法華文句記 8.100

8.100

「問方便當體」等者，私假設斯問欲出後答。私答中初正出二門，次「此二」下釋二門中各有開閉。初云「當體」者，未有所通約體外說，且以當教可入稱門。若云「為實相門」者，約能通至實相以說。引「算砂觀海」者，算砂如《釋籤》第四。觀海者，即新經六十七云：「有城名樓閣，中有船師名婆陀羅，集諸商人，為說一切海法門。」「此二門各有開閉」者，能通當體法體不別，從今昔說，故昔閉今開，實相亦爾。於中先明當體，次明能通，二義各對真實以說，以實相亦有當體、能通二義故也。初當體中雖亦名門，於實猶閉故須明開，然但說三為方便，即須說一為真實，相對論之故耳。「二者」下次釋能通，即為實作門，準佛本意俱是能通，據物機緣所解有二，諸鈍菩薩亦有能知三教能通，但法華前機未會，是故在昔俱閉於今並開，故亦與實對辨，豈能通方便開實相猶閉、方便仍閉真實得開？此釋同河西實相亦二者，向但直對方便故今委論，同於方便故云亦也。「虛通」者，釋實當體為門，無礙名虛、無壅曰通，故得全體成能通門，含受一切無所隔礙，得名為門，遍一切處無非門故，是則約實無通而通，故云「不二」及以「法界」，法界即門名法界門，不同算砂當體門也。二「能通方便作門」者，使方便至實故名能通，若非實相之力，方便無由得開，故知秖一實理從二得名，由虛通故令他所歸，如赦體遍原罪無不釋。「劉虬」意者，初句正明真實為方便作門，次句明三方便為真實作門，言「非三」去明二門互開。故劉虬非不與私釋稱會，但語略意沈經旨難顯。有人云：他人立三章門，互為方便、互得為門，若望注家，其詞甚繁其理混亂，雖然多言少實不如守一。於中先列，次「如以」下釋，此是釋〈方便品〉中附五時家三轉意也。但加更互為門為異，唯釋初章餘二但列，初章意者權為情壅，今既開權故云「通」也。實本無三為物故三，故云「起」也。「乃至」下餘二例者，於中先例，次「但不得」下說文意通塞。若欲敘出第二例者，如以三一為非三非一之門，由達三一通至雙非，即以三一為雙非門，由雙非故起於三一，故非三非一為三一門。第三準例亦應可見。次通塞者，若能通能起可互論門，但不得以一為權以三為實，用《勝鬘》文非今意也。下二章亦然，但得更互為門。

Regarding the passage beginning "Question: Is skillful means in its own essence...", my personal text hypothetically sets up this question to bring forth the subsequent answer. In the personal answer, first the two gates are directly presented; next, from "these two" downward, it explains that each of the two gates has its opening and closing. First, "in its own essence" is spoken of with respect to what is outside the essence, having not yet led anywhere; provisionally taking what can be entered in the respective teaching, it is called a gate. If it is said to "be the gate to the true character," this is spoken of with respect to that which is capable of leading to the true character. Citing "counting grains of sand and viewing the ocean": counting grains of sand is as in fascicle four of the Shiqian; viewing the ocean is as in fascicle sixty-seven of the new translation of the sūtra: "There was a city named Tower, in which was a ship captain named Bhadra, who assembled all the merchants to explain to them all the ocean-dharma gates." Regarding "each of these two gates has its opening and closing": that which is capable of leading and the intrinsic essence are not distinct in the dharma essence; speaking in terms of past and present, the past was closed and the present is open, and the true character is also like this. Therein, it first clarifies the intrinsic essence, and next clarifies that which is capable of leading; each of the two meanings is spoken of in contrast to the real, because the true character also has the two meanings of intrinsic essence and that which is capable of leading. First, within the intrinsic essence, although it is also called a gate, with respect to the real it was still closed, and therefore opening must be clarified; however, only when the three are spoken of as skillful means must the one be spoken of as the real, which is solely due to discussing them in contrast. From "Second" downward, it next explains that which is capable of leading, namely serving as a gate for the real; based on the Buddha's original intent, both are capable of leading, but according to the capacities and conditions of beings, what is understood has two aspects; dull-rooted bodhisattvas also include those capable of knowing that the three teachings are capable of leading, but before the Lotus, capacities had not yet converged; therefore, in the past both were closed, while in the present both are opened; hence it is also distinguished in contrast to the real—how could the skillful means that is capable of leading be open while the true character is still closed, or skillful means remain closed while the real is opened? This explanation accords with Hexi's assertion that the true character also has two [aspects]; whereas previously it was only directly contrasted with skillful means, now it is discussed in detail, and being the same as skillful means, he says "also." "Empty and unobstructed": this explains the intrinsic essence of the real serving as a gate; unobstructed is termed empty, and free of blockage is called open; therefore, its entire essence forms the gate capable of leading, containing and receiving all without any hindrance; it gets the name of a gate because throughout all places there is nothing that is not a gate; this is reaching unobstructedness through the non-obstructedness of the real; hence it says "non-dual" and "dharma-realm"; the dharma-realm is itself the gate, called the dharma-realm gate, unlike the intrinsic-essence gate of counting grains of sand. Second, "serving as a gate for the skillful means capable of leading": causing skillful means to reach the real, it is called capable of leading; if not for the power of the true character, there would be no cause for skillful means to be opened; therefore we know it is only the one real principle taking its names from the two; because it is empty and open, it causes others to return to it, like a general pardon whose essence extends throughout, so that no crime is not released. Regarding Liu Qiu's meaning: the first phrase directly clarifies that the real serves as a gate for skillful means; the next phrase clarifies that the three skillful means serve as a gate for the real; the words from "not three" onward clarify the mutual opening of the two gates. Therefore, it is not that Liu Qiu fails to correspond with my personal explanation, but his words are brief and his meaning deep, so the purport of the sūtra is difficult to make manifest. Someone said: "Others establish three chapters of gates, serving mutually as skillful means and mutually being able to serve as gates; looking at commentators, their words are extremely verbose and their principles confused; although there are many words, there is little reality, and it is better to maintain the one." Therein, he first lists them, and next, from "such as using" downward, explains them; this is an explanation of the intention of the threefold turning of the five-period masters cited in the "Skillful Means Chapter"; it only adds mutually serving as gates as the difference; it explains only the first chapter, merely listing the other two. The meaning of the first chapter is: the provisional was blocked by feelings; now that the provisional has been opened, he says "lead through"; the real originally has no three, but for the sake of beings there are three; hence he says "arise." From "and so forth" downward, the remaining two are parallel: therein he first draws the parallel, and next, from "only one must not" downward, states the openness and blockage of the text's meaning. If one wishes to set forth the second parallel: it is like taking the three and the one as the gate to neither-three-nor-one; because penetrating the three and the one leads to the double negation, one takes the three and the one as the gate to the double negation; because of the double negation, the three and the one are arisen; thus, neither-three-nor-one serves as the gate to the three and the one. The third, following the parallel, should also be apparent. Next, regarding openness and blockage: if they can lead and can arise, one may mutually discuss them as gates; but one must not take the one as provisional and the three as real; using the Śrīmālā Sūtra's text is not the present intent; the subsequent two chapters are also like this: they may only mutually serve as gates.