法華文句記 8.97

8.97

譬中必須教觀二重方盡其理，教觀相循共顯其妙，教觀若偏二俱無力。初約觀中初總明觀，言雖通諸意且在圓。「依通觀」下歷教明觀，祈體理同故略三藏。「法華論」等者，水如佛性，取之不同故云「次第」。即諸教觀相淺深不同，須了其旨故云「當知」。約教中二，亦先總明，「三藏教門」下，別約四味，今論漸初故初出三藏，華嚴後明。前約觀中，已寄四教，故今更約味以顯部妙，若《止觀》中復約四教，理亦如然。《玄》文一切皆先四教。次引華嚴者，證獲水同也。次「有人」去五家四解，三家並約五時以釋，然取時不盡及不次第。於漸教中，初家棄初及三，次家棄初二及第四，第三家雖以《大品》在《淨名》後，亦棄前教並違五時。生公與注者，全於法華中判，亦未全當，尚為他破，故云「去佛遠近等」也。乃以前三師同用五時為一解，生注二家同於法華為一解，今師許此破意是故錄之。此師意欲判前五師四解，即前三後二兩例破之，故前三以諸經去佛遠，於法華後皆以佛果而為清水，故知三師去佛遠也。一解近者，後二師約法華論遠近，始自乾土終訖清水，並在法華，若元依實教道理然也；若以實對權理不全爾。「尋經」下今師和會，以前三師指於前教無清水故，又用五時皆有小失；其後二解但於法華中以論近遠，失於開權，法華已前是所開故。今師二義約教約味，約教即對前漸教中三教為麁，故須更唯約法華中圓以釋。約味則對前四味中未轉者為麁，至第五味教雖已轉，或行未入，故須於第五味作遠近釋。是故二釋闕一不可。

In the metaphor, there must be the two layers of teaching and contemplation before the principle is exhausted. Teaching and contemplation follow one another to jointly reveal its wonder; if teaching and contemplation are one-sided, both are powerless. First, regarding contemplation, it first explains contemplation in general; although the words apply generally, the intention rests on the perfect [teaching]. From "relying on the common contemplation" downward, it explains contemplation through the teachings; since the realized principle of the physical substance is identical, the Tripiṭaka is omitted. Regarding "The Lotus Treatise" and so forth: water is like the buddha-nature; fetching it is different, hence it says "in succession." That is, the aspects of contemplation across the various teachings differ in shallowness and depth, and one must understand their purport, hence it says "one should know." Within [the explanation] in terms of teaching, there are two parts: first, a general explanation; from "the Tripiṭaka doctrinal gate" downward, it specifically treats the four flavors. Since this discusses the beginning of the gradual [teachings], it first puts forward the Tripiṭaka, and explains the Huáyán later. Earlier, in the contemplation, the four teachings were already relied upon, so now the flavors are additionally employed to reveal the wonder of the text; if in the Zhiguan the four teachings are again used, the principle is also like this. In the Xuánwén, all are preceded by the four teachings. Next, citing the Huáyán serves to verify that the attainment of water is identical. Next, from "some say" downward, there are four interpretations by five masters. Three masters all explain according to the five periods, yet their adoption of the periods is incomplete and out of sequence. Among the gradual teachings, the first master discards the first and the third; the second master discards the first, second, and fourth; although the third master places the Dàpǐn after the Vimalakīrti, he also discards the earlier teachings and violates the five periods. Master Dàoshēng and the Commentator [Sengrou] make their determinations entirely within the Lotus; this is not completely appropriate either, and is still refuted by others, which is why it says "distant or near to the Buddha," and so on. Thus the previous three masters' shared use of the five periods constitutes one interpretation, while the two masters Dàoshēng and the Commentator's shared focus on the Lotus constitutes another interpretation; our master agrees with the intent of this refutation and therefore records it. This master intends to judge the four interpretations of the previous five masters, refuting them by these two types—the former three and the latter two. The former three take the various sūtras as distant from the Buddha, and after the Lotus all take the buddha-fruit as clear water; thus we know the three masters consider them distant from the Buddha. The one interpretation of nearness is that the latter two masters discuss nearness and distance in terms of the Lotus: starting from dry earth and ending at clear water, both are within the Lotus. If originally based on the real teaching, the principle is indeed so; but if the real is contrasted with the provisional, the principle is not entirely so. From "examining the sūtra" downward, our master reconciles them: because the former three masters point to the earlier teachings as lacking clear water, and their use of the five periods all has minor flaws; while the latter two interpretations only discuss nearness and distance within the Lotus, thereby losing the opening of the provisional, since what preceded the Lotus is what is opened. Our master's two meanings concern the teachings and the flavors: in terms of the teachings, the three teachings within the preceding gradual teaching are coarse, so one must additionally explain solely in terms of the perfect within the Lotus. In terms of the flavors, those that have not yet been transformed among the preceding four flavors are coarse; when reaching the fifth flavor, although the teaching has already been transformed, some practices may not yet have entered, so one must make an explanation of near and distant in the fifth flavor. Therefore, neither of the two explanations can be dispensed with.