法華文句記 9.34

9.34

次約二法者，即以生法二忍消文，於中為四：初標，次「二忍」下會異名，即二空是。三「二空」下辨異，於中初標，次「何者」下釋異相。真俗假實通於三教，今意在圓，何但異二乘耶？且隨難辨故暫對之。言「真俗假實明二空」者，真諦即法空、俗諦即生空，俗假真實，故《玄》文云：「世諦破性，真諦破假」，假破即相空，性破即性空，故真俗不二。二空俱時，為對所破以分真俗，即不思議之真俗也。通中亦有此之二空，名同義異，俱時不殊須善斟酌。三「若更開者」下，明開合也。若開為四忍，「柔和」兩字為伏忍，「善順」兩字為順忍。「又復」下為無生忍，「亦不」下即寂滅忍。若為五忍，即離順忍中「善」字，餘同四忍。若為六忍，即離伏忍中「和」字，餘同五忍。若更開為四十二忍，但於無生、寂滅二忍中出；若對住前，隨前四五六忍增減可知，義皆通後。若言一地具四十一，則地地四十一忍，亦地地有伏順等。合則依前為四為二，二復為一同立忍名，地地無非伏、順、無生、寂滅。四「今且」下正釋，仍離二空以為四忍，則經中諸句皆具二空四忍，於中為十：初標，次列名，三「此四忍」下舉別異圓，四「今圓」下出今圓意辨異於別，五「大經」下引證，六「若約」下約無淺深以明四忍，七「聞生死」下消經，八「行此」下以三法結，九「二空」下結名，十「是名」下總結。初、二如文。三舉別教中，即以二忍判彼四忍，即伏順在地前，故云「生忍」。無生在地上，寂滅在極果，故從初地依法得忍，通名「法忍」。四今圓中圓位，諸忍俱無淺深。五引證不二，明文在茲。六「約無淺深立四忍」者，若借別名圓，且以伏、順為住前，無生為登住，寂滅為妙覺，暫離對當行理必融，故云皆見中理，應如今文以初伏忍亦通金剛，寂滅無生亦通於下。七正消經中，所以不消住忍辱地等者，向立圓四忍皆由住忍辱地，故且置之。又不消法忍但略消生忍者，但生忍義深、法忍可識。於生忍中又不消柔和善順者，即不卒心不驚去是柔和等德，既了不卒暴等前則準知，故知四忍並依理者，為顯圓故。於略釋中初之二句，釋「而不卒暴」。次「聞佛」下釋「心亦不驚」，此句既融餘句可見。故云「聞生死涅槃」乃至「非難非易」，則知其心常住忍地。八以三法結，亦是行不行等三行也。九、十可見。

