法華文句記 9.216

9.216

「問」意者，昔是昔教、今謂二門，今昔本迹俱名入實，以昔望今為二虛者，應當今日二門實相勝昔實耶？實本無二，今昔豈殊？答意者，且以迹答，本準可知。教門前後入實無殊，初指華嚴、次指二味，「壞草菴入」即指法華，入時在人非理別也。次「例」者，以小例大，此乃以橫例豎。若還以豎例豎，應云鹿苑入小與二味中入小不殊，此則入大入小無處不有。五味從次第相生，鈍小從顯露以說。「此中六句」者，明今日應身即是久成法身，不思議一故云「照理」等，故本迹者寄事以說。「如實知見」等者，《論》云：「如來知見三界相者，謂眾生界即涅槃界，不離眾生界有如來藏故也。」「無有生死」等者，《論》云：「常恒清淨，不變義故。」「亦無在世」等者，《論》云：「如來藏真如之體，與眾生界不即不離故。」「非實」等四者，《論》云：「離四種相，以四種相是無常故。」當知《論》意諸句皆圓，是故諸句皆云「與眾生界不即不離」，故今並作圓常中道佛性釋之。不作此釋尚不能見昔教中實，況開顯實？況久遠實？故此須指本智照境，不見斯旨徒消本門。

The meaning of the "Question": the past refers to the past teachings; the present refers to the two portals. In both the present and the past, the origin and the traces are called entering the real; if comparing the past to the present makes the two false, should the true character of the two portals of today be superior to the real of the past? The real originally has no duality; how could past and present differ? The meaning of the answer: it answers provisionally in terms of the traces; the origin can be known by extension. Between earlier and later in the teachings, entering the real has no distinction: first it points to the Avataṃsaka, next it points to the two flavors; "destroying the thatched hut and entering" refers to the Lotus. The timing of entering depends on the person, it is not that the principle differs. Next, regarding "analogizing": analogizing the great with the small, this is analogizing the vertical with the horizontal. If one were to analogize vertical with vertical, one should say that entering the small at Deer Park does not differ from entering the small in the two flavors; this means entering the great and entering the small exist nowhere not present. The five flavors are produced in sequence; the dull and small are spoken of from what is manifest. Regarding "The six lines here": they clarify that the present response body is precisely the dharmakāya accomplished long ago; because the inconceivable is one, it says "illuminating the principle" and so forth; hence origin and traces are spoken of by lodging in events. Regarding "truly knowing and seeing" and so on: the Treatise says: "The Tathāgata's knowing and seeing the marks of the triple world means that the realm of sentient beings is precisely the realm of nirvāṇa, because the tathāgatagarbha is not separate from the realm of sentient beings." Regarding "there is no birth and death" and so on: the Treatise says: "Because it is eternally pure and unchanging in meaning." Regarding "nor is there existing in the world" and so on: the Treatise says: "Because the substance of suchness of the tathāgatagarbha is neither identical to nor separate from the realm of sentient beings." Regarding the four lines such as "not real": the Treatise says: "Separate from the four kinds of marks, because the four kinds of marks are impermanent." One should know that the intention of the Treatise is that all lines are perfect; therefore all lines say "neither identical to nor separate from the realm of sentient beings." Thus now they are all interpreted in terms of the buddha-nature of the perfectly eternal Middle Way. If one does not make this interpretation, one cannot even see the real in the past teachings, how much less opening and revealing the real? How much less the real of the long and distant? Therefore here one must point to original wisdom illuminating the objective realm; without seeing this purport, it is in vain to interpret the portal of origin.