法華玄論 5.136

5.136

有人言：初句據理，餘三約解。凡論眾生所以不知作佛者，良由五濁八苦障其心用，五濁用若強，能障當果之理，理不得顯即是閉義。如來出世說此經教，而眾生開除五濁障累，佛果知見即顯，故名為開。言清淨者，五濁在心，當果之理不顯，即有穢累之義；今五濁既不能為障，即當果之理既顯然，故名清淨也。後三約解者，以其雖有當果知見不能自知，今欲令其得知，生聞惠之解，故名示佛知見。復令得思惠解，名悟佛知見。後令進得修惠解，名入佛知見。評曰：開示悟入次第相生，何故初明其理、後三明解？若以三惠故分三者，地前及登地有四十位，何不為四耶？又設明理及三惠，義亦不然。理既未明佛性及法身，三惠亦不得佛性法身之解，終未是佛知見也。

Someone said: The first phrase is based on principle, while the remaining three pertain to understanding. Generally speaking, the reason sentient beings do not know how to become Buddhas is truly because the five turbidities and eight sufferings obstruct the functioning of their minds. If the function of the five turbidities is strong, it can obstruct the principle of the future fruit; if the principle cannot be revealed, that is the meaning of being closed. When the Tathāgata appears in the world and preaches the teaching of this sūtra, sentient beings open and remove the obstructions and burdens of the five turbidities, and the knowledge and vision of the Buddha fruit are revealed; hence it is called 'opening'. As for the word 'pure', when the five turbidities are in the mind, the principle of the future fruit is not revealed, which entails the meaning of defilement and burden; now that the five turbidities can no longer cause obstruction, the principle of the future fruit is brightly manifest, hence it is called 'pure'. The latter three pertain to understanding: because although they possess the knowledge and vision of the future fruit, they cannot know it themselves, now wishing to cause them to attain knowledge of it and give rise to the understanding of wisdom born of hearing, it is called 'displaying the Buddha's knowledge and vision'. Further causing them to attain the understanding of wisdom born of reflection is called 'awakening to the Buddha's knowledge and vision'. Later causing them to advance and attain the understanding of wisdom born of cultivation is called 'entering the Buddha's knowledge and vision'. I critique this: Opening, displaying, awakening, and entering arise sequentially in succession; why should the first clarify principle and the latter three clarify understanding? If they are divided into three on the basis of the three wisdoms, there are forty stages prior to and upon ascending the grounds; why not make them four? Furthermore, even if one explains principle and the three wisdoms, the meaning is still not correct. Since the principle has not yet clarified Buddha-nature and the dharmakāya, the three wisdoms also do not attain understanding of Buddha-nature and the dharmakāya, and in the end this is not the Buddha's knowledge and vision.