法華玄論 5.13

5.13

In appraisal: The phrasing seems otherwise, yet the intended meaning does not miss the point. Why is this so? Since the three are penetrated by means of the one, how could the one not be the gate to the three? Speaking the three is to penetrate the one, so the three are the gate to the one. But the one being the gate to the three—this is going from the real to meet the provisional, meaning going out the gate; speaking the three to penetrate the one—this is entering the real from the provisional, meaning entering the gate. Since gates are twofold, marks should also be likewise: speaking the three expresses the one, so the three are the marks of the one; speaking the real causes one to recognize the provisional, so the one is the mark of the three. Examining it in principle, it contains this meaning. However, the commentary's exclusive use of the one as the gate to the three, and the three as the marks of the one, is still not complete in meaning. If employed as previously stated, the principle is without fault. However, the three above are all provisional statements from a single perspective, not having exhausted the ultimate within the ring. If fully discussed, there can be three meanings: first, taking the three as skillful means and the one as the real; second, taking both three and one as skillful means, and neither three nor one as the real; third, explaining three and one as duality, neither three nor one as non-duality, both duality and non-duality as provisional, and neither duality nor non-duality as real. These three can mutually serve as gates. For example, taking the three as the gate to the one—this uses the provisional to penetrate the real; if taking the one as the gate to the three, this uses the real to meet the provisional; up to duality and non-duality, it is also likewise. Since they can mutually serve as gates, they can also mutually serve as marks; it is only that they cannot mutually serve as provisional and real.