法華文句記 3.179

3.179

「今謂」下破者有二：一者對前，前教豈無內照外變；二者當部內實，對外還名為二，亦非《淨名》入不二門，既非不二則非圓教二諦相即，豈是今經權實不二之方便耶？亦不知他人指何為二及以不二？故非所用。次「今謂」下破其申《法華》以三三四一者，具如下顯實中明，況雖分權實而未出前教，以不云相即之權故也。故知權實尚隔何殊偏小。次敘其判《涅槃》者，昔妙覺方常，「今謂」下破，汝雖許《涅槃》明常，而判在妙覺。何者？道前道後照真照俗，俱有常與無常，云何定以金剛前後判經部耶？部中得益豈皆妙覺？「量」謂數量及以體量，以彼俗境是有量法，如境而照是權智也。此用《攝論》理量破之。故今文意，若明常住，眾生理性尚實尚常，豈等覺後方乃常耶？「此五時」下總結也。故彼五時權實莫異，並非今意。次「乃至」下約半滿等，破半滿等宗，具如《玄》文第十。五時既傾，半滿諸宗不攻而敗。

The refutation from "Now I say" downward has two points: first, contrasted with what came before, how could the preceding teachings lack internal contemplation and external transformation? Second, the internal reality within that very text, when contrasted with the external, is still termed dual, and is also not the Gate of Non-duality of the Vimalakīrti. Since it is not non-dual, it is not the mutual identity of the two truths of the Perfect Teaching—how could it be the skillful means of the non-duality of the provisional and the real in this sūtra? Nor do they know what others designate as dual and as non-dual; hence it is not to be used. Next, the refutation from "Now I say" downward of their explaining the Lotus Sūtra by means of three, three, four, and one is clarified in full below under "revealing the real"; moreover, although it distinguishes the provisional and the real, it does not transcend the preceding teachings, because it does not speak of the provisional that is mutually identical [with the real]. Therefore one knows that when the provisional and real are still kept apart, how does this differ from the one-sided and small? Next, summarizing their classification of the Nirvāṇa: formerly, only at wonderful awakening was there constancy; the refutation begins from "Now I say" downward: although you grant that the Nirvāṇa explains constancy, you classify it at wonderful awakening. Why? Both before the path and after the path, illuminating the real and illuminating the conventional both have constancy and inconstancy; how can one definitively classify the sūtra corpus according to before or after the vajra[-like concentration]? Do those who gain benefit in this corpus all reside at wonderful awakening? "Measure" means numerical quantity as well as essential measure; because that conventional sphere is a conditioned dharma with measure, illuminating in accordance with the sphere is provisional wisdom. This uses the principle-measure of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha to refute it. Thus the meaning of the present text is: if one clarifies eternal abiding, the inherent nature of sentient beings is already real and already constant; how could it be constant only after equal awakening? From "These five periods" downward is the general conclusion. Therefore the provisional and real across those five periods do not differ, and neither is the present meaning. Next, from "and so forth" downward, taking the half and full [word teachings] and the like, he refutes the tenets of the half and full, as fully explained in the tenth fascicle of the Profound Meaning. Once the five periods have collapsed, the various tenets of the half and full are defeated without an assault.