法華文句記 7.179

7.179

「一中無量」者，意云是一家之無量耳。一一德中皆可為緣分別無量，如云「多諸名字」等，無量中一準此可知。「何者」去對小辨別。何者？以二乘人亦有，二既離著入寂，名同體異重對釋之。「常寂滅」等，更以無差結二乘差終歸於空，準例可見。「鄭重抵掌」者，「抵」吳也，吳手於掌表勤勤也。向已釋竟今復釋者，此事不易故重勤勤，佛世尚然，何況末代。「斥舊云」至「若佛等」者，古人以此釋下壽量，失旨逾甚，今復以此釋常住教，故云「苦經」；不生不滅而云夾斷，故言「苦佛」。經佛無苦，加之者過，故云「苦佛」等耳。光宅有餘未足辨異，然光宅諸文皆破三祇菩薩不知何事，至此即以小乘有餘之名消畢竟空。「有人」去，他難光宅，諸古尚有不許斯釋，何況今師。「經文」下今師正解。前對二乘重釋者，良有以也。「龍印」去引舊諸釋以責光宅。一往且爾，然亦不知舊第一義空與小何異？「隨三悉」者，亦以一實為第一義，對權為三，即昔日隨欲順權機也。

As for "immeasurable within the one": the meaning is that this is simply the immeasurable of our school. Within each and every virtue, they can all serve as conditions to distinguish the immeasurable, as in saying "many names" and so on; the one within the immeasurable can be known by following this precedent. From "Why is that?" onwards, it distinguishes them in contrast to the Hinayana. Why? Because people of the two vehicles also have [these qualities]; since the two have departed from attachment and entered quiescence, their names are identical but their essences are different, so it explains them again in contrast. "Constantly quiescent and extinct" and so on further uses non-difference to conclude the difference of the two vehicles as ultimately returning to emptiness, as can be seen following the example. As for "earnestly clapping the hands": "di" means striking; striking the hand against the palm expresses great earnestness. Having just explained it and now explaining it again, because this matter is not easy, he is repeatedly earnest; this was so even in the Buddha's lifetime, how much more so in the final age! From "Rebutting the old commentary saying" to "if the Buddha, etc.": ancient scholars used this to explain the Life Span Chapter below, missing the point all the more severely; now again using this to explain the teaching of eternal abiding, it is therefore called "distressing the sūtra"; regarding neither arising nor ceasing, yet claiming there is an interruption in between, it is therefore called "distressing the Buddha." The sūtra and the Buddha have no distress; the fault lies in those who add it, which is why it says "distressing the Buddha" and so on. Fayun of Guangzhai's [explanation in terms of] remainder is insufficient to discern the difference. However, all the writings of Guangzhai refute the bodhisattvas of three asāṃkhyeya kalpas without knowing what this is about; coming to this point, he then uses the Hinayana name of remainder to interpret ultimate emptiness. From "Some say" onwards, others challenge Guangzhai; even various ancients did not accept this explanation, how much less our master! Below "the sūtra text," our master gives the correct interpretation. The previous re-explanation in contrast to the two vehicles truly had good reason. From "Dragon Seal" onwards, it cites various old explanations to rebuke Guangzhai. For the time being, that is provisionally so; yet neither did they know how the old supreme-truth emptiness differed from the Hinayana. As for "according with the three siddhāntas": it also takes the one real as the supreme truth, contrasting it with the provisional to make three; this is according with desires and conforming to provisional capacities in the past.