法華義疏 5.304

5.304

有人言：初總以大小教為一門，後但以大乘教為一門。有人言：今文辨一門亦具大小教，唯有一門與上義同，而復狹小別明大乘門也。如直是一門已難得出，況復狹小耶？直是佛法已難信解，況復大乘豈易了耶？今謂此二釋並成難解，衣裓机案既已譬教，云何復以一門喻教？復何得以衣裓机案之教從佛教門而出子耶？今明如前釋之，此中用理為門，以衣裓机案為教也。門既狹小，不可以衣裓机案從門出子；理既微妙，不可現通說法令物悟理也。

Some say: the earlier passage broadly took the teachings of both greater and lesser as one gate, while the later passage solely takes the Mahāyāna teaching as one gate. Some say: the one gate analyzed in the present text also possesses both greater and lesser teachings; "there is only one gate" is the same in meaning as above, and "moreover narrow and small" separately clarifies the Mahāyāna gate. Just as a single gate is already difficult to exit from, how much more so when it is also narrow and small? Just as the Buddha-Dharma alone is already difficult to believe and understand, how much more so could the Mahāyāna be easily comprehended? We now say: both of these two explanations result in difficulties of comprehension. Since the garments and low tables have already served as a parable for the teachings, why should the single gate again be used as a metaphor for the teachings? Moreover, how could one use the teachings of garments and low tables to bring the children out through the gate of the Buddha's teachings? We now clarify: as explained earlier, here principle is taken as the gate, and the garments and low tables are taken as the teachings. Since the gate is narrow and small, one cannot use garments and low tables to bring the children out through the gate; since principle is subtle, one cannot manifest supernatural powers and preach the Dharma to cause beings to awaken to principle.