法華文句記 8.106

8.106

「問得以三顯三」等者，方便真實秖是三一，方便真實既為四句，三一亦例有後兩耶？「此亦」下答。云「二如前」者，三為一門如以三顯一，一為三門如以一顯三。「以三顯三」去釋後二句，前之二句既以三一望於權實名義相顯。若後二句，前雖名義相對義立，今不得用名義以釋，但以法體相對釋之。於中為三，先對釋，次「三一既不」下正判結，三「以因緣」下修性相顯。初又二，標釋。初文但標一句略不標以一顯一句。「言昔」下釋中具含二句，又二：先示非，次「破此」下正釋。先示非者，寄開顯說，破今昔異。於中初舉非相，此尚不得三一互通，況能以三通三、以一顯一？「故一」下結非。言「一非三一」等者，以其三一既不相即，若不開者相顯不成，故一非三家之一，三非一家之三。

Regarding the passage beginning "Question: Is one able by means of the three to reveal the three...", skillful means and the real are merely the three and the one; since skillful means and the real constitute four propositions, do the three and the one also analogously have the latter two? From "this also..." downward is the answer. Saying "two are as before": the three serving as the gate for the one is like using the three to reveal the one; the one serving as the gate for the three is like using the one to reveal the three. From "revealing the three by means of the three" onward, it explains the latter two propositions: since the former two propositions take the three and the one with respect to the provisional and real to mutually reveal name and meaning, as for the latter two propositions, although the former was established in terms of the contrast between name and meaning, now one must not use name and meaning to explain it, but only explain it in terms of the contrast between the essences of dharmas. Therein there are three parts: first, explaining by contrast; next, from "since the three and the one are not..." downward, directly determining and concluding; third, from "by causes and conditions..." downward, the mutual revelation of cultivation and nature. The first part also has two: indicating and explaining. The first text only indicates one proposition, omitting the indication of the proposition "revealing the one by means of the one." In the explanation from "speaking of the past" downward, both propositions are fully contained, again in two: first, showing the error; next, from "refuting this" downward, the correct explanation. First, showing the error: lodging upon the explanation of opening and revealing, it refutes the disparity between past and present. Therein, it first raises the aspect of error: this does not even allow the three and the one to mutually lead through, how much less could it lead to the three by means of the three, or reveal the one by means of the one? From "therefore the one..." downward, it concludes the error. Saying "the one is not the one of the three" and so forth: because the three and the one are not mutually identical, if not opened, mutual revelation is not achieved; therefore, the one is not the one belonging to the three, and the three is not the three belonging to the one.