法華文句記 6.91

6.91

「私謂」下章安通斥，牙等雖象通別不同，通則無非象身，別則身非耳等。準譬破義意亦可知，故亡體者通別俱迷。「至賜車中點出」者，高廣為體永異諸古。次辯小車并運不運，兼辯因果及索不索者，因便明之令識所開，既先索小先須識小。言「八智通因果」者，亦應云通漏無漏，如他心智即以法類道及俗智所成故也。何者？若他心智緣他無漏心，須以法類道他心智知，若他心智緣他有漏心，須以世俗他心智知，若果地他心智即果地他心世俗智知，若因人他心智即因地他心世俗智知，自餘六智若初果人斷見六智灼然屬因，若二三果及以非想餘一品來，所有六智亦屬於因，最後一品方乃屬果。「若依」去古人引教，破前一向用果。「然但」下古人正釋。「要因」下釋妨，有旁正故。「若內」下更立妨。「然果」下釋妨，果無自剋由因至故，故使此果得名好運，中道不達表非好運，從後為名故名好運。乘秖是車車本動運，運因至果得好運名，既可並頒理須雙立。「若乘」下古人乘向所釋立索車妨。「舊云」下釋妨，釋却成妨。舊釋意云「機索可解」者，機蘊於內，可發名索，機雖有索但冥在心，情未猶豫故使不述，雖情動於中未彰於口，秖由情故以天眼觀，進退生疑情從佛索。「若尋」下今家破舊。有文、義二妨。於第二妨中有四相違：第一與當文滅想相違，二「又佛」下與須見餘佛決了相違，三「又初」下與下不見上相違，四「又羅漢」下與修因時未見果相違。初二可見。第三引例，「又與攝大乘違」者，諸論天眼下不見上，必無二乘見於界外。「今言」下正釋。言「昔日」者，昔住小教，既其被斥情有所望，準此判意情通二味，因斥舊解情索理違，故今為立情索之義；若單論情取意為語，以機生故所以情動，故機情索通遍二酥，別分二味。「索求」至「之實」者，若是方便，昔實何在？「機在大乘」等者，釋求實意，至口索時大機已發，情求昔實意在今真，此則機實而情假。「又情」下重申假以扣實，故情實而口假，故機情時未彰於口，口索之日必具機情。「六度通教例爾」者，向明兩教二乘既然，故知兩教菩薩亦爾。何者？昔五百八千俱被彈斥，般若淘汰受益事同，既見身子騰疑，佛釋理應霑已，默然在座佇聖申通。

