法華文句記 4.167

4.167

次正明顯實中，古以此四顯實，今以開示等四並為理一，舊師所無，但說者受者並於理上立因果耳。此師於此立因果門以釋開等，猶不及光宅於別序中以本迹門而釋四句，別序雖序迹門仍居一部之首，豈法說初更分因果？「又正是因門」者，且從弟子因說。言「果門」者，且從師之遠果其實具有，委如《玄》文。「若爾」去反徵古師。本門既移來此，迹門理合向前，不可本迹重張，復令本門剩長。若其雙標本迹，品內之義混和，豈有雙標於斯，至下別生緣起？況釋四一不及光宅下方等者，舉本別由以責古釋，塔現證前兼為起後，故寶塔踊為本遠由，地踊菩薩為本近由，二由未來安得辯本？次敘光宅，「今亦不用」下破也。初作因果相違破三慧在因故也。又「三慧」下但約於因，以多種三慧即是縱難，縱用三慧須簡三教，三教三慧尚未入於當教聖位，況圓聖位？故復縱云：若圓三慧，此位亦未開佛知見，故前兩教及別地前無佛知見。「若作餘三」等者，結難也。初句結非佛知見，「若作」下自違命章。「云云」者，應須廣辯，不可用意。

Next, within directly clarifying the revealing of the real, ancient masters used these four to reveal the real; now, the four—opening, revealing, and so forth—are all taken as the unity of principle, which old masters did not have; rather, the expounder and the recipient both established cause and effect upon principle. This master here established the gate of cause and effect to interpret “open” and so forth, yet this is not as good as Guangzhai, who in the specific preface interpreted the four phrases by means of the gates of origin and traces. Although the specific preface prefaces the traces gate, it still stands at the head of the entire work; how could one, at the beginning of the dharma exposition, further divide cause and effect? “Also, it is precisely the causal gate” temporarily explains from the cause of the disciples. Saying “the fruitional gate” temporarily speaks from the master’s remote fruit; in reality, both are possessed, as detailed in the Profound Meaning. “If so” onwards inversely cross-examines the ancient masters. Since the origin gate has already been moved here, the traces gate should logically precede it; one cannot double-deploy the origin and traces, making the origin gate redundant and oversized. If one indicates both origin and traces together, the meaning within the chapter would become blended and confused; how could both be indicated here, only for a separate causal genesis to arise below? What is more, interpreting the four unities does not equal Guangzhai’s [approach] below in the Vaipulya section, which adduces the specific grounds of origin to reproach the ancient interpretation: the apparition of the stūpa verifies what came before and also initiates what comes after; hence the leaping forth of the jeweled stūpa is the remote ground of origin, while the bodhisattvas welling forth from the earth are the proximate ground of origin. Before these two grounds have arrived, how could one discern the origin? Next, recounting Guangzhai, “now we also do not use” onwards refutes him. First, it refutes on the grounds of cause and effect contradicting each other, because the three wisdoms are on the causal [stage]. Furthermore, below “three wisdoms,” it merely pertains to the cause; presenting multiple kinds of three wisdoms is a concessionary challenge. Even conceding the use of the three wisdoms, one must distinguish the three teachings; the three wisdoms of the three teachings have not yet entered the noble stages of their respective teachings, let alone the perfect noble stage! Therefore, it further concedes: even if they were the perfect three wisdoms, this stage still has not opened the buddha-knowledge and vision; thus, the preceding two teachings and the stages prior to the bhūmis of the Distinct Teaching lack the buddha-knowledge and vision. “If one takes the remaining three” and so forth concludes the challenge. The first line concludes that they are not the buddha-knowledge and vision; below “if one takes,” it contradicts his own opening proposition. “Et cetera” means that one should broadly discern this and not apply one’s own preconceived ideas.