法華文句記 4.41

4.41

次斥舊三意中，舊師亦有許。「所以者何」下釋諸佛二智等，但釋釋迦章。分文前却舊以「舍利弗」下盡屬權，次「舍利弗」下盡屬實，故使不同也。初開合者，今家諸佛亦權實各歎，以釋迦二智豈不同耶？諸佛二智豈不異耶？故知後之二意亦不同古，釋迦亦先實次權故也。言「但依文」者，依今分文。言「又汝云」者，責三不同也。以五佛章門共顯一化，故得本迹開合自他不別，何得五佛互辨在無？然非無此理，但不須違文，文順義當何須別途？故注「云云」。「譬喻者」，且分小、衍，故云芭蕉及如幻等，此譬觀俗故且立之。若譬真諦及十六門各立事理，廣如《止觀》四門料簡各立事譬。言「依諸論」者恐誤，應云「本論」，本《論》略舉漸中初後，故云乳及醍醐，仍闕云乳譬十二部經。《玄》文亦以乳對於小。言「悉到事理邊」者，應云邊底，或闕或略事邊理底故也。「如來知見如前」者，如向釋知見波羅蜜。「如此」下釋疑，恐疑釋結實智而置深廣之言，謂為實智言說可及。故今釋曰：約實體邊實非橫竪，斥彼攝法不周故云「橫」，斥彼照理不極故云「竪」，究而言之並非橫竪。「寄言」者正破疑也。說有橫竪理必不然，無限故非橫，無極故非竪。「如函大」等者，用不二智稱不二理。「無量無礙」者，如彼生數，生無量故慈等無量，故此無量猶名若干，故以若干而歎於權，權名便故，以無限故名為無礙，今且從自能入邊說，故以能入稱無量等。「非但至梁代」等者，自梁朝來皆以此句以為結實。實無礙智無復若干，那云無量？故知無量用表不一。「云云」者，同教實智皆無若干，豈圓實智更有若干？「無量」下釋若干等，故四無量定在權智，既云四等及以四辯，驗非實智，即是無緣四無量心在運應物，八音四辯力無所畏，略如《法界次第》及《止觀》第七記。《大論》廣釋，此中文略，但舉樂說以說前三，文仍略法，但云「一辭一義」而已。就此復略，不云又與一切相即說故。既云比於通別，理合四教相望比決力無畏等。「禪盡禪之實相」等者，

Next, in criticizing the three views of the former [commentators], former masters also had [views] that can be accepted. Below "Why is this?", in explaining the two wisdoms of all buddhas, etc., they only explained the section on Śākyamuni. In dividing the text front and back, formerly they treated everything from "Śāriputra" downward as belonging entirely to the provisional, and the next from "Śāriputra" downward as belonging entirely to the real, which caused their differences. Regarding the initial opening and combining: in our school's interpretation, for all buddhas there is also a praise of both the provisional and the real separately. For how could Śākyamuni's two wisdoms not be the same? And how could all buddhas' two wisdoms not be different? Therefore, we know that the latter two meanings also differ from the ancient [views], because for Śākyamuni it is also first the real and next the provisional. The phrase "only following the text" means following the present division of the text. The phrase "furthermore, you say" reprimands their three differences. Because the section of the five buddhas collectively reveals the single conversion, it can be that the origin and traces, opening and combining, self and others are not distinct; how could it be that among the five buddhas they alternately distinguish presence and absence? Yet it is not that this principle does not exist; it is just that one need not go against the text. When the text is consonant and the meaning is fitting, why need there be another path? Therefore the note says "and so forth." Regarding "the metaphors": these tentatively distinguish the small [vehicle] and the Great [Vehicle], hence it says plantain trees, like illusions, and so on; these metaphors are provisionally established to contemplate the conventional. If using metaphors for the absolute truth and the sixteen gates each establishing phenomenal fact and principle, it is extensively as in the examination of the four gates in the *Zhǐguān*, where phenomenal metaphors are established for each. The phrase "relying on various treatises" is feared to be an error; it should say "the root treatise." The root *Treatise* briefly adduces the initial and final stages of the gradual, hence it says milk and ghee; yet it omits saying that milk is a metaphor for the twelve divisions of scriptures. The text of the *Xuán[yì]* also matches milk with the small [vehicle]. The phrase "all reaching the limits of facts and principle": it should say "the limits and depths," for [words are] either missing or omitted regarding the limits of facts and the depths of principle. "The Tathāgata's knowledge and vision are as before": as in the previous explanation of the pāramitā of knowledge and vision. Below "in this manner," doubts are explained: it was feared that someone might doubt the explanation concluding the real wisdom due to the inclusion of the words "deep and vast," thinking that the real wisdom is something that words and speech can reach. Therefore it is now explained: In terms of the substance of reality, it is truly neither horizontal nor vertical. In order to rebuke their failure to encompass all dharmas completely, it is called "horizontal"; in order to rebuke their failure to illuminate the principle to the utmost, it is called "vertical." In ultimate terms, it is neither horizontal nor vertical. "Lodging in words" directly refutes the doubt. Speaking of horizontal and vertical, the principle is certainly not so: because it is limitless, it is not horizontal; because it is without utmost limit, it is not vertical. Regarding "as the casing is large," and so forth: applying the non-dual wisdom to match the non-dual principle. "Measureless and unhindered": like those kinds of beings, because sentient beings are measureless, benevolence and so on are measureless; therefore, this measureless is still called "a certain amount." Hence, by means of "a certain amount," one praises the provisional, because the name of the provisional is convenience. Because it is limitless, it is called unhindered. Here, speaking tentatively from the aspect of what one can enter, one matches the measureless and so forth by means of what can enter. Regarding "not only up to the Liang dynasty," and so on: from the Liang dynasty onward, all took this sentence as concluding the real [wisdom]. But real, unhindered wisdom no longer has "a certain amount"; how could it be said to be "measureless"? Therefore we know that "measureless" is used to express non-oneness. The note "and so forth" means: in the shared teachings, real wisdom has no "a certain amount"; how could the perfect real wisdom have any more "a certain amount"? Below "measureless," it explains "a certain amount" and so forth; thus the four immeasurables certainly reside in provisional wisdom. Since it speaks of the four equanimities and the four analytical knowledges, this proves it is not real wisdom; that is, the four immeasurable minds of no-condition functioning in response to beings, the eight tones, the four analytical knowledges, the powers, and the fearlessnesses, as briefly stated in the *Fǎjiè Cìdì* and the notes on the seventh [fascicle] of the *Zhǐguān*. The *Dàzhìdù lùn* explains them extensively; here the text is brief, only mentioning the delight in speech to explain the previous three, and the text still omits dharmas, merely saying "one phrase, one meaning" and no more. With respect to this it is again brief, not stating that it is explained as mutually identical with all. Since it is said to be compared with the shared and distinctive [teachings], in principle the four teachings should be compared and determined against one another regarding the powers, fearlessnesses, and so forth. Regarding "as for dhyāna, exhausting the true character of dhyāna," and so forth: