法華文句記 7.172

7.172

「諸種差別」等者，須約諸教諸界廣說，不可具述，唯是理體一三德種如來能知，若約教者，別教唯有種類之種而無相對，於中法身類種仍別始終常淨，唯不從覆故得種名。藏通兩教全無此義，但約當教其名非無，因時三學為五分種，達分即為二解脫種，念處即為般若種也。隱顯並別，具如《止觀》第三記。故三教教道之有差，本在圓實之無差，相體性三既通始末，所以須約十界十如釋者，向釋種字既以相對及種類釋，今此三法亦應例之。又前種中不云十界取極下界，類中自云世智等也。故此十界不出一念，如彼廣釋十如中明。又前釋種不約十界者，欲明三德義便故也。此相等三亦是三德，已有種義不須依前，約界則便，故十界中有佛與凡論差無差，或對三諦。次約「三法即是三慧」，於三重中皆初云「念」者，念所取境，思修亦然，境即所聞所思所修。皆言「何」者，指所取境。「所念」等者，教下所詮向之四法，隨教則有思修不同，對界為境多少增減，觀體巧拙隨義應知，為差無差以權對實。初言「用」者，有取境慧方有所取，舉事顯慧故曰用也。所言「體」者，即當體也。境中舉事事是所取，念等居先取所取事。今先言「云何」，指能念體，思修亦然。故知即是三慧當體，此體即是能聞能思能修，故云「記錄所聞等法」。言「因緣」者，謂以何之言須所聞教，念等即是能聞等也。不由能取令殊而為別相，乃由所聞法異分五乘七善，能所和合即聞思修之因緣也。言「取境聞法為因緣」者，所取能取並名為因，聞法為緣生慧，即是所生法也。又「取境」者，取境必須聞法為因，且先標之，故三境為因、聞法為緣，即初雖有聞等，更須聞法以為良緣，故云「因緣」。應知三慧境體及以因緣，雖三而二。

Regarding "the distinctions among the various seeds" and so forth: one must explain this extensively in terms of the various teachings and various realms; it cannot be recounted in full. It is only the single seed of the three virtues of the essential principle that the Tathāgata is able to know. If considered in terms of the teachings, the Separate Teaching has only the seed of kind and lacks the relative [aspect]; among these, the kind-seed of the dharmakāya remains distinct, being ever pure from beginning to end, and receives the name "seed" solely because it is not subject to obscuration. The two teachings of the Tripiṭaka and Shared completely lack this meaning; however, in terms of each teaching itself, the names are not absent: the three trainings during the causal stage serve as the seeds of the fivefold [dharmakāya]; the aids to penetration serve as the seeds of the two liberations; and the applications of mindfulness serve as the seeds of prajñā. Their concealment and manifestation are both distinct, fully detailed as in the commentary on the third fascicle of the Great Calming and Contemplation. Therefore, the differences in the teaching pathways of the three teachings are fundamentally rooted in the lack of difference of the perfect and real. Since the three—characteristics, essence, and nature—pervade both beginning and end, the reason they must be explained in terms of the ten realms and ten thusnesses is that, as the character "seed" was previously explained using the relative and kind, now these three dharmas should likewise follow this precedent. Furthermore, in the earlier discussion of seeds, it did not mention the ten realms, taking the lowest realm, whereas under "kind" it naturally mentioned mundane wisdom and so forth. Therefore, these ten realms do not go beyond a single thought-moment, as clarified in the extensive explanation of the ten thusnesses there. Moreover, the reason the earlier explanation of seeds did not refer to the ten realms was for the convenience of clarifying the meaning of the three virtues. These three—characteristics and so on—are also the three virtues; since they already possess the meaning of seeds, there is no need to rely on what came before. Referring to the realms is convenient; thus, among the ten realms, there are discussions of difference and non-difference regarding the buddhas and ordinary beings, or they are paired with the three truths. Next, regarding "the three dharmas are simply the three wisdoms": in each of the threefold sets, "mindfulness" is mentioned first because it is mindfulness of the apprehended object, and the same is true of thinking and cultivation; the object is simply what is heard, what is thought, and what is cultivated. The word "what" in all cases points to the apprehended object. "That which is recollected" and so forth refers to the four dharmas just mentioned, which are expounded under the teachings. According to the teaching, there are differences in thinking and cultivation; paired with realms as objects, there are additions and subtractions in quantity; the skillfulness or clumsiness of the contemplative essence should be known according to the meaning; and in terms of difference and non-difference, the provisional is contrasted with the real. First, "function" is mentioned: only when there is wisdom that grasps an object is there that which is grasped; citing the phenomena to reveal wisdom is why it is called "function." What is called "essence" is the essence itself. In the object, phenomena are cited, and phenomena are what is grasped; mindfulness and so on stand first and grasp the phenomena that are grasped. Now first saying "how" points to the essence of that which is capable of mindfulness, and the same applies to thinking and cultivation. Thus one knows that these are the very essences of the three wisdoms; this essence is simply that which is capable of hearing, thinking, and cultivating. Hence it says "recording the dharmas that have been heard, etc." As for "causes and conditions," it means that by the word "what," the taught doctrine that is heard is required; mindfulness and so on are simply that which is capable of hearing and so forth. It is not that the capable grasper creates distinction so as to form distinct characteristics; rather, it is because the dharmas heard are different that they are divided into the five vehicles and the seven good qualities. The union of the capable and the objective is the cause and condition of hearing, thinking, and cultivating. As for "taking objects and hearing the Dharma as causes and conditions," both that which is grasped and that which grasps are called causes; hearing the Dharma serves as the condition that generates wisdom, which is the generated dharma. Furthermore, as for "taking objects": taking objects necessarily requires hearing the Dharma as a cause; this is first set forth. Therefore, the three objects are causes, and hearing the Dharma is the condition; that is, although there are hearing and so on at first, one further requires hearing the Dharma to serve as an excellent condition; hence it is called "causes and conditions." One should know that the objects, essence, and causes and conditions of the three wisdoms, though three, are two.