法華文句記 8.35

8.35

次「問」者，既云隨逐不云失等，今既得益那無不虛？答中意云開顯已多取信為易，故不假用不虛譬也。又上為中下未悟，今此迹事已周。「二十二番」者，準下疏文問五處開權何異？答中具列五文處所，故知此前但有四處，四處則有二十二番。五佛章為一處，長行偈頌各五即十番也。〈譬喻〉中開譬合譬各有長行偈頌，故有四番。〈信解〉中領上開合，各有長行偈頌，又有四番。〈藥草喻〉中亦有開合，各有長行偈頌，又有四番。三四并十即二十二。略開但是動執生疑，非正開顯。頌中雖有略頌等文，但屬釋迦章中共為一意；法說雖有領解述成，非正開顯；藥草疏中雖云先智次教總為開合，若各立者則成多番，有何不可？是故且依疏文為定。

Next, regarding the “Question”: since it speaks of following and pursuing and does not speak of losing, etc., now that the benefit has been attained, why is it not devoid of falsehood? The intent in the reply is that because opening and revealing has already been done extensively, gaining faith is easy; hence there is no need to employ the simile of not being false. Furthermore, the above was for the intermediate and lower [capacities] who were not yet awakened; now here the provisional trace-affair is already complete. Regarding the “twenty-two turns”: following the commentary below, it asks how the opening of the provisional in five places differs. In the reply it fully enumerates the locations of the five texts, so we know that before this there were only four places; in the four places there are twenty-two turns. The section on the five buddhas is one place, with prose and verse each having five, which makes ten turns. In the “Simile [Chapter],” the opening of the simile and the joining of the simile each have prose and verse, hence four turns. In “Faith and Understanding,” receiving and understanding the opening and joining above each has prose and verse, again four turns. In the “Medicinal Herbs Simile,” there are also opening and joining, each having prose and verse, again four turns. Three times four plus ten equals twenty-two. The brief opening merely stirs attachment and produces doubt; it is not the formal opening and revealing. Although the verses contain passages such as the brief verses, they merely belong to the Śākyamuni section and share a single meaning. Although the doctrinal exposition contains received understanding and endorsement, it is not the formal opening and revealing. Although the commentary on the Medicinal Herbs says that wisdom first and teaching next are collectively taken as opening and joining, if they were established individually, they would become many turns—what objection would there be? Therefore, we tentatively abide by the commentary's text as definitive.