法華文句記 4.83

4.83

第三惑有厚薄者，古師以迴惑釋惑，今師以煩惑釋惑，故與舊不同。於中先列古釋。重觀所證故云「遊觀」，由遊觀故知一理同。「及其」下明其惑由，由聞教異。「將必」下正明互疑生惑。教本詮理，能詮既三所詮寧一？所詮若一能詮豈三？「踟蹰」下明其惑相，雖復迴遑未辯得失。「以理」下判其得失，以理惑教有順理之得，以教惑理有違理之失。「上根」等者，乃以小中理教得失，而判入大三周不同。故上根執一理情多，理名近大，故聞無三而順一理，所以前悟。教惑理者三聞方知一理無差，所以因斯成下根悟。中根二情力等故悟居中。「今謂」下破，先總破彼理教互惑而為三根。若以互惑為三根者，不可未聞三周預生迴惑。次「三人」下具破二意，一者大小永不相關，二破在小不應惑大。此別破二意初中又二，先且定之故云「何等」。「若迴遑」下正破又二，先約小破，疑屬見惑初果尚非，何得互疑名三根耶？次「若迴遑大乘者」下約大破也。大小既別，安得於大理教互疑？次意者用今經意，若大小理教更互惑者，汝於何處聞斥三耶？方等雖斥、般若雖加，並未曾云三是方便，故知爾前大小未惑，豈出入觀三一踟蹰？「既預」下縱難，爾前已曾理教迴惑，當知已曾動執生疑；若已生疑，略開三時已應領解，何得聞略仍云四眾咸皆有疑？言「今日」者，聞略開時。「進退」下結非。次「今明」下正釋，先判正意，次約四句以判三根，三約三品以明入住。初文者，先總明根惑並異於他，小乘根定迴惑又除，安得還就小乘辯惑？他縱以小而惑於大，他又不立別惑之名，故小迴惑不成厚薄。

Regarding the third, afflictions having thickness and thinness: ancient masters explained doubt through vacillating doubt, while the present master explains doubt through affliction-doubt; hence it differs from the old [interpretations]. Herein, the ancient explanation is first listed. Contemplating repeatedly what was realized is called "wandering contemplation"; due to wandering contemplation, one knows the one principle is identical. / From "and when" onward clarifies the cause of their doubt: it arises from hearing differing teachings. / From "surely it must be" onward properly clarifies mutual doubt giving rise to perplexity. Teachings originally express principle; since what expresses is threefold, how could what is expressed be one? If what is expressed is one, how could what expresses be threefold? / From "hesitating" onward clarifies the characteristics of their perplexity: although vacillating, they have not yet distinguished benefit and loss. / From "by means of principle" onward judges their benefit and loss: doubting the teaching by means of principle has the benefit of according with principle; doubting the principle by means of teaching has the loss of disobeying principle. / Regarding "superior faculties" and so forth: this is using the benefit and loss of principle and teaching within the Small [Vehicle] to judge the differences among the three cycles of entering the Great. Therefore, those of superior faculties have more attachment to the one principle, and principle is termed close to the Great; hence, hearing that there are no three, they accord with the one principle, and therefore awaken first. Those whose teaching doubts principle only know after three hearings that the one principle is without discrepancy, and therefore through this achieve the awakening of the lower faculties. Those of intermediate faculties have equal strength in both sentiments, and therefore their awakening is in the middle. / From "now we say" onward is the refutation: first broadly refuting their mutual doubt between principle and teaching serving as the three faculties. If mutual doubt constitutes the three faculties, it is impossible that, prior to hearing the three cycles, they should give rise in advance to vacillating doubt. / Next, from "the three persons" downward fully refutes two points: first, the Great and Small are forever unrelated; second, refuting that being in the Small one should doubt the Great. In this separate refutation of the two points, the first again has two parts: first tentatively determining it, hence saying "what kind?" / From "if vacillating" onward is the proper refutation, which again has two parts: first refuting in terms of the Small: doubt belongs to view-afflictions, which even the first fruit does not have—how could mutual doubt be called the three faculties? / Next, from "if vacillating in the Mahāyāna" onward refutes in terms of the Great: since Great and Small are distinct, how could they have mutual doubt regarding the Great principle and teaching? / The next point uses the intent of the present sūtra: if they mutually doubted the principle and teaching of Great and Small, where would you have heard the rejection of the three? Although the Vaipulya reproached and Prajñā added, neither ever said that the three are skillful means; therefore we know that prior to this they did not doubt Great and Small—how could they, entering and emerging from contemplation, hesitate between three and one? / From "since in advance" downward is an ad hominem challenge: if prior to this they had already vacillated over principle and teaching, you should know that their attachments had already been shaken and doubt aroused; if doubt had already arisen, at the time of briefly opening the three they should already have comprehended—how could it be said that upon hearing the brief [exposition], the fourfold assembly all had doubts? Saying "today" refers to the time of hearing the brief opening. / The passage from "advancing and retreating" downward concludes the error. / Next, from "now it is clarified" onward is the proper explanation: first judging the primary intent; next judging the three faculties through four propositions; third, clarifying entering the stages through three grades. / In the first passage, it first broadly clarifies that faculties and afflictions are both different from others: the faculties of the Hīnayāna are fixed and vacillating doubt is also eliminated—how could one turn back to the Hīnayāna to analyze afflictions? Even if they doubted the Great by means of the Small, they also do not establish the name of distinct afflictions; therefore, vacillating doubt in the Small does not constitute thickness and thinness.