法華文句記 9.215

9.215

「前明利鈍」至「兩應」者，前明兩機通漸頓教，總判利鈍，故今總以兩應言之。「劣應」至「法身生」者，二應之相，經文各有生法二身生相，當知兩處相望，不可以乘栴檀樓閣濫同貫日之精，不可以種智圓明同正習俱盡，復以十方七步不同，而表勝劣，故知兩處皆無久成。「但以」至「作如是說」者，未開但說云「生」，開已方云「非生」。今述昔垂方便，對今開已之言，故總云耳。「餘經」至「非生」者，一往且從小乘以說，如佛問均提：汝和尚戒身滅不？乃至知見身滅不？皆答云：不。佛印許之。既許不滅故云「不破」。若大乘中亦非不破。又雖以大破小，但大小相奪大小仍存，終無以遠而奪於近，故云「尚不」等也。故今經望寂場遮那之體既是迹成故云「正破」，未及委論四教，且約兩處成相，即曉藏通二身是劣應耳，別圓二身是勝應也。文中雖云「兩應各有生法二身」，然劣應之上五分法身義同生身，勝應之上雖云生身義同於法。「言值然燈」至「說他身」者，以然燈佛身為他身者，若準此意，他身之言應存兩釋，示即必在於我、說則兼於自他，如今之說彌陀亦成我事及彌陀事，緣相關故，如一眾會或集十方或集一方，或往十方，或往一方。「示現依報」者，非直現土，土塵皆說，具如《華嚴》。「上過去」至「世界之益」者，一往且以得歡喜邊名為世界，豈過去世無餘三耶？故云「似」也。今明皆「不虛」者，今現在文皆具四悉，俱至本門故也。故知過去還須具三。「大論四悉檀並實」者，彼論通以第一義為衍門法相，以三悉為三藏，故各有其實。「篤論」下彼《大論》意剋判虛實，一在衍門故實，三在三藏故虛。言「緣中」者，如向隨緣不定，機在於小小即名實，如三藏人於此四悉則三實一虛，通別二人則三虛一實，圓乘則一切俱實，凡夫則一切俱虛。「若以」下借此虛實判二門者，以此二門對於漸頓二種眾生，未曾當機為虛、當機為實。且置四悉而以因果相對辯虛實者，於中先以七方便人對二門判，次以實人對二門判，若方便教二門俱虛，因門開竟望於果門則一實一虛，本門顯竟則二種俱實，故知迹實於本猶虛。「約圓頓」下若本圓人望於二門亦秖一虛，雖云「更不別得」，非無增道益也。若於昔教曾密顯遠，對此二門亦名二實，準前亦應云「更不別得」，不無二門增道之益。「若五十起」去，對此二門猶名俱虛，又前教密開不來至此亦名俱實。於踊出眾非虛非實亦名為實，自欲得故。於滅相者此虛彼實，於有退者現虛當實，影響發起亦非實非虛、有虛有實，於迷教者一切俱虛。

