法華文句記 8.37

8.37

「有家云流來」等者，依攝大乘師立七種生死，仍少有後無後，復合反出流來，故但云四。具如《止觀》第七及記。彼文破云割二死於荒外等，今文乃成割於四種，故須更問，等是以生死為譬，何故合反出流來。又無餘二中間即是方便生死。「有人難」者，難向攝師。夫因果相當，準教以立因果之稱，具如《勝鬘》，彼以五因對於二果，四住即是分段之因，無明即是變易因也。汝於分段果上既更立流來，於變易果中更開中間，亦應四住無明各更別立。具如《止觀》中破。

Regarding “A certain master says flowing down,” etc.: according to the Masters of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, seven kinds of saṃsāra are established, yet they lack ‘having an end’ and ‘having no end’, and they combine ‘reversing out’ and ‘flowing down’, so they only speak of four. This is fully as in the seventh fascicle of the Zhiguan and its commentary. That text refutes them, saying that they relegate the two kinds of birth and death to the wilderness beyond, etc. The present text then results in relegating four kinds; hence one must ask further why they use birth and death as a simile, and why combine ‘reversing out’ and ‘flowing down’? Furthermore, lacking the remaining two, the intermediate is precisely the birth and death of skillful means. “Someone objects”: this objects to the aforementioned master of the Saṃgraha. Causes and effects must correspond, and the names of causes and effects are established in accordance with teachings, fully as in the Śrīmālā[devī-sūtra]. It correlates five causes with two fruits: the four entrenchments are the causes of fragmented [birth and death], and ignorance is the cause of inconceivable transformation. Since you further establish ‘flowing down’ upon the fruit of fragmented [birth and death], and further open an ‘intermediate’ within the fruit of inconceivable transformation, you should also establish the four entrenchments and ignorance separately each. This is fully as refuted in the Zhiguan.