法華文句記 6.39

6.39

Next, from 'The sūtra says' downward specifically clarifies the meaning of the gate in order to resolve doubts. First, it cites the sūtra again; next, from 'Now I ask' downward, it explains specifically. First, it establishes the doubt. From 'As a rescue, it is said' downward: although others attempt a rescue, the rescue still does not succeed; fearing that burning the teaching involves an error, they avoid the teaching and burn the person. If the person is still burned, what need is there for this teaching? From 'Like a gate' downward: others establish an analogy. Now I ask: even granting that it is not burned and takes its name from the person, is the person definitely burned or not? If the person is definitely burned, how does it differ from the ninety [kinds]? Moreover, the sūtra says that by means of the Buddha's gate of teaching one exits the suffering of the three realms; how was the person ever burned? If so, then if neither is burned, there are two faults: first, both would be permanent, yet this text has not yet clarified permanence; second, it would contradict the sūtra, which says that from the gate that was burned one attained exit safely and peacefully—making it avoid this flaw. The intention of the renewed challenge from 'It is asked again' downward: it re-establishes the challenge of those who hold the burning. If you do not allow burning, the teaching should be permanently abiding. Now, to provide the correct interpretation: from 'Now the explanation is' onward is the correct explanation, containing both metaphor and application. The intention clarifies that since the small teaching is not form-is-precisely-the-Middle-Way dharmadhātu, how could this teaching not be called impermanent? However, the small principle is not destroyed, but the great teaching represses it; the small teaching being impermanent is functionally equivalent to being burned, like the door bar, while the principle is not impermanent, like the empty space of the doorway. The two meanings of burning and peace and safety are both established. If one relies on the ancients, since the person was burned, it could not be called attaining exit safely and peacefully; the original purpose of establishing the gate was to ensure they were not burned; if there is only burning and no exiting, the meaning of a gate is not established. From 'The *Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra*' downward cites proof. The sūtra takes the previous causes of the ten immortals as functionally identical to the expressing [teaching]; looking from cause to fruit, it can also be borrowed for use: just as relying on the small verifies the great, if the small lacks impermanence, how could the great be impermanent? From 'If the small' downward: this further contrasts the Small and the Shared against the Mahāyāna gate. As for 'words are precisely vimokṣa' and so forth: the form-teachings of both Great and Small are all permanent, but there is the distinction of 'precisely' versus 'not precisely', which results in the difference of being burned or not burned; in accordance with suitability they are not identical, but in accordance with principle there is no burning; now all are opened and revealed, so that burning is precisely non-burning. From 'If in terms of' downward: it further explains by contrasting the two wisdoms of provisional and real. From the side of deploying the provisional, it says that the provisional follows what is burned; the provisional of identical essence is fundamentally permanently abiding; even if following the concealed explanation that the provisional is what is burned, one must still make distinctions: among the provisionals of the three teachings, only the provisional of the Tripiṭaka has arising and ceasing termed 'burning', while the other two differ slightly. Therefore, the passage cited below shows that the Buddha originally wished to use real wisdom to examine ordinary beings, but having no choice, he deployed impermanence; impermanence is precisely the provisional wisdom that is burned. Someone says: 'In terms of non-believers, it is called what is burned; the Buddha formerly exited from it, hence it says peace and safety.' Although this is one perspective, it does not match the present text. The sūtra says: 'If they do not exit in time, they will certainly be burned by it'; hence the words 'attaining exit' do not belong solely to the elder, and how could the statement about being burned apply only to non-believers? Therefore we know that the arising and ceasing of the teaching is called what is burned, not that it is destroyed because sentient beings do not believe. The house is burned because of defilement; what defilement is there in the gate of teaching? It is merely that vocal teachings do not abide, functionally equivalent to arising and ceasing; arising and ceasing is termed burning, hence one must make the distinction. As for 'fondly attached' and so forth: first, explaining the characters separately: *xī* is amusements and merriment. *Yóu* means pervasive pleasure; hence it exemplifies the delusions of view pervading the three realms. Although *xì* is also pleasure, it is not pervasive according to each place, because what binds within the three realms differs. Moreover, from 'indulging' onward explains the characters together: because these two characters generally signify pleasure in meaning, both characters are applied to both views and cultivation; because attachment to craving and views both forfeits the path. Craving and views are the origin; the origin necessarily invites suffering; fully possessing suffering and the origin, there is necessarily no path or cessation.