法華玄論 4.154

4.154

答：約菩薩一人義論兩種二慧，取其鑒空照有義多是自行，具如前也。若明動靜義，則具自行化他，則如後也。次云照三為權、鑒一為實，此偏約《法華》。是亦不然。《波若》後分已明與《法華》齊，若爾則《大品》亦有此義，不應偏係《法華》也。又問：設云《法華》以照三為權、鑒一為實者，此三一為並是世諦、為通二諦耶？舊解云：照四種一為實，謂因一果一、教一人一皆是世諦也；照三種三為權，謂機三教三人三。無有理三亦是俗諦也。評曰：不然。四一但是俗諦，則一乘義局。一乘之中若境若智、俗之與真皆入一乘，云何但取世諦耶？

Answer: Explaining the two kinds of dual wisdom with reference to the single person of the bodhisattva, taking the meaning of discerning emptiness and illuminating existence mostly refers to self-cultivation, fully as stated previously. If one explains the meaning of movement and stillness, it fully encompasses both self-cultivation and transforming others, just as stated later. Next, to say that illuminating the three is provisional and discerning the one is real applies exclusively to the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra. This, too, is not correct. The latter section of the Prajñāpāramitā already clarifies that it is on par with the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra; if so, then the Large Prajñāpāramitā also contains this meaning, and it should not be exclusively tied to the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra. Furthermore, it may be asked: supposing one says that the Saddharmapuṇḍarīka-sūtra takes illuminating the three as provisional and discerning the one as real, are these three and one both conventional truth, or do they apply throughout the two truths? The old explanation says: Illuminating the four kinds of oneness is real, meaning the oneness of cause, the oneness of result, the oneness of teaching, and the oneness of person are all conventional truth; illuminating the three kinds of threefoldness is provisional, meaning the three capacities, the three teachings, and the three types of person. There being no three in principle is also conventional truth. In assessment, this is not so. If the four onenesses are merely conventional truth, then the meaning of the one vehicle would be restricted. Within the one vehicle, whether object or wisdom, conventional and true both enter the one vehicle; how could one take them to be merely conventional truth?