Regarding "Previously explaining sharp and dull..." down to "...the two responses": previously, explaining the two capacities encompassed both gradual and sudden teachings, generally determining sharp and dull; therefore now it speaks generally in terms of the two responses. Regarding "The inferior response..." down to "...the arising of the dharmakāya": regarding the marks of the two responses, the sūtra text has the marks of arising for both the physical body and dharmakāya in each case. One should know that, comparing the two situations, one cannot confuse riding upon a sandalwood multi-storied pavilion with the radiance that pierces the sun, nor equate the perfect brilliance of the knowledge of all forms with the complete exhaustion of both active defilements and residual habituations; furthermore, through the differences of the ten directions and the seven steps, the superior and inferior are manifested. Hence we know that neither place possesses accomplishment long ago. Regarding "Only in that..." down to "...speaking in this way": prior to opening, it only says "arising"; only after opening does it say "non-arising." Now, describing the adaptation of skillful means in the past relative to the words after opening in the present, it therefore speaks generally. Regarding "Other sūtras..." down to "...non-arising": provisionally speaking from the perspective of the Hinayāna, as when the Buddha asked Cunda: "Is your preceptor's body of precepts extinguished or not?" down to "Is his body of knowledge and vision extinguished or not?" he answered in all cases: "No." The Buddha affirmed it. Since he affirmed that it is not extinguished, it says "does not refute." In the Mahāyāna, it is not that it does not refute it. Furthermore, although using the great to refute the small, the great and small merely negate each other while great and small still persist; in the end there is no using the distant to negate the near. Hence it says "still does not..." and so forth. Therefore, looking from the present sūtra toward the substance of Vairocana at the bodhimanda, since it is an accomplishment of the traces, it is said to "directly refute." Not yet arriving at a detailed discussion of the four teachings, provisionally looking from the marks of accomplishment at the two places, one immediately understands that the bodies of the Tripiṭaka and Shared [teachings] are the inferior response, and the bodies of the Distinct and Perfect [teachings] are the superior response. Although the text says, "The two responses each have both physical body and dharmakāya," nevertheless, upon the inferior response, the meaning of the fivefold dharmakāya is identical to the physical body; upon the superior response, although it is called the physical body, its meaning is identical to the Dharma. Regarding "Speaking of meeting Dīpaṃkara..." down to "...speaking of other bodies": taking the body of Dīpaṃkara Buddha as another's body, if based on this meaning, the words "another's body" should admit of two interpretations: manifesting must reside in oneself, while speaking encompasses both oneself and others. Just as speaking of Amitābha now also accomplishes my affair and Amitābha's affair, because the conditions are correlated; just as an assembly may gather from the ten directions or gather from one direction, or depart to the ten directions, or depart to one direction. Regarding "manifesting environmental reward": it is not merely manifesting a land; every dust particle of the land preaches, completely as in the Avataṃsaka. Regarding "The past above..." down to "...the benefit of the mundane [siddhānta]": provisionally, taking the aspect of obtaining joy as the mundane, could it be that the past world lacked the remaining three? Hence it says "seems." Now explaining that they are all "not false": because the present text is completely endowed with the four siddhāntas, and all arrive at the portal of origin. Hence we know that the past must also be endowed with the three. Regarding "In the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa, the four siddhāntas are all real": that treatise generally takes the supreme truth as the doctrine of the Mahāyāna, and takes the [other] three siddhāntas as the Tripiṭaka, so each has its reality. From "Strictly speaking..." below: the intention of that treatise strictly distinguishes between false and real: the one resides in the Mahāyāna, hence is real; the three reside in the Tripiṭaka, hence are false. Regarding "among conditions": like the aforementioned following of conditions being undetermined, where the capacity lies in the small, the small is called real; as for a person of the Tripiṭaka, regarding these four siddhāntas, three are real and one is false; for persons of the Shared and Distinct [teachings], three are false and one is real; in the perfect vehicle, all are completely real; for ordinary people, all are completely false. From "If taking..." below: borrowing this false and real to judge the two portals: using these two portals relative to the two kinds of sentient beings, gradual and sudden: not yet having served as the primary audience is false, having served as the primary audience is real. Provisionally setting aside the four siddhāntas and distinguishing false and real by contrasting cause and fruit: within this, it first judges by contrasting the persons of the seven skillful means with the two portals; next it judges by contrasting the real persons with the two portals. In the provisional teachings, both portals are false; when the portal of causes has been opened, relative to the portal of the fruit, one is real and one is false; when the portal of origin is revealed, both kinds are real. Hence we know that the real of the traces is still false relative to the origin. From "Regarding the perfect and sudden..." below: if a person originally of the perfect is compared with the two portals, it is also merely one false; although it says "nothing distinct is further attained," there is no absence of the benefit of increasing in the path. If in past teachings the distant was once secretly revealed, relative to these two portals it is also called two reals; following the preceding, it should also be said that "nothing distinct is further attained," not lacking the benefit of the two portals increasing in the path. From "If the fifty-year-old arises..." onward: relative to these two portals, it is still called both false; also, having been secretly opened in the previous teaching and not coming to this point is also called both real. For the assembly that welled up, it is neither false nor real, yet also called real, because they themselves desired to attain it. For those with the marks of extinction, this is false and that is real; for those who regressed, the present is false and the future is real; for the shadow-influencers and initiators, it is also neither real nor false, having both false and real; for those confused about the teaching, all are completely false.