From 'Personally I consider' downwards, Zhāng’ān makes a general refutation: although tusks and the like are distinct parts of an elephant, in general nothing is not the body of an elephant, while in particular the body is not the ears and so on. Following the parable to refute their meanings, the intention can also be known; therefore, those who lose the essence are deluded regarding both the general and the particular. Regarding 'Pointing out [the essence] in the bestowing of the carriage': its being high and broad is its essence, which eternally differs from [the views of] all former teachers. Next, regarding distinguishing whether the small carriages carry or do not carry, and concurrently distinguishing cause and fruit and asking or not asking: this is explained in passing to make known what is opened; since they first asked for the small, one must first recognize the small. The statement 'The eight cognitions pervade cause and fruit' means that they should also be said to pervade the contaminated and uncontaminated. For example, the cognition of others' minds is formed precisely by the dharma cognition, concomitant cognition, path cognition, and conventional cognition. Why is this so? If the cognition of others' minds takes another's uncontaminated mind as its object, it must know it by means of the dharma cognition, concomitant cognition, and path cognition of others' minds; if the cognition of others' minds takes another's contaminated mind as its object, it must know it by means of the conventional cognition of others' minds. If it is the cognition of others' minds of the stage of fruit, it is known by the conventional cognition of others' minds of the stage of fruit; if it is the cognition of others' minds of a person in the cause, it is known by the conventional cognition of others' minds of the stage of cause. As for the remaining six cognitions, if it is a person of the first fruit severing views, the six cognitions clearly belong to the cause; if it is the second or third fruit up to one grade remaining in the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, all six cognitions also belong to the cause; only in the final grade do they belong to the fruit. From 'If relying upon' onward, ancient teachers cited doctrinal texts to refute the previous one-sided use of the fruit. From 'Yet merely' downward, the ancient teacher gives his proper explanation. From 'It must depend on the cause' downward, an objection is resolved, because there are secondary and primary aspects. From 'If within' downward, an objection is further raised. From 'Yet the fruit' downward, the objection is resolved: the fruit does not attain itself, but arrives on account of the cause; therefore this fruit comes to be named 'good carriage'. Failing to reach the middle path exemplifies its not being a good carriage; taking its name from the end, it is called a good carriage. The vehicle is simply a carriage, and the carriage inherently moves and carries; conveying from cause to fruit, it receives the name 'good carriage'. Since both may be bestowed together, principle requires that both be established. From 'If the carriage' downward, the ancient teacher takes advantage of the preceding explanation to raise an objection regarding asking for the carriage. From 'Anciently it was said' downward, the objection is resolved, but the resolution turns out to become an objection. The old explanation meant that 'asking by capacity can be understood' because the capacity is accumulated within, and its capacity to be stimulated is called 'asking'; although the capacity possesses asking, it is only hidden in the mind; since feeling has not wavered, it is not expressed; although feeling stirs within, it is not manifested in speech; solely because of feeling, observing with the heavenly eye, doubt arises about advancing or retreating, and feeling asks it of the Buddha. From 'If we investigate' downward, our school refutes the old [view]. There are two objections, in text and in meaning. Within the second objection there are four contradictions: first, it contradicts the extinction of conceptions in the text itself; second, from 'Moreover the Buddha' downward, it contradicts the necessity of seeing other buddhas for decisive resolution; third, from 'Moreover initially' downward, it contradicts the lower not seeing the higher; fourth, from 'Moreover the arhat' downward, it contradicts not seeing the fruit while cultivating the cause. The first two can be seen. The third cites a parallel: regarding 'Moreover it contradicts the *Mahāyānasaṃgraha*', treatises state that the heavenly eye of the lower does not see the higher; by no means can the two vehicles see outside the triple world. From 'Now we say' downward is the proper explanation. The words 'In the past' mean: when dwelling in the small teaching in the past, having been rebuked, feeling harboured expectations. Judging by this meaning, feeling pervades the two flavors; on account of refuting the old explanation that feeling-asking contradicts principle, we now establish the meaning of asking by feeling for them. If we speak purely of feeling, it refers to taking the intention: because the capacity arises, feeling stirs; thus the asking by capacity and feeling pervades both curds, and is distinguished into the two flavors. From 'Asking and seeking' to 'its reality': if it were skillful means, where was the past reality? Regarding 'The capacity is in the Great Vehicle' and so forth: this explains the intention of seeking reality; by the time they asked with their mouths, the great capacity had already arisen; feeling sought the past reality, but the intention was on the present truth; here the capacity was real while feeling was provisional. From 'Moreover feeling' downward, it restates the provisional knocking upon the real: thus feeling was real while the mouth was provisional; therefore, at the time of capacity and feeling it was not manifested in speech, but on the day of verbal asking, it necessarily possessed capacity and feeling. Regarding 'The Six Perfections and Shared Teachings are also like this': having explained that the two vehicles in the two teachings are like this, one knows that the bodhisattvas of the two teachings are also like this. Why? Formerly, the five hundred and the eight thousand were both rebuked; through the winnowing of prajñā, their benefit was identical; seeing Śāriputra raise doubts and the Buddha explain, by principle they should have been moistened; they sat in silence, awaiting the sage to expound and open [the teaching].