法華玄論 2.145

2.145

第五光宅法師受學印公之經，而不用印公之釋，云「此經以一乘因果為宗。故經有兩段：初開三顯一以明因，後開近顯遠以辨果也。」評曰：光宅所明，盛傳於世，末學推之。又既有因果之文，應符經旨。今以文義推尋，意猶未允。何者？後明開近顯遠，可得是果。前辨開三顯一，非專明因。所以然者，昔日明三則有因三果三，今日辨一則有因一果一。開昔因三果三皆是方便，顯今因一果一並為真實。何得開三顯一以辨因耶？又因果乃圓，本迹未足，如前評也。

Fifth, Dharma Master Guangzhai received his study of the sūtra from Master Yin, yet did not use Master Yin's explanation, stating, "This sūtra takes the cause and result of the one vehicle as its central tenet. Therefore the sūtra has two sections: first, opening the three to reveal the one in order to clarify the cause; later, opening the proximate to reveal the distant in order to distinguish the result." Critique: What Guangzhai clarified is widely circulated in the world, and later scholars promote it. Moreover, since there are scriptural passages on cause and result, it should tally with the sūtra's purport. Now, deducing and examining from both the text and the doctrine, its meaning is still not satisfactory. Why? The later clarification of opening the proximate to reveal the distant may well be the result. But the earlier distinction of opening the three to reveal the one does not exclusively clarify the cause. Why is this? In the past, clarifying the three meant there were the causes of the three and the results of the three; today, distinguishing the one means there is the cause of the one and the result of the one. Opening the past causes of the three and results of the three shows they are all skillful means; revealing the present cause of the one and result of the one shows they are both real. How could opening the three to reveal the one distinguish the cause alone? Furthermore, although cause and result are complete, origin and traces are insufficient, as in the previous critique.