法華文句記 4.131

4.131

「今試」下正存今教而為融會，先正融會，雖有二初大初為定，豈從中間取小情執小滅為規，故大教定成不須為諍，一義既爾，二十二雙請為觀之。若佛世尊俱留有妨之文，何成三達五眼？故依此判諍論自消。縱二十三內小部不同，灼然易殄。次「若得此意」下於念處中以分權實，故知但點二種初業，其滯自消，何須復以一初作妨？況若聞《法華》無復疑悔，知與不知二門無壅，故權實二人知不知別。「有人言」下引古略立利鈍二人，及至解釋離為四句，純以權人示知不知，故不應理。「今不取」下總破。故準今意具明權實，是故不用純權四句。若委論者約實行對權各為四句，故注「云云」。文且略立權者先知、實者不知，寄小初業生滅想者，現世不知，知者現得悟者是也。即初二句也。第三句者，初不知後知。第四句者即方等中被斥者機未發故非知，以被斥故非不知。權人同實示知不知，論其內心無時不知，故不用舊於義自顯，更廣約諸教何位何時、顯密權實知不知等。望舊雖爾，今家於實，秖是初則不知，後方得知，因此重料簡緣覺。

From "Now let us try..." onward, it directly preserves the present teaching to achieve an integration. First, in directly integrating: although there are two beginnings, the great beginning is definitive; how could one take the sentiment of the small from the middle and grasp the extinction of the small as the rule? Therefore, accomplishment is definite in the Great Teaching, and there is no need to dispute it. One principle being thus, please contemplate the twenty-two pairs accordingly. If the Buddha, the World-Honoured One, had left conflicting texts for both, how could he have accomplished the three penetrations and the five eyes? Therefore, judging in accordance with this, the disputes will naturally vanish. Even if there are differences among the lesser sections within the twenty-three, they are clearly easy to eliminate. Next, from "If one grasps this meaning..." onward, provisional and real are distinguished within the applications of mindfulness. Therefore, one knows that merely by indicating the two kinds of initial practice, their obstacles will naturally dissolve; why must one again use a single beginning to create an obstacle? Furthermore, if one hears the Lotus [Sūtra], there will no longer be doubt or regret, and the two gates of knowing and not knowing will be without obstruction; hence there is a distinction between knowing and not knowing for the two persons of provisional and real. From "Some say..." onward, it cites an older view that briefly posits the two persons of sharp and dull faculties, and when it comes to explaining them, divides them into four propositions, purely using provisional persons to display knowing and not knowing, which is therefore not reasonable. From "We do not now adopt..." onward, it generally refutes this. Therefore, conforming to our present intention, provisional and real are fully clarified; this is why we do not use the four propositions of pure provisionality. If discussed in detail, four propositions are formed for the real practice contrasted with the provisional, hence the note says "and so forth." The text merely briefly establishes that the provisional person knows first and the real person does not know; those who, based on the initial practice of the small, give rise to the thought of extinction do not know in the present life, while those who know are those who attain awakening in the present life. These are the first two propositions. The third proposition is: at first they do not know, and later they know. The fourth proposition is: those who were rebuked in the Vaipulya [sūtras], because their capacity had not yet been activated, are not knowing; because they were rebuked, they are not not knowing. The provisional person conforms to the real in manifesting knowing and not knowing, but discussing their inner mind, there is no time when they do not know. Therefore, by not adopting the old [interpretation], the principle becomes clear of itself, further broadly applying to which stage and which time across the various teachings, whether manifest or secret, provisional or real, knowing or not knowing, and so forth. Although looking toward the old view it is like this, for our school, regarding the real, they simply do not know at first and only later come to know; on this basis, condition-awakened ones are examined again.