Next, in terms of two dharmas, he clarifies the text by means of the two forbearances toward sentient beings and dharmas, wherein are four [parts]: first, marking them; next, from 'the two forbearances' below, harmonizing different names, which are the two emptinesses; third, from 'the two emptinesses' below, distinguishing the differences, wherein first he marks them, and next from 'what is this' below, explains their distinct characteristics. The conventional and ultimate, provisional and real, pervade the three teachings; here the intent lies in the perfect [teaching]—how could it only differ from the two vehicles? For now, following what is difficult to distinguish, it is temporarily contrasted with them. 'Clarifying the two emptinesses through the conventional and ultimate, provisional and real': the ultimate truth is emptiness of dharmas, and the conventional truth is emptiness of sentient beings. The conventional is provisional, and the ultimate is real. Thus the Profound Meaning text says: 'The mundane truth refutes self-nature, and the ultimate truth refutes the provisional.' Refuting the provisional is emptiness of characteristics; refuting self-nature is emptiness of nature. Hence the ultimate and conventional are non-dual. The two emptinesses are simultaneous; in contrast to what is refuted, the ultimate and conventional are divided—this is the inconceivable ultimate and conventional. Within the shared teaching there are also these two emptinesses; the names are identical but the meanings differ. That they are simultaneous does not differ, yet one must deliberate carefully. Third, from 'if further opened' below, he explains opening and combining. If opened into four forbearances: the two words 'gentle and harmonious' are the forbearance of subduing; the two words 'good and compliant' are the forbearance of compliance. From 'furthermore' below is the forbearance of non-arising. From 'neither' below is the forbearance of quiescence. If into five forbearances, one separates the word 'good' from within the forbearance of compliance, while the rest are identical to the four forbearances. If into six forbearances, one separates the word 'harmonious' from within the forbearance of subduing, while the rest are identical to the five forbearances. If further opened into forty-two forbearances, they emerge solely from within the two forbearances of non-arising and quiescence. If contrasted with before the abidances, their increase or decrease following the preceding four, five, or six forbearances can be understood, and their meanings all apply to what follows. If it is said that one stage possesses forty-one, then every stage has forty-one forbearances, and every stage also has subduing, compliance, and so forth. Combined, then following the preceding they form four or form two; the two again form one, collectively establishing the name of forbearance. In every stage there is none that is not subduing, compliance, non-arising, and quiescence. Fourth, from 'now for the time being' below, the main explanation: still separating the two emptinesses into four forbearances, then all lines in the sūtra possess the two emptinesses and four forbearances. Therein are ten: first, marking; next, listing the names; third, from 'these four forbearances' below, adducing the distinct [teaching] to differentiate the perfect; fourth, from 'now the perfect' below, setting forth the intent of the present perfect [teaching] to distinguish it from the distinct; fifth, from 'the Great Sūtra' below, citing proof; sixth, from 'if in terms of' below, explaining the four forbearances in terms of absence of shallow or deep; seventh, from 'hearing of birth-and-death' below, explaining the sūtra text; eighth, from 'practicing this' below, concluding with the three dharmas; ninth, from 'the two emptinesses' below, concluding the names; tenth, from 'this is named' below, the general conclusion. The first and second are as in the text. Third, in adducing the distinct teaching, he evaluates those four forbearances by means of the two forbearances: subduing and compliance are before the stages, hence called 'forbearance toward sentient beings'; non-arising is on the stages, and quiescence is at the ultimate fruit; hence, attaining forbearance in reliance on the Dharma from the first stage onward, they are collectively named 'forbearance toward dharmas'. Fourth, in the present perfect [teaching], in the perfect stages all forbearances are without shallow or deep. Fifth, citing proof of non-duality, the clear text is right here. Sixth, 'establishing the four forbearances in terms of absence of shallow or deep': if borrowing the names of the distinct for the perfect, temporarily taking subduing and compliance for before the abidances, non-arising for ascending to the abidances, and quiescence for wondrous awakening, when temporarily separated and matched, the practice and principle must be completely fused; hence it says they all see the middle principle. It should be as in the present text, where the initial forbearance of subduing also reaches the vajra [stage], and quiescence and non-arising also reach downward. Seventh, in directly explaining the sūtra text, the reason he does not explain 'abiding in the ground of forbearance' and so forth is that establishing the four perfect forbearances just now all relies on abiding in the ground of forbearance, so it is temporarily set aside. Also, not explaining forbearance toward dharmas but only briefly explaining forbearance toward sentient beings is because only the meaning of forbearance toward sentient beings is profound, whereas forbearance toward dharmas can be readily recognized. Within forbearance toward sentient beings, also not explaining gentle, harmonious, good, and compliant is because from 'not impetuous' and 'mind not frightened' onward are the virtues of gentleness and harmony; having understood not being rash and violent and so forth, the preceding may be inferred accordingly. Hence we know that the four forbearances all rely on principle in order to reveal the perfect. Within the brief explanation, the first two lines explain 'and not impetuous'. Next, from 'hearing the Buddha' below, he explains 'the mind is also not frightened'; since this line is fused, the remaining lines can be seen. Hence saying 'hearing of birth-and-death and nirvāṇa' up to 'neither difficult nor easy', one knows that their mind constantly abides in the ground of forbearance. Eighth, concluding with the three dharmas also refers to the three practices of practicing non-practice and so forth. Ninth and tenth can be seen.