法華文句記 4.40

4.40

次結二智中以成就為結實、隨宜為結權者，實必成就、權必利他，故實智云「到彼岸底」，權智云「稱機適會」。又實智中稱理故到岸，甚深故究竟，並隨時為言耳。「隨情」等者，法華已前不了義故，故云難解。即指今教咸皆入實，故云易知。若爾，由入者不當，故云難解耳。若至今經更無不當，但借昔之難解以釋今教之易知。引《攝大乘》者，今文顯了但依文判，如記二乘逼增上慢，實得必信滅想猶聞，大通結緣化城無實，如來久成之塵數過於昨日之墨點，持一四句偈功不可量，聞壽命長遠獲無邊果報，豈此文下更有義立，令二乘人不得記等耶？令佛壽量短促等耶？故四意趣中平等意趣，秖云諸佛咸然，不可以他佛替此，亦不可以別時意趣釋記聲聞，意樂意趣釋迹本長遠，縱使用者秖可云爾前不樂，且逗滅想宜近之徒。若全以意趣消此經文，此經全成不了義說，並須以義判文故也。故前諸經隨何部意文義兼含，如真如真諦無生無滅、地前地上法身化身，咸須義定方了文旨，以部含教共不可依言，須從義判乃稱部意。言「有時」者，非其聽次別諮決時，故知自行不專於實，利物何獨唯權，以自行化他俱有權實故也。所以成就中云「甚深」，隨宜中云「難解」，甚深豈獨於實，難解不專於權，故但以成就對自、隨宜對他，則任運自他悉具二智。言「云云」者，亦可前句結自行之實，後句結化他之權，以自行故權實俱實，以化他故權實俱權，以初釋結文但在自行權實故也。雖云適會正語功成，故云云意中更須別對，具足如前四句中說。自行權實尚開四句，況對化他，化他理須具四故也。所以歎實歎權及釋權實中，權並從因者，以釋前果權之所由，以果從因得故也。及至結中言「隨宜」等者，須義兼於因果，以因權用權俱名權故，以用權中復通因果故也。至釋迦章歎釋權實皆悉從果，至雙結中權指因者，雙結歎釋二文故也。

Next, in concluding the two wisdoms, taking "accomplishing" as concluding the real and "according with suitability" as concluding the provisional: the real must be accomplished, and the provisional must benefit others; therefore, regarding real wisdom it says "reaching the bottom of the other shore," and regarding the wisdom of skillful means it says "matching capacities and suiting encounters." Furthermore, in real wisdom, because it accords with principle it reaches the shore, and because it is extremely profound it is ultimate; these are both spoken in accordance with the occasion. Regarding "following sentiments" and so forth: before the Lotus, it was not the definitive meaning; hence it is said to be difficult to understand. It directly points to the present teaching where all enter the real; hence it is said to be easy to know. If so, it is because those who entered were inadequate that it is said to be difficult to understand. When reaching the present sūtra, there is no longer any inadequacy; it merely borrows the past "difficult to understand" to explain the present teaching's "easy to know." Regarding the citation of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha: the present text is clear and obvious, so one simply determines it according to the text. For example, conferring predictions on the two vehicles forces back the excessively arrogant; those who truly attain it must believe, while those who extinguish thoughts still hear it; the Great Penetrating [Buddha]'s formation of conditions shows the illusory city lacks reality; the dust motes of the Tathāgata's attainment in the remote past exceed yesterday's ink dots; the merit of upholding a single four-line verse cannot be measured; hearing of the longevity brings boundless retributions. Could it be that beneath this text there is another theoretical establishment, causing people of the two vehicles not to attain predictions and so forth, or causing the Buddha's life span to be short and so forth? Therefore, among the four intentions, the intention of equality merely says that all buddhas are like this; one cannot use another buddha to substitute for this one, nor can one use the intention of a different time to explain the prediction to the śrāvakas, or the intention of inclination to explain the long duration of traces and origin. Even if applied, one can only say that prior to this they were not inclined, and it temporarily accommodated those who extinguished thoughts and were suited to the proximate. If one entirely uses intentions to explain away the text of this sūtra, this sūtra completely becomes an incomplete, non-definitive teaching; in all cases, one must judge the text by principle. Therefore, the previous sūtras, in accordance with the intent of whatever collection, contain both text and principle—such as suchness and ultimate truth being unarisen and unceasing, or the stages before the grounds and on the grounds, the dharmakāya and the transformation body: all must be determined by principle before one comprehends the purport of the text. Because the collection contains shared teachings, one cannot rely merely on the words; one must judge according to principle to accord with the collection's intent. Regarding "at times": this does not refer to the time of listening, but to a separate time of inquiry and resolution; hence one knows that self-cultivation is not exclusively the real, and benefiting beings—how could it only be the provisional? Because both self-cultivation and transforming others possess both provisional and real. Therefore, in accomplishment it says "extremely profound," and in according with suitability it says "difficult to understand"; how could "extremely profound" be exclusive to the real, and "difficult to understand" not be exclusive to the provisional? Therefore, merely aligning accomplishment with the self and according with suitability with others, naturally both self and other possess both wisdoms. Regarding "and so forth": the former phrase can also conclude the real of self-cultivation, and the latter phrase conclude the provisional of transforming others; because of self-cultivation, both provisional and real are real; because of transforming others, both provisional and real are provisional; this is because the initial explanation of the concluding text lies solely in the provisional and real of self-cultivation. Although it speaks of suiting encounters, the main point speaks of accomplishing merit; hence within the meaning of "and so forth" there must further be distinct alignments, fully as stated in the previous four propositions. Even the provisional and real of self-cultivation opens into four propositions, how much more so when contrasted with transforming others; transforming others by principle must possess the four. The reason why praising the real, praising the provisional, and explaining the provisional and real all treat the provisional from the perspective of cause is to explain the origin of the previous fruition-provisional, because fruition is attained from cause. When reaching the conclusion, saying "according with suitability" and so forth must by principle encompass both cause and fruition, because both causal provisional and functional provisional are called provisional, and within functional provisional it also extends across cause and fruition. When reaching Śākyamuni's section, praising and explaining the provisional and real both follow fruition; when reaching the dual conclusion, the provisional points to cause because it doubly concludes both the praise and explanation texts.