法華文句記 9.190

9.190

凡夫四句中先明用句所以，今明如來何得通凡？為咸四句。既一句對凡，今既通釋望佛非無，況復性德三身具足諸句。言「性德無名字」者，未有修故，明無果佛四句故也，但約理三以立四句。第三融通者，「一身即三」，不同他釋三身定計，是故身句皆悉互通，名通義通理通法通，通而恒別方釋妨也。第四隨緣中三：先示相，次引經，三「所以」下釋出所以，即約教判也。言「若諸菩薩未登地住」云「同前」者，同二乘也。「與奪」者，以他受用亦名應故。地上見者是他受用，但以報應二名而論與奪。「大經」下更舉《大經》三譬，以證三身。五「此品」下約身以文義判品，令知久成。又三：初正出本報；「何以故」下釋出所以，上冥法本、下契物機；三「以此」下結成本報。六「復次如是」下，廣約本迹示今品意。於中又四：初正明本地三身為本，即正示也。次「諸經」下與諸部以辯異，三「非本」下明本迹之由，四本迹雖殊不思議一。於中又五：初正明本迹體性，性即實相，實相非久誰論其本？實相非近誰論其迹？實不思議故名為一。次正斥肇師，言「寂場」者，若以叡師九轍中仍寄多寶表本，而肇公指釋迦本迹，須云寂場。三「復次」下更舉近中多種本迹，通斥諸師。四「今攝」下，別示久本近迹，明不思議。五「如此」下結異。初、二如文。第三文三：謂標、釋、結。釋中又二：初別約三諦以論本迹。「復次此三」下，總約三諦三一不異以論本迹，且約次不次以論總別，若別若總俱不思議，但據設應之相用法不同致成總別，皆依本時即總而別，乃能用於即別而總，總別不二適時言殊。然於別中出別相者，從真起應但以神通通名為應，俗則但指俗諦三昧以之為本，隨方便教得作此說。「未知」下總結。

In the four propositions concerning ordinary beings, the reason for applying the propositions was explained first; now it is explained how the Tathāgata comes to pervade ordinary beings. It is to make all four propositions complete. Since a single proposition corresponds to ordinary beings, now that this has been generally interpreted, looking toward the Buddha they are not absent, and even more so the three bodies of essential virtue are complete with all the propositions. Saying that 'essential virtue has no names or designations' is because cultivation has not yet occurred, explaining that there are no four propositions of the fruition Buddha; it establishes the four propositions merely in terms of the three [bodies] in principle. Third, regarding 'interfusion and unhindered penetration,' 'one body is itself three,' unlike other commentaries' rigid attachments to the three bodies; therefore, the bodies and propositions mutually penetrate each other without exception: name penetrates, meaning penetrates, principle penetrates, and dharma penetrates; yet through penetrating they remain constantly distinct, which only then resolves objections. Fourth, under 'according with conditions,' there are three parts: first, indicating the characteristics; next, citing the sūtra; third, under 'therefore,' explaining the reason, which means classifying according to the teachings. The statement, 'If bodhisattvas have not yet ascended to the stages (bhūmi) or abodes (vihāra),' being said to be 'the same as before,' means they are the same as the two vehicles. 'Granting and refuting' means that because the other-enjoyment body is also called nirmāṇakāya, what is seen by those on the bhūmis is other-enjoyment, yet granting and refuting are discussed merely using the two names 'reward' and 'response'. Under 'the Great Sūtra,' it further raises three metaphors from the Mahāparinirvāṇa-sūtra to verify the three bodies. Fifth, under 'this chapter,' it judges the chapter according to the bodies using textual meaning, causing it to be known that enlightenment was attained in the remote past. This also has three parts: first, directly bringing out the original reward; under 'for what reason,' explaining the reason, uniting inwardly above with the fundamental principle and according outwardly below with the capacities of beings; third, under 'thereby,' concluding the establishment of the original reward. Sixth, under 'furthermore, such,' it extensively indicates the meaning of the present chapter in terms of origin and traces. Within this, there are four parts: first, directly clarifying that the three bodies of the ground of origin are the origin, which is the direct indication. Next, under 'the various sūtras,' distinguishing the differences from various other texts; third, under 'were it not for the origin,' clarifying the reason for origin and traces; fourth, although origin and traces are distinct, they are an inconceivable unity. Within this, there are five parts: first, directly clarifying the substantial nature of origin and traces: nature is true character; since true character is not remote, who can discuss its origin? Since true character is not recent, who can discuss its traces? Being truly inconceivable, it is called unity. Next, directly refuting Master Sengzhao: as for the phrase 'place of quiescence,' if according to Master Sengrui's Ninefold Wheel it still relies on Prabhūtaratna to represent the origin, Sengzhao refers to the origin and traces of Śākyamuni and must speak of the place of quiescence. Third, under 'furthermore,' it further adduces various types of origin and traces in recent terms, broadly refuting various masters. Fourth, under 'now subsuming,' it specifically indicates the remote origin and recent traces to clarify the inconceivable. Fifth, under 'thus,' it concludes the differences. The first and second are as in the text. The third section has three parts: designation, explanation, and conclusion. In the explanation, there are two parts: first, discussing origin and traces specifically in terms of the three truths. Under 'furthermore, these three,' discussing origin and traces generally in terms of the three truths being three yet one without difference; it provisionally discusses general and specific in terms of gradual and non-gradual; whether specific or general, both are inconceivable, but relying on the characteristics of setting forth responses and their functional applications being different, they come to constitute general and specific; all rely on the original time where the general is itself the specific, and thereby are able to employ the specific as itself the general; general and specific are not two, their expressions merely differing according to the occasion. However, as for bringing out specific characteristics within the specific: arising as a response from the true, it is designated broadly as 'response' merely by spiritual powers; the mundane refers solely to the samādhi of the mundane truth and takes that as the origin; this explanation can be made according to the provisional teachings. Under 'yet not knowing,' it concludes generally.