法華文句記 6.39

6.39

次「經言」下別明門義以釋疑也。先重舉經，次「今問」下別釋。初立疑，「救云」下他人雖救救仍未通，恐燒教有過，乃避教燒人。人猶被燒，何須是教？「如門」下他人立喻。今問縱使不燒，從人得名，人定燒不？人若定燒，何殊九十？況經云以佛教門出三界苦，人何曾燒？若爾，二俱不燒則有二失：一者俱常，此未明常；二者違經，經云所燒之門安隱得出令無此妨。從「又問」下重難意者，重立燒家難也。若不許燒，教應常住。今欲正解，「今解」去正釋，有譬、有合，意明小教既非色即中道法界，此教安得不名無常？然小理不滅、大教抑之，小教無常義同被燒猶如門楗，理非無常猶如門空，燒與安隱二義俱成。若依古人，人既被燒不得名為安隱得出，立門本意令其不燒，唯燒無出，門義不成。「大經」下引證。經以十仙前因義同能詮，以因望果亦可借用，如因小證大，小無無常大豈無常？「若小」下此更將小通對衍門。言「文字即解脫」等者，大小色教並皆是常，但有即不即殊，乃成燒不燒別，隨宜故不即，順理故無燒，今皆開顯即燒無燒。「若就」下更以權實二智對釋，從施權邊故云權從所燒，同體之權本自常住，縱從覆說權為所燒，仍須分別，則三教權中唯三藏權生滅名燒，餘二少別，故先作下引證，佛元欲用實智凡案，事不獲已施於無常，無常即是所燒權智。有人云：約不信者名為所燒，佛昔從出故云安隱。雖是一途，不及今文。經云「若不時出必為所焚」，故得出之言非獨長者，被燒之語豈唯不信？故知教法生滅名為所燒，非由眾生不信故滅。宅以濁故被燒，教門何濁之有？但聲教不住義同生滅，生滅云燒故須分判。「樂著」等者，先分字釋，嬉遊樂也。遊名遍樂，故譬見惑遍於三界，戲雖亦樂隨處非遍，於三界中所繫別故。又「耽湎」去合字解者，此兩字義通名樂故，故以兩字俱通見修，以著愛見俱喪道故，愛見是集集必招苦，具苦集故必無道滅。

Next, from 'The sūtra says' downward specifically clarifies the meaning of the gate in order to resolve doubts. First, it cites the sūtra again; next, from 'Now I ask' downward, it explains specifically. First, it establishes the doubt. From 'As a rescue, it is said' downward: although others attempt a rescue, the rescue still does not succeed; fearing that burning the teaching involves an error, they avoid the teaching and burn the person. If the person is still burned, what need is there for this teaching? From 'Like a gate' downward: others establish an analogy. Now I ask: even granting that it is not burned and takes its name from the person, is the person definitely burned or not? If the person is definitely burned, how does it differ from the ninety [kinds]? Moreover, the sūtra says that by means of the Buddha's gate of teaching one exits the suffering of the three realms; how was the person ever burned? If so, then if neither is burned, there are two faults: first, both would be permanent, yet this text has not yet clarified permanence; second, it would contradict the sūtra, which says that from the gate that was burned one attained exit safely and peacefully—making it avoid this flaw. The intention of the renewed challenge from 'It is asked again' downward: it re-establishes the challenge of those who hold the burning. If you do not allow burning, the teaching should be permanently abiding. Now, to provide the correct interpretation: from 'Now the explanation is' onward is the correct explanation, containing both metaphor and application. The intention clarifies that since the small teaching is not form-is-precisely-the-Middle-Way dharmadhātu, how could this teaching not be called impermanent? However, the small principle is not destroyed, but the great teaching represses it; the small teaching being impermanent is functionally equivalent to being burned, like the door bar, while the principle is not impermanent, like the empty space of the doorway. The two meanings of burning and peace and safety are both established. If one relies on the ancients, since the person was burned, it could not be called attaining exit safely and peacefully; the original purpose of establishing the gate was to ensure they were not burned; if there is only burning and no exiting, the meaning of a gate is not established. From 'The *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra*' downward cites proof. The sūtra takes the previous causes of the ten immortals as functionally identical to the expressing [teaching]; looking from cause to fruit, it can also be borrowed for use: just as relying on the small verifies the great, if the small lacks impermanence, how could the great be impermanent? From 'If the small' downward: this further contrasts the Small and the Shared against the Mahāyāna gate. As for 'words are precisely vimokṣa' and so forth: the form-teachings of both Great and Small are all permanent, but there is the distinction of 'precisely' versus 'not precisely', which results in the difference of being burned or not burned; in accordance with suitability they are not identical, but in accordance with principle there is no burning; now all are opened and revealed, so that burning is precisely non-burning. From 'If in terms of' downward: it further explains by contrasting the two wisdoms of provisional and real. From the side of deploying the provisional, it says that the provisional follows what is burned; the provisional of identical essence is fundamentally permanently abiding; even if following the concealed explanation that the provisional is what is burned, one must still make distinctions: among the provisionals of the three teachings, only the provisional of the Tripiṭaka has arising and ceasing termed 'burning', while the other two differ slightly. Therefore, the passage cited below shows that the Buddha originally wished to use real wisdom to examine ordinary beings, but having no choice, he deployed impermanence; impermanence is precisely the provisional wisdom that is burned. Someone says: 'In terms of non-believers, it is called what is burned; the Buddha formerly exited from it, hence it says peace and safety.' Although this is one perspective, it does not match the present text. The sūtra says: 'If they do not exit in time, they will certainly be burned by it'; hence the words 'attaining exit' do not belong solely to the elder, and how could the statement about being burned apply only to non-believers? Therefore we know that the arising and ceasing of the teaching is called what is burned, not that it is destroyed because sentient beings do not believe. The house is burned because of defilement; what defilement is there in the gate of teaching? It is merely that vocal teachings do not abide, functionally equivalent to arising and ceasing; arising and ceasing is termed burning, hence one must make the distinction. As for 'fondly attached' and so forth: first, explaining the characters separately: *xī* is amusements and merriment. *Yóu* means pervasive pleasure; hence it exemplifies the delusions of view pervading the three realms. Although *xì* is also pleasure, it is not pervasive according to each place, because what binds within the three realms differs. Moreover, from 'indulging' onward explains the characters together: because these two characters generally signify pleasure in meaning, both characters are applied to both views and cultivation; because attachment to craving and views both forfeits the path. Craving and views are the origin; the origin necessarily invites suffering; fully possessing suffering and the origin, there is necessarily no path or cessation.