法華文句記 3.184

3.184

次述三轉者，具歷諦等。所言「三轉」者，於向四重除第四果，以前三為三。於中又為四：初略對三轉，次「何故」下明轉所以，三「又如」下引證，四「又漸」下述意。初又二，初正約諦，次教智例。初言諦者即二諦也。權實為本，故先約諦以判於境，境即真俗。於中先標，次對二諦。二諦語同深淺各別，且判初重一實一權，但名二諦，以此二諦為信本故，即是轉凡而成小聖。次重意者，轉前二諦俱名為俗，雙非前二乃名為真，此真但是離著而已。第三重者，先牒前空有為二者，牒前空有為俗；雙非不二者，牒前雙非為真。即此真俗復轉成俗，故云二不二俱俗，非二非不二為真。第四果重是三轉外，既雙非理極，但有因果相望，權實是故不云。次例教智者，明此所詮以為所觀，既有三轉，能詮能觀豈無三耶？次明所以中言「為人」者，三重二諦皆逗物機，機即是人，人有三種，此不指四悉中為人也。所以始終不出二諦，且約隨機又名為人。引證者，常依之言不逾此三，故但對之，重與佛教所依，證前約諦意也。次「又佛教」去重引總意為證，即證前約教。教中所述不出此三，故云「三門」，教即門也。次「又漸」下約佛化意，總述前之諦、教、智三，化意能所不出此三，初令凡夫捨有入空，即初制小也；次破二乘空著，故空有雙捨，意云小菩薩也；雖捨空有應未見中，古釋菩薩，但以次位而分大小，不論知中不知中等。次「或者」下，中邊並亡即大菩薩，或指八地初地十地等覺。次「此為」下更以五乘判向化意。意云：佛世化意不出五乘，於三重前以凡夫為人天，人天生信破有入空以為二乘。次「又為」下約三假判，此似次第修中之人先破三假，此中一番但加三假，餘無異也。秖是分別向之五乘，最初破有必具三假，故初以三假為俗，諸意並同。然諸番中雖不云假，初重俗諦理須是假。又前諸番不云初重，元為修中但是文略，故破假修中多是中論師意。第三重應云非三假，空有為二、非空非有為不二，二不二為俗，非二非不二為真，準前可知，故不重說。

Next, stating the three turnings, traversing the truths and so forth in full. What are called the "three turnings": among the previous four tiers, excluding the fourth, the fruit, taking the first three as three. Within this there are again four parts: first, a brief correlation with the three turnings; next, from "For what reason" downward, explaining the reason for the turning; third, from "Also like" downward, citing proofs; fourth, from "Also gradually" downward, stating the intention. The first again has two: first, directly regarding the truths; next, drawing the parallel with teachings and wisdom. First, speaking of truths means the two truths. Since the provisional and real are fundamental, first regarding the truths he judges the spheres; the spheres are the real and conventional. Within this, he first indicates [them], and next correlates them with the two truths. The terms "two truths" are the same, but their depths are distinct; tentatively judging the first tier of one real and one provisional, they are merely called the two truths; because these two truths serve as the basis of faith, this is turning the ordinary to become the lesser sage. The meaning of the next tier: turning the preceding two truths to both be called conventional, and the double negation of the previous two is termed the real; this real is merely transcending attachment and nothing more. The third tier: first taking up the previous emptiness and existence as dual takes up the previous emptiness and existence as conventional; the double negation of non-duality takes up the previous double negation as the real. These very real and conventional are again turned to become conventional; hence it says duality and non-duality are both conventional, and neither dual nor non-dual is the real. The fourth tier of the fruit is outside the three turnings: since the principle of double negation is ultimate, there is only the mutual viewing of cause and fruit; hence the provisional and real are not mentioned. Next, drawing the parallel with teachings and wisdom: clarifying that what is expressed here serves as what is contemplated; since there are three turnings, how could that which expresses and that which contemplates lack three? Next, in explaining the reason, "for the person" means that the threefold two truths all adapt to the capacities of beings; capacity is the person; persons are of three kinds; this does not refer to "for the person" among the four siddhāntas. Therefore from beginning to end it does not go beyond the two truths, and tentatively regarding adaptation to capacity, it is also called "for the person." As for citing proofs: the words "always relying" do not exceed these three; hence merely correlating with them, he again provides what the Buddha's teaching relies upon, verifying the intention of the preceding point regarding truths. Next, from "Also the Buddha's teaching" onward again cites the general meaning as proof, which proves the preceding point regarding teachings. What is stated in the teachings does not go beyond these three; hence it says "three gates"—teachings are indeed gates. Next, from "Also gradually" downward, regarding the Buddha's intention in converting, it summarizes the previous three: truths, teachings, and wisdom; the subject and object of the converting intention do not go beyond these three: first, causing ordinary persons to abandon existence and enter emptiness directly institutes the small; next, refuting the attachment to emptiness of the two vehicles, emptiness and existence are therefore doubly abandoned, meaning the lesser bodhisattva; although abandoning emptiness and existence, they should not yet have seen the middle; ancient commentators distinguished great and small bodhisattvas merely by stages and ranks, without discussing whether they knew the middle or did not know the middle and so forth. Next, from "Or else" downward, both middle and extremes perishing is the great bodhisattva, or refers to the eighth bhūmi, first bhūmi, tenth bhūmi, or equal awakening. Next, from "This is" downward, he further judges the preceding converting intention by means of the five vehicles. The meaning is: the Buddha's converting intention during his lifetime did not go beyond the five vehicles; before the three tiers, he took ordinary persons as humans and devas; humans and devas generating faith and refuting existence to enter emptiness were taken as the two vehicles. Next, from "Also for" downward, judging by the three provisionalities, this resembles one who cultivates the middle in sequence first refuting the three provisionalities; in this round, it merely adds the three provisionalities, and the rest is not different. It is merely distinguishing the previous five vehicles: initially refuting existence must fully possess the three provisionalities; hence initially taking the three provisionalities as conventional, the various intentions are completely identical. However, although the various rounds do not speak of provisionality, the conventional truth of the first tier in principle must be provisionality. Furthermore, that the preceding rounds do not mention the first tier is originally for the sake of cultivating the middle, being merely an abbreviation of the text; thus refuting the provisional and cultivating the middle is mostly the intention of the Madhyamaka masters. The third tier should say non-three provisionalities: emptiness and existence are dual; neither empty nor existent is non-dual; duality and non-duality are conventional; neither dual nor non-dual is real; this can be known by analogy with the preceding, hence it is not stated again.