法華文句記 4.75

4.75

「但舉初後」者，仍先舉後二却舉初二，故先云「大果報」，次云「性相義」也。「義字」等者，「義」謂義理，秖一究竟之言，有空假中義理故也。「大與種種」等者，具如《玄》文破光宅中，彼云「大故知是實，種種故知是實」，今文意云，權實互有，豈果報唯大、性相唯種種耶？又釋妙中大妙相望以為六句。「六度」至「發心」者，斷即成佛故也。「如意珠」具如《止觀》及記。「無漏不思議」者，當知此不思議之無漏，故無漏名同應思義別。云「生出四種解釋，已如上」者，指上四番釋十如也。此下偈文，對者是也。「逮得涅槃」指六度者，以望二乘此生即得，故云「逮得」。「逮」者及也。又今欲廢，小菩薩為旁，故旁云「及」也、「當入滅」耳。若不爾者，今準他人上之三句，正明二乘脫縛即是已得涅槃，云何更云「逮得涅槃」？由聞三偽一真，是諸聲聞但聞三乘皆是方便，方便即偽。又聞「要當說真實」，所以疑其實未曾聞說唯一實。「偏舉二乘」者，世人若問：若三俱會，何故此中敘疑但二？亦應反問：若菩薩無疑，何故下文云「菩薩疑除」？若云疑通三人、會唯有二，菩薩何過而不會之？《經》云「疑除」，作不會釋，此乃破經，何名釋經？「一解脫」者，昔教三人同一解脫，方等、般若中雖聞勝脫，今從初說。有云：已得三德中之一脫。此不然也。釋「三請」者，瑤師、龍師非無眉目故不全破，但不及今師以望三周抑令三請，此則釋文所表俱有深致，凡一家破義皆恐累後學，於經有過彊復破之，不同世人任其胸臆。又偈後三行半云「動執生疑」，至爾時眾中下但云「騰疑致請」者，

Regarding "merely citing the beginning and the end": it still first cites the latter two and then cites the first two; therefore it first says 'great fruit and retribution', and next says 'the meaning of nature and characteristics'. Regarding "the word 'meaning'" and so forth: 'meaning' refers to the principle; it is merely that the single word 'ultimate' has the principles of emptiness, conventionality, and the middle. Regarding "great and varied" and so forth: this is fully detailed in the Words and Phrases (Xuanwen) refuting Guāngzhái, where he says: 'Because it is great, we know it is real; because it is varied, we know it is real.' The intention of the present text is that the provisional and the real each have both; how could it be that fruit and retribution are exclusively great, and nature and characteristics exclusively varied? Furthermore, in explaining 'wondrous', the great and the wondrous are contrasted to form six propositions. Regarding "from the six perfections to generating the aspiration": because upon severing [defilements] one immediately becomes a buddha. The 'wish-fulfilling jewel' is fully explained in the Śamatha-Vipaśyanā and its Notes. Regarding "untainted and inconceivable": one should know that this is the untainted of the inconceivable; therefore, while the name 'untainted' is the same, the meaning to be contemplated is different. It says: "Four kinds of interpretation are generated, as above"; this points to the above fourfold explanations of the ten suchnesses. In the verses below, those corresponding are these. Regarding "attaining nirvāṇa" referring to the six perfections: compared to the two vehicles, it is attained in this very life, hence it says 'attained'. 'Attained' (dài) means reached. Furthermore, now wishing to abolish them, the inferior bodhisattvas are secondary; hence it secondarily says 'reached' and 'shall enter extinction'. If it were not so, then judging by other people's reading of the above three lines, it directly clarifies that the two vehicles' liberation from bondage is precisely their having already attained nirvāṇa; why would it again say 'attaining nirvāṇa'? Due to hearing of the three as deceptive and the one as true, all these śrāvakas merely heard that the three vehicles are all skillful means, and skillful means are deceptive. Furthermore, having heard 'I will certainly preach the real', they therefore doubted its reality, never having heard the exposition of the sole reality. Regarding "citing only the two vehicles": if worldly people ask, 'If all three are converged, why does the narrative of doubt here mention only two?', one should also ask in reply: 'If bodhisattvas have no doubt, why does the text below say "the bodhisattvas' doubts were removed"?' If one says that doubt pervades the three persons but convergence belongs only to two, what fault do bodhisattvas have that they would not be converged? The Sūtra says 'doubts were removed'; interpreting this as not being converged is refuting the Sūtra—how could it be called interpreting the Sūtra? Regarding 'single liberation': in the past teachings, the three persons shared a single liberation; although superior liberation was heard in the Vaipulya and Prajñā, this is spoken from the initial [teachings]. Some say: 'They have already attained one liberation among the three virtues.' This is not so. Regarding the explanation of the 'three requests': Masters Yáo and Lóng were not without clarity, so they are not entirely refuted; yet they do not match our present master, who, in view of the three cycles, constrained them to three requests. Thus, what the commentary expresses both possesses profound principle. Whenever our school refutes an interpretation, it is always out of concern for burdening later students; if there is an error regarding the Sūtra, it is forcibly refuted, unlike worldly people who give free rein to their own notions. Furthermore, regarding the three and a half lines of verse being 'shaking attachments and giving rise to doubt', down to 'at that time in the assembly' which merely says 'expressing doubt and making the request':