法華文句記 4.166

4.166

「初明佛道」至「難知也」者，施權意也。以諸教中無施名故，今欲明開故，先敘所開，即所施是。故《玄》文云：「為實施權意在於實，開權顯實意在於權，當知以實為權權名隱實，開權顯實實外無餘，潛之與顯利在物情，常住本源未嘗增減，故未開之前非但不說顯實之名、都無施權之語，故說宜權之言，即須顯實故也。」故知此是《法華》之宗致，實教之源由，釋義之旨歸，眾行之府藏；若不體之徒施徒運。每至此意皆勤勤者，恐斯宗學者失經旨故。「所以者何」下應釋諸佛。云「我以」等者，以我釋彼也。「借此」者，既將自權而釋於彼，故借字亦子夜反，去聲稱之。意正引彼證此，故且以此釋彼，意亦明於道同，彼此皆悉施開故也。「是法」等者，若結開權，「是法」兩字指向演說諸法是也。標人法中云「舉無分別法」者，將向是法為顯實法，故云「法」也。唯有諸佛舉人也，即是向法故云「能知」。「除諸」等者，若爾《法華》之外皆魔事耶？不然。但前教中權魔亦說之，唯此一實魔永不測，故云「除」耳。故惑阿難時亦說中道，但除其魔而開其法。「非五七九」等者，以三五等皆是方便，故皆云「非」。三藏三乘加人天五也，加通教二乘七也。但會二乘，何二乘耶？以共二乘與《婆沙》中二乘永別，《般若》不與彼二乘共，故今問之。若三藏三乘不須會者，《婆沙》四階即是究竟圓常果不？若秖歸此果即是《大品》共佛以不？為是《瓔珞》妙覺位不？為是《華嚴》遮那果不？加通別菩薩九也。若義分行、向乃成十一，此等皆是被會之異，合彼異故故名為一，一體收異故名為大。大即今經圓妙一乘，位與《華嚴》圓位同也。「儀式」者，秖以開合之相為威儀法式。「今開三者」，開三在昔，而言今者，指今一化從一乘開，故云今耳。「如釋論」等者，文初適云「諸佛大事」，今文復云「何名諸佛大事」等者？佛所尊重故數言之，故引為例。「云云」者，《論》更有文，亦云「如王好施，所生太子名數數與等」。

From “first clarifies the Buddha path” to “is difficult to know” shows the intention of applying the provisional. Because throughout the various teachings there was no mention of the name “applying,” now, wishing to clarify the opening, one first recounts what is opened, which is precisely that which was applied. Thus the text of the Profound Meaning says: “Applying the provisional for the sake of the real, the intention lies in the real; opening the provisional and revealing the real, the intention lies in the provisional. One should know that taking the real as the provisional, the name ‘provisional’ conceals the real; opening the provisional and revealing the real, outside the real nothing remains. Latency and disclosure serve to benefit the capacities of sentient beings; the permanently abiding fundamental source has never increased or decreased. Therefore, before the opening, not only was the name ‘revealing the real’ not spoken, but there was entirely no talk of ‘applying the provisional.’ Hence, in uttering words appropriate to the provisional, one must necessarily reveal the real.” Thus we know that this is the central purport of the Lotus Sūtra, the source of the real teaching, the ultimate destination of interpreted meanings, and the treasury of all practices; if one does not embody it, one applies and exercises in vain. Whenever coming to this meaning, one is ever so diligent, for fear that students of this school might lose the sūtra’s purport. Below “For what reason?” should explain the various buddhas. Saying “I, with…” and so forth interprets that by means of this. “Borrowing this”: since one takes one’s own provisional to explain that [of other buddhas], the character “borrow” (借) is also read as the fanqie of zi-ye (jie), pronounced in the falling tone. The intention is precisely to cite that to corroborate this; therefore, one temporarily explains that by means of this, with the intention also of clarifying that their paths are identical, because both sides alike apply and open. Regarding “this dharma” and so forth: if concluding the opening of the provisional, the two characters “this dharma” refer precisely to the various dharmas expounded earlier. In indicating the person and the dharma, saying “adducing the nondiscriminative dharma” takes the preceding “this dharma” as the dharma that reveals the real; hence it says “dharma.” “Only buddhas” adduces the persons; this is precisely the preceding dharma, hence it says “can know.” Regarding “excepting…” and so forth: if so, is everything outside the Lotus Sūtra the work of Māra? It is not so. Rather, in the former teachings, the provisional was also spoken of by Māra; only this single reality can Māra never fathom; hence it merely says “excepting.” Therefore, when bewildering Ānanda, [Māra] also spoke of the middle way; one merely removes his māra-[influence] and opens his dharma. Regarding “not five, seven, or nine” and so forth: because three, five, and so forth are all skillful means, it says “not” for all of them. To the three vehicles of the Tripiṭaka [Teaching], adding humans and devas makes five; adding the two vehicles of the Shared Teaching makes seven. Yet it merely converges the two vehicles—which two vehicles? Because the common two vehicles are eternally distinct from the two vehicles in the Vibhāṣā, and Prajñā is not shared with those two vehicles, this is now asked. If the three vehicles of the Tripiṭaka Teaching need not be converged, then are the four stages of the Vibhāṣā the ultimate, perfect, and eternal fruit or not? If they merely return to this fruit, is this the shared Buddha of the Pañcaviṃśati or not? Is it the stage of wondrous enlightenment in the Yingluo jing or not? Is it the fruit of Vairocana in the Avataṃsaka or not? Adding the bodhisattvas of the Shared and Distinct Teachings makes nine. If conceptually differentiated into practices and dedications, it comes to eleven. These are all differences that are converged; because those differences are united, it is called “one”; because the one essence subsumes differences, it is called “great.” “Great” is precisely this sūtra’s perfect and wondrous One Vehicle, its stages being identical with the perfect stages of the Avataṃsaka. “Ceremonial forms” refers simply to the aspects of opening and combining serving as dignified conduct and procedural forms. “Now opening the three”: opening the three was in the past, but saying “now” refers to this single lifetime of transformation opening from the One Vehicle; hence it merely says “now.” Regarding “as the Commentary says” and so forth: at the beginning of the text it had just said “the great matter of the buddhas”; why does the present text again say “what is called the great matter of the buddhas” and so forth? Because it is venerated by the Buddha, he states it repeatedly; hence this is cited as an example. “Et cetera” refers to the fact that the Commentary has further text, also saying: “Like a king fond of giving, whose newborn prince is named ‘Gives Frequently,’ and so forth.”