法華文句記 3.87

3.87

然《論》有八句：一、欲說大法，二、欲雨大法雨，三、欲擊大法鼓，四、欲建大法幢，五、欲然大法炬，六、欲吹大法䗍，七、欲不斷大法鼓，八、欲演大法義。今但依五句，以初句為總，下四為別。他以八句四對釋之，而云：一、破惡進善對，二、開權顯實對，三、得智證真對，四、說法利生對。仍云尋釋來由，唯有五句成兩對半，有破惡生善說法利生開權一句，餘者則闕，仍不次第，讀者應知。今謂論文八句釋經五句，是知不斷幢炬釋法鼓耳。不斷明鼓體相續，幢是法鼓標幟，炬明法鼓破暗，以喻釋喻道理如然。今依五句總別釋之。然通序冠首乍可從容，別由藉異無涉遠本，文殊答迹尚自惟忖，略廣方決乃酬問旨，何得率爾示遠本耶？若釋五句作顯本者，略曾廣曾並須知遠，光中橫見應發近迹，光中橫見尚隱當同，但以起塔密表入實，豈容於此便見遠成及以塔踊并分身耶？惟忖既未關於遠本，故略廣唯譚於近迹。「釋後既虛」等者，釋顯遠既虛，釋開三亦謬，開三秖應如今總別，不須以對廣略二文。若不爾者，徒稱權實。

However, the Treatise has eight clauses: first, desiring to preach the great Dharma; second, desiring to rain the great Dharma-rain; third, desiring to beat the great Dharma-drum; fourth, desiring to establish the great Dharma-banner; fifth, desiring to kindle the great Dharma-torch; sixth, desiring to blow the great Dharma-conch; seventh, desiring not to cease [beating] the great Dharma-drum; eighth, desiring to expound the great Dharma-meaning. Here, we rely only on the five clauses, taking the first clause as the general and the latter four as the specific. Another [commentator] explained them as four pairs based on the eight clauses, stating: first, the pair of destroying evil and advancing good; second, the pair of opening the provisional and revealing the real; third, the pair of attaining wisdom and realizing the true; fourth, the pair of preaching the Dharma and benefiting sentient beings. He further claimed to seek the origin of their emergence, saying that there are only five clauses forming two and a half pairs, containing [the clauses of] destroying evil, producing good, preaching the Dharma, benefiting sentient beings, and opening the provisional, while the rest are missing, and they are not in proper order; readers should recognize this. I say now that the eight clauses of the Treatise explain the five clauses of the sūtra; thus one knows that "not ceasing", "banner", and "torch" simply explain the Dharma-drum. "Not ceasing" clarifies the continuity of the substance of the drum; the "banner" is the emblem of the Dharma-drum; the "torch" clarifies that the Dharma-drum destroys darkness. Explaining metaphors with metaphors is a principle of this nature. Here, we explain them as general and specific relying on the five clauses. Although the general preface placed at the beginning can be treated with ease, the specific [preface], relying on distinct causes, does not involve the distant origin. When Mañjuśrī answered regarding the traces, he was still deliberating within himself; only after [the answers in] brief and at length were settled did he respond to the purpose of the question—how could he precipitously reveal the distant origin? If one explains the five clauses as revealing the origin, then both the brief past and the extensive past would need to know what is distant. Seeing transversely within the light ought to initiate the near traces; seeing transversely within the light still conceals the future sameness, merely using the raising of the stupa to secretly represent entry into reality. How could one at this point already see the distant attainment [of Buddhahood], as well as the springing forth of the stupa and the emanated bodies? Since the deliberation does not yet pertain to the distant origin, the brief and extensive only discuss the near traces. As for "[the later explanation] being false", etc.: since the explanation revealing the distant is false, the explanation of opening the three is also erroneous. Opening the three should merely follow the present [scheme of] general and specific; one need not match it against the two texts of the extensive and brief. If it were not so, one would vainly speak of the provisional and the real.