法華文句記 8.109

8.109

引十五處明門者，雖列頭數亦復不知何者須開？何者已開，門相如何？如其不判，徒列何益？準今文意，十五門內但是方便悉皆須開，具如隨文解釋者，是於中有違今所釋者亦應破之，如引〈方便品〉智慧為門，此是同體權智，豈得云為實作門？次「種種門」，此是權門，而但云大乘教耶？次「唯有一門」下不專在教。「所燒之門三界限域」者，豈可但云從限域出？次「車在門外言三界」者，破亦同前。小教為門未判燒等，在門外立分為二釋，云正習盡但在通意，門側若大應已得大，猶在門外亦如前者，與前兩釋並不相應。「門內如前」者，意與前在門外同，前在二死門外，今不可在二死之內。「開甘露門云大小」者，是十方梵請文，或當如此，不知今在何處、大小教耶？今文意者，本為開門不為數門，本為解門不為知數，若數而簡之，簡已開之數亦何咎？「昔說一切世間」下，更引意根釋開顯意，為開古人所數諸門，資生於昔尚非方便，於今顯已悉是真實，況復三乘五乘等耶？「若門若非門」者，非門謂小乘理教色香資生等，是門謂別教二觀為方便，從初說故有門非門，於今一切無非通途。

Regarding the citation of fifteen passages to elucidate the gates: although the items are listed, one still does not know which ones must be opened, which ones have already been opened, and what the characteristics of the gates are. If they are not determined, what benefit is there in merely listing them? According to the intention of the present text, within the fifteen gates, whatever is merely an expedient must without exception be opened. Those that are fully explained following the text are correct; among them, any that contradict what is now explained should also be refuted. For instance, citing the 'Skillful Means Chapter' where wisdom serves as a gate: this is provisional wisdom of identical essence—how could it be said to serve as a gate for the real? Next, regarding the 'various gates': these are provisional gates, yet how could one say they are merely the Great Vehicle teaching? Next, below 'there is only one gate', it does not pertain solely to the teaching. Regarding 'the burned gate being the boundaries of the triple world': how could it merely be said to exit from boundaries? Next, regarding 'the cart being outside the gate refers to the triple world': the refutation is also identical to the preceding. Regarding the Small Teaching serving as a gate without determining whether it is burned or not, standing outside the gate is divided into two explanations: to say that primary afflictions and residual habituations are exhausted belongs solely to the sense of the Shared [Teaching]; if by the side of the gate it is great, one should already have attained the great, yet remaining outside the gate is also just as before, which accords with neither of the two preceding explanations. Regarding 'inside the gate being as before': the intent is the same as the previous remaining outside the gate; previously it was outside the gate of the two kinds of death, so now it cannot be inside the two kinds of death. Regarding 'opening the gate of nectar refers to the great and small': this is the text of the Brahmā kings of the ten directions making their entreaty; perhaps it should be like this, yet one does not know where it is now or whether it is the great or small teaching. The intention of the present text is originally to open the gates, not to count the gates; it is originally to understand the gates, not to know their numbers. If one counts and selects among them, what fault could there be in selecting the number of those already opened? Below 'in the past, explaining all worldly...': the faculty of mind is further cited to explain the meaning of opening and revealing. It is for the sake of opening the various gates counted by earlier scholars: worldly livelihood in the past was not even an expedient, yet now that it has been revealed, it is all the real truth—how much more so the three vehicles, the five vehicles, and so forth? Regarding 'whether it is a gate or not a gate': 'not a gate' refers to the Small Vehicle's principle, teaching, form, fragrance, livelihood, and so forth; 'is a gate' refers to the two contemplations of the Distinct Teaching serving as expedients. Because of being explained from the beginning, there were 'gates' and 'non-gates'; at present, everything is nothing other than an unimpeded path.