金光明經文句記 5.18

5.18

初、歎體。佛所護理無量甚深，橫攝法周、竪收法盡。理若不爾，豈名經王？問：文詮此理，故言經王。是則經文但是能詮，王惟在理。釋題那云文號經王、教攝眾典？指文、指理二處不同，如何和會？答：若前三教文理不合，此則為妨。今乃從圓，法皆不二，文外無理、理外無文，釋題舉文若其孤立，豈得稱王？今疏指理不攝文者，翻屬前教信文理合是經是王，其義祕妙不可情求。今經王歎體，與〈序品〉不別。

First, praising the substance. The principle protected by the Buddhas is immeasurable and extremely profound: horizontally it subsumes all dharmas universally, and vertically it gathers all dharmas exhaustively. If the principle were not so, how could it be called the king of sūtras? Question: The text expresses this principle, hence it is called the king of sūtras. In that case, the sūtra text is merely the expressive means, and the king resides solely in the principle. Why does the explanation of the title say that the text is named the king of sūtras and that the teaching subsumes all scriptures? Pointing to the text and pointing to the principle are two different points; how are they reconciled? Answer: If under the previous three teachings text and principle do not unite, this would indeed be an objection. But now, proceeding from the perfect [teaching], dharmas are all non-dual: there is no principle outside of the text, and no text outside of the principle. If in explaining the title one cited the text in isolation, how could it be called a king? If the present commentary pointed to the principle without subsuming the text, it would conversely belong to the previous teachings; trusting that text and principle unite as both sūtra and king, its meaning is secret and subtle, not to be sought through ordinary concepts. Praising the substance as the king of sūtras here does not differ from the "Introductory Chapter".