妙法蓮華經玄義 判教相·明合不合
因為聽懂一條道理，未必已把自己交給那條路。
方等把半、滿並陳，受半教的人已聽見滿教，卻仍住在草庵般的下劣心中。般若更進一步，命人領理家業，說明半字法門都能通入大乘；可是窮子仍不想取一餐之物。法已送到手邊，人還沒有認出那是自己的家。
到法華，化城不再被當成究竟，往日所行被指出本是菩薩道，父子也終於相認。合法與合人在同一處完成，所以稱人法俱合。
但慈悲不會因一次會合便停止。有人暗中已悟，有人隨處得入，有人必須到法華才肯深信，也有人退席後還要到涅槃再受引導。方便的門一次次打開，不是因真實改變，而是因眾生走到門前的時候不同。
明合不合因此問的不是哪部經勝過哪部經，而是：法已在眼前時，我還把自己留在草庵、化城與門外，還是真正知道所行就是菩薩道，也認出了父子之親？
Why has the person not corresponded when the Dharma already has? Because understanding a principle does not necessarily mean that one has entrusted oneself to that path.
Vaipulya presents half and full together. Those receiving the half have already heard the full, yet they still remain within an inferior state of mind like a grass hut. Prajñā goes further: it commands them to take charge of the family estate and explains that all the half-word Dharma-gates can pass into the Mahāyāna. Yet the poor son still does not desire to take even one meal’s worth. The Dharma has been placed in his hands, but the person has not recognized it as his own home.
Upon reaching the Lotus, the conjured city is no longer taken as ultimate. The practices of the past are revealed as themselves the bodhisattva path, and father and child finally recognize one another. Correspondence of the Dharma and correspondence of the person are completed in the same place, and so both person and Dharma are said to correspond.
Yet compassion does not cease after one convergence. Some have already awakened secretly, some attain entry wherever they are, some must reach the Lotus before they will believe deeply, and some who withdraw from the assembly must still be guided again in Nirvāṇa. The gateway of skillful means opens again and again, not because reality changes but because sentient beings reach its threshold at different times.
Clarifying correspondence and non-correspondence therefore does not ask which scripture surpasses which. It asks: when the Dharma is already before my eyes, do I still leave myself in the grass hut, the conjured city, or outside the gate? Or do I genuinely know that what I practice is the bodhisattva path and recognize the kinship of father and child?
隋天台智者大師說《妙法蓮華經玄義》〔私記緣起＝沙門灌頂述〕· 大正藏 T33n1716〔起 T33 0809a26〕。段/行首〔T33 …〕＝大正藏頁·欄·行錨（換頁一枚）。
〔T33 0809a26〕四、明合不合者，半滿五味，既通約諸經，諸經不同，今當辨其開合。若《華嚴》正隔小明大，於彼初分永無聲聞，後分則有，雖復在坐，如聾如瘂，非其境界。爾時尚未有半，何所論合？次開三乘，引接小機，令斷見思，則以小隔大，既不論滿，何所可合？故《無量義》云：「三法、四果、二道不一。」不一即不合也。若方等教，或半滿雙明，或半滿相對，或以滿彈半，稟半聞滿，雖知耻小，猶未入大，故云：「止宿草庵」，下劣之心，猶未能改，則半滿不合。《般若》以滿洮練於半，命領家業，明半方便，通入無生，半字法門皆是摩訶衍，是合其法，「而不悕取一餐之物」，即是未合其人，是故半滿不合。若至法華，覺悟化城，云非真實，「汝等所行，是菩薩道」，即是合法。「汝實我子」，即是合人，人法俱合。 自鹿苑開權，歷諸經教，來至《法華》，始得合實，故《無量義》云：「四十餘年，未顯真實。」若於法華未合，於涅槃得合，《法性論》明中、下二根入法界者，即是得合菩薩也。 若論聲聞：一、祕密合；二、顯露合。祕密合者，初為提謂說五戒法，已有密悟無生忍者，況修多羅、方等、《般若》，豈無密悟？此則不論。若就顯露，未入位聲聞，亦隨處得合。例如《般若》三百比丘得記者是也。若住果聲聞，決至《法華》敦信令合。若住果不合，是增上慢未入位，五千簡眾起去，到《涅槃》中，方復得合。 總就諸教通作四句，華嚴、三藏非合非不合，方等、般若一向不合，法華一向合，涅槃亦合亦不合。何者？涅槃為末代更開諸權，引後代鈍根，故言亦不合。 問： 菩薩因《法華》入法界與《華嚴》合，不見因《華嚴》入一乘與《法華》合。 答： 《華嚴》入法界，即是入一乘〔云云〕。
The canonical text stands in Chinese only. This edition renders the essence, the plain reading, the exposition and the apparatus into English — never the sūtra itself. Switch to 漢讀本 or 並行雙語 above to read it.
