法華文句記 8.99

8.99

次「問般若何故遠」者？古來亦許般若能生阿耨菩提，何故亦與諸經同遠？答意者，大旨同前，然分二義，先約共菩薩同於二乘，未開權邊名去佛遠。次「夫般若」去重順問答，般若非去佛遠，能生法佛何遠之有？以具權實二慧故也。故舉譬云如病人等。「病人」者，共般若中新發心菩薩也。「兩健」者二慧也。由此二慧令至菩提，故云「遍能遠去」。言「最勝」者，意在不共，同於法華，故且云「勝」。故云法華開權不異般若顯實，故開權與顯實左右異名，法華還開般若中權入般若實也。故言不異。及以異名，所以通論，則不共般若與法華種智何殊？據帶不帶、開未開別，不無同異。諸師全順今義，故但直錄而無所破。「菩薩」下合譬，文既約法華為言，故可依前以為二釋，釋開方便門中所以先廣引料簡者，此迹門之大旨，此旨若傾將何流通？於中先出光宅，次私破云「是破非開」者，由光宅云廢除昔教，不云即是，故開義不成。又由光宅語昔別指鹿苑，故知消釋言不容易，由除之一字便為臧否。嘉祥亦云：「開二種之方便、示二種之真實」，昔不云二是方便故門閉，今云二種是方便故方便門開；今開義善，成二乃違教。《經》云「佛以方便力示以三乘教」，何嘗但二？今文尚五七皆開，何但三耶？然此乃是未改時文，乃令後德混用。「河西云直名三為方便」者，意云昔謂為實，無入實之期，故其門尚閉；今稱為方便有進實之望，故其門名開。還引〈方便品〉初云「佛以方便力示以三乘教」，故章安許之。故古人立義采用實難。「有人」下言「十二八萬」者，秖是十二部八萬藏耳。「私謂」至「非開義」者，印稟龍、龍從遠，印既用教身兩種方便，故知破其竊龍印之義，及將破義以解開門，何能異於光宅義耶？故略破之。雖用教身且免會二。

Next, regarding "Question: Why is Prajñā distant?": from ancient times it was also accepted that Prajñā can give birth to anuttarabodhi; why then is it equally distant along with the other sūtras? The intent of the reply is that the overarching purport is the same as before, yet divided into two meanings: first, in terms of common bodhisattvas being the same as the two vehicles, the aspect where the provisional is not yet opened is called being distant from the Buddha. Next, from "Now, Prajñā" onward responds again in alignment with the question and answer: Prajñā is not distant from the Buddha; since it can give birth to the Dharma Buddha, what distance could there be? This is because it possesses both provisional and real wisdoms. Therefore the metaphor is adduced: like a sick person, and so forth. "The sick person" is the newly resolved bodhisattva in the common Prajñā. "The two able-bodied persons" are the two wisdoms. By means of these two wisdoms they are made to reach bodhi, hence it says "completely able to go far." The term "most supreme" means that its intention rests on the uncommon [Prajñā], which is identical to the Lotus, so it is tentatively called "supreme." Therefore it is said that the Lotus opening the provisional is no different from Prajñā revealing the real; thus opening the provisional and revealing the real are different names for the same thing, and the Lotus also opens the provisional within Prajñā to enter the real of Prajñā. Hence it says "no different" and "different names." Therefore, speaking in general terms, what difference is there between uncommon Prajñā and the seed-wisdom of the Lotus? Depending on whether it carries [the provisional] or does not carry it, and whether it is opened or not yet opened, there are indeed similarities and differences. The various masters fully accord with our present meaning, so [the text] merely records them directly without refuting them. From "Bodhisattva" downward matches the metaphor. Since the text speaks in terms of the Lotus, one may rely on the preceding to make two explanations. The reason why extensive citations and critiques are made first in explaining the opening of the gate of skillful means is that this is the overarching purport of the trace gate; if this purport is undermined, how could it be transmitted? Within this, Guāngzhái is presented first, followed by the private refutation: "this is destruction, not opening." Because Guāngzhái said that the past teachings are discarded and abolished, and did not say that they are identical, the meaning of opening is not established. Furthermore, because Guāngzhái's reference to the past specifically pointed to the Deer Park, we know that explaining the text is not easy: a single word like "discard" determines right and wrong. Jiāxiáng also said: "Opening the two kinds of skillful means, revealing the two kinds of reality." In the past it was not stated that the two are skillful means, so the gate was closed; now it is stated that the two kinds are skillful means, so the gate of skillful means is opened. Now, his meaning of opening is good, but establishing two contradicts the teaching. The sūtra says, "The Buddha uses the power of skillful means to display the teaching of the three vehicles"; when was it ever only two? The present text even opens five and seven, so why only three? However, this was a text from before his revision, which led later worthy scholars to use it confusingly. Regarding "Héxī said that they are simply called the three skillful means": his meaning was that in the past they were regarded as real, with no prospect of entering the real, so the gate was still closed; now they are called skillful means, with the hope of advancing to the real, so the gate is called open. He also cites the beginning of the Chapter on Skillful Means: "The Buddha uses the power of skillful means to display the teaching of the three vehicles," which Zhāng'ān endorsed. Thus, when ancient figures established doctrines, adopting them is truly difficult. From "Someone says" downward, the mention of "twelve and eighty thousand" refers simply to the twelve divisions and eighty thousand pitakas. Regarding "I privately consider" up to "is not the meaning of opening": Yìn inherited from Lóng, and Lóng followed Yuǎn; since Yìn employed both the teaching and body kinds of skillful means, we know this refutes his appropriating the doctrine of Lóng and Yìn and using a destructive meaning to interpret opening the gate. How could this differ from Guāngzhái's doctrine? Therefore it is briefly refuted. Although using teaching and body, it merely avoids merging the two.