法華文句記 4.128

4.128

「答」至「為通」者，聞法故破、破由聞法。言「無前後」者，未聞法破為前、聞法已破為後，前名自破、後名他破，自他無破、無因不可。次「雖不前後」等者，雖非自他因緣故破，以因緣故亦前亦後，亦前故暗滅、亦後故明生，今從破說故無前後，今從立說無明定障。又亦應云雖無前後聞法定破。次更料簡知與不知，初引兩經皆云知，何以此經三周說竟猶云不知？然雖云知，文意少別，彼屬方等應具二意，一者對諸菩薩云二乘人元發大心後終歸大，二以「不愚」等一往斥之，具如《止觀》第三文末。彼漫引之以為難辭。

From "Answer" down to "provides the resolution": It is broken because of hearing the Dharma; breaking arises from hearing the Dharma. In the expression "there is no before and after," breaking before hearing the Dharma would be "before," and breaking after hearing the Dharma would be "after"; the former is called self-breaking, and the latter is called other-breaking. Neither self nor other breaks it, and to be without a cause is unacceptable. Next, "Although there is no before and after" and so on means that although it is not broken through self or other, it is broken through causes and conditions; and because of causes and conditions, it is both before and after: both before, hence darkness is extinguished; and both after, hence light is born. Now, speaking from the perspective of breaking, there is no before and after; speaking from the perspective of establishing, ignorance definitively obstructs. Furthermore, one should also say: although there is no before and after, hearing the Dharma definitively breaks it. Next, he further analyzes knowing and not knowing: first he cites two sūtras that both state they know; why is it that after this sūtra has finished preaching the three cycles, it still states that they do not know? However, although they state that they know, the text's intention is slightly different: belonging to the Vaipulya, they should possess two meanings: first, explaining to the various bodhisattvas that the people of the two vehicles originally aroused the great mind and will ultimately return to the Great; second, provisionally reproaching them with "not foolish" and so forth, fully as at the end of the third fascicle of *Great Concentration and Insight*. He loosely cites them to use as the text of an objection.