sometimes treated as three propositions or as six propositions; the intention of establishing them varies according to the doctrinal classifications, while the syntax of the propositions remains constant. Now, having established three pairs and then opening them into four propositions, it is to use the four propositions to correspond to the three interpretations, subsuming the first three propositions under the first two interpretations. If it were only made into three propositions, judging the first two propositions as belonging to the first two [interpretations], what would be wrong with that? It is only because the textual passages in mutual refutation are distinct. Moreover, on the model of mutual refutation, mutual cultivation could also be divided into two propositions, and having four propositions belong to the former would also not be a major flaw; names and propositions vary according to context and cannot be treated uniformly. As for "mutual refutation": both "expedient" and "skillful means" have these two names in both the present and the past; in the past, the two names of one-sided and perfect mutually refuted each other, while in the present, the names and essences of one-sided and perfect are mutually identical; this is contrasted with the first interpretation, hence it is called mutual refutation. In the present, the three teachings are all wondrous, being called both "expedient" and "skillful means." In the past, the three kinds were all crude, being called both "expedient" and "skillful means." Therefore, the past two are made to mutually refute the past two, forming two propositions; that is, the three teachings of the two curds are contrasted with that perfect teaching; hence among the three in the former teachings, for a person of the perfect teaching, all become the secret and wondrous as well as of the identical essence; hence it says "all four kinds are secret and wondrous and of the identical essence." Thus the phrase "mutual refutation" applies only to the names, not to the essence; now explaining in terms of names, their essence is ever constant. As for "mutual cultivation": these two names are also mutually established in the past, but the two names of the three teachings mutually cultivate the two names of the perfect teaching; therefore it differs from the preceding proposition of mutual refutation. Although a person of the perfect teaching in the past also saw that all four kinds were secret and wondrous, in that teaching the words of mutual identity could not be explicitly spoken; thus one can only discuss them in contrast on the basis of the past. Therefore, mutual cultivation also distinguishes the one perfect in contrast to the three teachings. Why? If one abandons the three to cultivate the perfect, it is again identical with the proposition of refutation; if the three are immediately the perfect, it is then identical with the latter proposition. Neither refuting nor being immediately identical, one enters the real from the provisional; hence it obtains the name of "cultivation." If within the two flavors and three teachings prior to this, bodhisattvas of sharp faculties attain it explicitly, while the two vehicles of the two teachings attain it only secretly; because they attain entry, it is called a gate. As for "mutual identity": identity is simply opening. Thus mutual refutation belongs to the first interpretation, mutual cultivation belongs to the second interpretation, and mutual identity is the third interpretation. As for the words "and so forth": further comparing and deciding among the four propositions in terms of flavors, both opening and judging are fully as in the other texts; they can be seen by following that explanation. Since it will be extensively clarified below, it is not repeated here. The third, judging, can be seen. Fourth, regarding the proof: the Zheng text has identity of names, while now it is identity of essence, because the three provisionals and three skillful means are precisely the one provisional and one skillful means. Next, explaining skillful means: one should also say that skillful means is precisely the provisional; citing that to explain the present, it is not elaborated here so as not to be redundant. One should know that skillful means outside the essence is precisely the provisional within the essence; although the names alternate, once the essence beneath the names is opened, the name upon the essence is originally real. Because in the past a distinction was made between outside the essence and within the essence, the essences beneath the names in the two places were caused to differ. Therefore one knows that "skillful means" in the present sūtra is precisely "good and expedient" in the Zheng fahua jing, and "good and expedient" in the Zheng fahua jing is "skillful means" in the present sūtra, without duality or difference. As for "bowing the head" and so forth: even humans and devas are opened, how much more so the three teachings? Once they are opened, they are of one essence without difference. The three layers previously discussed universally run through the eight gates; although the fifth gate below concludes on the provisional and the real, taking that occasion to clarify the three turns of explaining the chapter, the primary intention is that the three kinds of explaining the chapter must run through the eight gates; only when this is thought through without error can it be interpreted. How much more so among the ten pairs of each and every gate, where each and every pair must understand the three turns of explanation, because within this one work and across the teachings of a whole lifetime, nothing goes beyond the eight gates and ten pairs.