法華文句記 7.132

7.132

「夫山川」至「不及」者，此非橫非豎不及，如下諸文結差無差、無差即差，差即無差不當橫豎，無差即差而橫而豎，今從無差名非橫豎，從而差邊如前橫等。初山川下具對諸法，皆與理等同以一地而總貫之。初有人以地譬賴耶常住，其理不成，對五陰世間以明一實，差無差等無非實相，故「總言地」。次「草木」下約五乘七善習因，對於一實明差無差等。次「一雲」下至「初三末一」，約五時教對今一實，明差無差等。先喻，次「如來」下合。生公以雲喻法，注家以雲喻應，奈何道中天真而謝俗子，篤論其理何道俗哉！「如龍興」下譬佛身中能被法體。總譬「是為」下總合，更無進退橫豎等也。雖具橫豎及亦橫豎對於一實，任運施設論非橫豎，約開顯說，結差無差則開前一切皆成無差。次「不及」下明佛斥不及意，二乘初聞始入初住，且自述己所入之法，佛欲委述所不領者其法尚多，二乘若聞亦成遍領，具如前說。言「未窮」者，極指後地豎入邊說，若欲遍述未暇窮終，所以迦葉述己者是。初是因緣釋。又「初悟」下約教，若迦葉領己即攝一切，以圓對偏即遍領教也。迦葉所證即「初阿」也。既即後荼遍領無別。「又權行」下本迹，唯闕觀心，具如《玄》文釋法中說。若依今領者，即空故差即無差，即假故無差即差，即中故非差非不差，橫豎例知。

Regarding the passage from “Now, mountains and rivers” down to “what [they] fell short of”: This is falling short in terms of neither horizontal nor vertical. As in the passages below that conclude with diversity and non-diversity, non-diversity is precisely diversity, and diversity is precisely non-diversity: [inasmuch as] diversity is not distinct from non-diversity, it does not correspond to horizontal or vertical; [inasmuch as] non-diversity is precisely diversity, it is both horizontal and vertical. Here, from the perspective of non-diversity, it is called neither horizontal nor vertical; from the aspect of diversity, it is horizontal and so on, as described before. First, from “mountains and rivers” onward, all the phenomena are correlated in full, all being equal to principle and universally unified by the single ground. At first, some took the ground to metaphorize the permanently abiding ālayavijñāna, but that principle does not hold; it is by correlating it with the realm of the five aggregates that the single reality is clarified. Diversity, non-diversity, and so forth are nothing other than the true character; hence it says “it refers comprehensively to the ground.” Next, from “plants and trees” onward, it relies on the habitual causes of the five vehicles and seven skillful means to clarify diversity, non-diversity, and so on in relation to the single reality. Next, from “a single cloud” down to “the initial three and the ultimate one,” it relies on the teachings of the five periods to clarify diversity, non-diversity, and so forth in relation to the present single reality. First is the metaphor; next, from “the Tathāgata” onward, is the application. Master Daosheng used the cloud to metaphorize the Dharma; the annotators used the cloud to metaphorize the nirmāṇakāya. How could it be that in the Dao one accords with natural truth while yielding to laypeople? When thoroughly examining the principle, what distinction is there between monks and laypeople! From “just as dragons rise” onward, it metaphorizes the Dharma-essence within the Buddha's body that is capable of transforming [beings]. The comprehensive metaphor down to “such is” is a comprehensive application, with no further retreat, advance, horizontal, or vertical. Although it possesses the horizontal, the vertical, and both horizontal and vertical, when correlated with the single reality, it is spontaneously established, and its discussion is neither horizontal nor vertical. Expounded in terms of opening and revealing, concluding with diversity and non-diversity means that all prior phenomena are opened and fully become non-diverse. Next, from “fell short of” onward, it clarifies the Buddha's intent in pointing out what they fell short of: the two vehicles, upon first hearing, had just entered the first abodelike stage and merely recounted the dharma of their own attainment; the Buddha wished to detail what they had not yet understood, which was still vast; had the two vehicles heard it, it would also have constituted an all-embracing understanding, fully as expounded before. The words “not having exhausted” point ultimately to the aspect of vertical entry into the subsequent stages; if one wished to recount it comprehensively, one would not have had time to reach the end; hence Kāśyapa's recounting of his own [attainment] was appropriate. The first is an interpretation according to causal conditions. Furthermore, from “initial awakening” onward, it is in terms of the teachings: if Kāśyapa's recounting of his own attainment subsumes everything, then by correlating the perfect with the one-sided, it is an all-embracing understanding of the teachings. What Kāśyapa realized is the “initial a”; since it is identical with the final ṭha, there is no difference in the all-embracing understanding. Next, from “furthermore, the provisional practices” onward, it treats origin and traces, lacking only the contemplation of mind, fully as expounded in the section on explaining dharmas in the Profound Meaning. If based on the present recounting: being identical with emptiness, diversity is precisely non-diversity; being identical with the provisional, non-diversity is precisely diversity; being identical with the middle, it is neither diverse nor non-diverse. The horizontal and vertical are understood by analogy.