法華文句記 4.167

4.167

Next, within directly clarifying the revealing of the real, ancient masters used these four to reveal the real; now, the four—opening, revealing, and so forth—are all taken as the unity of principle, which old masters did not have; rather, the expounder and the recipient both established cause and effect upon principle. This master here established the gate of cause and effect to interpret “open” and so forth, yet this is not as good as Guangzhai, who in the specific preface interpreted the four phrases by means of the gates of origin and traces. Although the specific preface prefaces the traces gate, it still stands at the head of the entire work; how could one, at the beginning of the dharma exposition, further divide cause and effect? “Also, it is precisely the causal gate” temporarily explains from the cause of the disciples. Saying “the fruitional gate” temporarily speaks from the master’s remote fruit; in reality, both are possessed, as detailed in the Profound Meaning. “If so” onwards inversely cross-examines the ancient masters. Since the origin gate has already been moved here, the traces gate should logically precede it; one cannot double-deploy the origin and traces, making the origin gate redundant and oversized. If one indicates both origin and traces together, the meaning within the chapter would become blended and confused; how could both be indicated here, only for a separate causal genesis to arise below? What is more, interpreting the four unities does not equal Guangzhai’s [approach] below in the Vaipulya section, which adduces the specific grounds of origin to reproach the ancient interpretation: the apparition of the stūpa verifies what came before and also initiates what comes after; hence the leaping forth of the jeweled stūpa is the remote ground of origin, while the bodhisattvas welling forth from the earth are the proximate ground of origin. Before these two grounds have arrived, how could one discern the origin? Next, recounting Guangzhai, “now we also do not use” onwards refutes him. First, it refutes on the grounds of cause and effect contradicting each other, because the three wisdoms are on the causal [stage]. Furthermore, below “three wisdoms,” it merely pertains to the cause; presenting multiple kinds of three wisdoms is a concessionary challenge. Even conceding the use of the three wisdoms, one must distinguish the three teachings; the three wisdoms of the three teachings have not yet entered the noble stages of their respective teachings, let alone the perfect noble stage! Therefore, it further concedes: even if they were the perfect three wisdoms, this stage still has not opened the buddha-knowledge and vision; thus, the preceding two teachings and the stages prior to the bhūmis of the Distinct Teaching lack the buddha-knowledge and vision. “If one takes the remaining three” and so forth concludes the challenge. The first line concludes that they are not the buddha-knowledge and vision; below “if one takes,” it contradicts his own opening proposition. “Et cetera” means that one should broadly discern this and not apply one’s own preconceived ideas.