法華文句記 2.125

2.125

It is not the same as the others. The old masters took the produced immeasurability as signless; the sūtra takes the producing single reality as signless. Arising from reality into the various, the various are named immeasurable; immeasurability is a sign, so how could it be called signless? Hence the sūtra says: “What is termed ‘immeasurable’ arises from a single dharma”; thus it is not the same as the old masters' produced signlessness. The commentator merely says “containing dharmas immeasurably”; he grasps only that which is produced and loses that which produces. The sūtra derives the title from that which produces; human masters have taken that which produces as the reason to explain the title, hence saying “from this true character are produced immeasurable dharmas”; therefore, we now further explain that which produces, and thereby know that the producing middle-way true character is not different from the true character of the present sūtra. Regarding “Two dharmas” below, it further explains the produced immeasurability; although termed that which is produced, in meaning it partakes of that which produces, and is named “produced” from the perspective of the majority. Regarding “Sudden refers to,” etc.: within the sudden division, gradual and sudden are both possessed; producing and produced also point to what is produced, hence saying “all dharmas within the sudden.” Regarding “Gradual refers to,” etc.: next, it adduces the three flavors; within these three flavors, producing and produced are also present, which can be known by analogy with the sudden (and so forth). Regarding “Three paths,” etc.: here, the three and four also possess producing and produced: the perfect bodhisattvas and buddhas are taken as that which produces; the three bodhisattvas and the two [vehicles of] two vehicles are taken as that which is produced; thus, these three and four encompass all dharmas completely. By analogy, the gradual and sudden also possess producing and produced; this means that in every case the one real principle flows forth into all teachings, and the Amitārtha expresses this intent. Therefore, within the three vehicles, the two vehicles contain four, and the bodhisattva combines three; if taken as three and four, the meaning applies across the four teachings as correlated just now; if taken as three and four being entirely that which is produced, then the bodhisattva and buddha belong only to the three teachings. Classifying the provisional from the perspective of teaching, the Mysterious Meaning further takes the four buddhas as four fruits: then the perfect buddha is the one that produces the provisional three; producing and produced being contrasted, they are called the four buddhas. Thus, the bodhisattva's name applies to the meaning without error; hence, from the solitary one arises the combined one, which can be seen upon reflection. From “These and such” below, it further summarizes that which is produced to indicate that which produces: the locus of the producing meaning is the alternate name of the Lotus; the produced immeasurability serves as the introduction to the Lotus; therefore, a single name in the introduction partakes of both directions in meaning. However, one should know that from the one emerging as the immeasurable, although bringing out that which can emerge, entirely belongs to the introduction; if the immeasurable enters the one, although involving that which is produced, it entirely belongs to the main body. Thus, the single dharma of the locus of meaning also forms two directions: the locus of meaning of emergence belongs to the introduction; the locus of meaning of gathering and unifying belongs to the main body. The two lines of text from “one locus of meaning” downward are precisely these two intents. Therefore, the Buddha's entering the locus of meaning partakes of two courses in meaning. Regarding the “metaphor”: the introduction is like emerging from one into many below; the main body is like counting down from many to converge into one; thus one knows that previous teachings responded to capacities to benefit beings like using coins to buy goods, yet none knew the grand sum. From “From the one” below is the application of the metaphor. Regarding “Such as this,” etc.: it summarizes the preceding producing and produced to establish the two interpretations: that which produces does not contravene the treatise; that which is produced does not contravene the sūtra; simply relying on both interpretations, the principle of sūtra and treatise is preserved. Since the explanation is such, what is grasping the meaning? Taking that which is produced as that which produces is precisely the alternate name; that which is produced of that which produces precisely constitutes the introduction. If one exclusively emphasizes that which produces, how does it differ from Guan and others or the single perfect teaching of old? If one exclusively discusses that which is produced, how does it differ from the commentator and the three teachings of old? Therefore, preserving each separately results in a double loss; hence, our school combines producing and produced, and both meanings are established. If one takes it exclusively as an introduction, then prior to the Lotus, not only was gathering the many to return to the one not yet discussed, but emerging from the one into the many was also never expounded; therefore, the Amitārtha serves exclusively as the introduction to the present sūtra.