第四，說明合與不合。半教、滿教與五味既然可以通約各部經典，而各經的情形又不相同，現在就應分辨其中如何開展、如何會合。
五味中的合與不合
《華嚴》正面隔開小乘根機而顯明大乘。在初分中全無聲聞，後分雖有聲聞在座，卻像聽不見、說不出，不能進入那個境界。當時尚且沒有半教可與滿教相對，又從何談合？
接著開出三乘，引接小乘根機，使他們斷除見惑與思惑。這時是以小教隔開大教，既然還不談滿教，又有什麼可以相合？所以《無量義經》說，三法、四果、二道彼此不一；不一，就是不合。
到了方等教，有時半、滿同時宣說，有時兩者相對而說，有時以滿教責斥半教。稟受半教的人雖然聽到滿教，也知道停在小法可恥，卻仍未進入大乘，所以說他還『暫住草庵』；下劣之心仍未改變，半、滿因此不合。
《般若》以滿教來『洮練』半教，又命受教者領理家業，說明半教是方便，可以通入無生；半字法門全都是大乘，這是法已相合。然而受命領知家業的人仍『不想取一餐之物』，也就是人尚未相合，所以半、滿仍是不合。
到了《法華》，眾人才醒悟化城並非真實究竟。佛說他們所行的就是菩薩道，這是法相合；又說他們確實是佛的孩子，這是人相合。人與法到此一起相合。
從鹿苑開出方便權教，經歷各部經教，一直到《法華》才會入真實。所以《無量義經》說，四十多年來還沒有顯明真實。若有人在《法華》尚未相合，到《涅槃》才得相合；《法性論》所說中、下兩種根機進入法界，便是後來得合的菩薩。
聲聞在何處得合
若專就聲聞說，可分兩種：第一是祕密合，第二是顯露合。
祕密合，是佛最初為提謂宣說五戒法時，已有人暗中悟得無生忍；何況後來的修多羅、方等與《般若》，怎會沒有暗中領悟的人？這一條在此不再展開細說。
若就顯露合說，尚未入位的聲聞也可隨所在之處得合，例如《般若》中三百位比丘得到授記。已安住果位的聲聞，必定到《法華》受到敦促而生信，使他相合。若自稱住果卻仍不合，便是增上慢而其實尚未入位；法華會上五千人因此被簡別而起身離去，要到《涅槃》中才重新得合。
四句與末後問答
總括各種教說，可作四句分別：華嚴與三藏是非合、也非不合；方等與般若一向不合；法華一向合；涅槃則既合也不合。為什麼涅槃還有不合的一面？因為它要為後世再次開出各種方便權教，引導後代鈍根，所以說也有不合。
有人問：可以看見菩薩因《法華》進入法界，因而與《華嚴》相合；卻沒有看見有人因《華嚴》進入一乘，因而與《法華》相合。
回答說：《華嚴》所說進入法界，也就是進入一乘。其餘意思依此可知。
Fourth, clarifying correspondence and non-correspondence. Since half and full and the five flavors can be applied generally across the various scriptures, while the circumstances of the scriptures differ, one must now distinguish how they open and how they converge.
Correspondence and Non-Correspondence within the Five Flavors
The Avataṃsaka directly separates those of small-vehicle faculties and clarifies the Great Vehicle. Its opening section has no śrāvakas at all. Although śrāvakas are present in the later section, they are as though unable to hear or speak and cannot enter that realm. At that time there is not yet any half teaching to stand in relation to the full, so what correspondence could be discussed?
Next, the three vehicles are opened to receive and guide those of small faculties and enable them to sever the delusions of views and thought. At this point the small teaching separates them from the great, and the full teaching is not yet discussed, so what is there that could correspond? The Sutra of Immeasurable Meanings therefore says that the three Dharmas, four fruits, and two paths are not one. Not being one means non-correspondence.
With the Vaipulya teaching, half and full may be taught together, set against one another, or related through the full rebuking the half. Although those who receive the half hear the full and recognize the shame of remaining with the small, they still have not entered the Great Vehicle. They are therefore said still to be “temporarily lodging in a grass hut.” Their inferior state of mind remains unchanged, and so half and full do not correspond.
Prajñā uses the full to 『洮練』—“wash and refine”—the half and commands those receiving the teaching to take charge of the family estate. It explains that the half is skillful means capable of passing into non-arising; all the half-word Dharma-gates are Mahāyāna. This is correspondence of the Dharma. Yet those commanded to take charge of the estate still “do not desire to take even one meal’s worth.” The person has therefore not corresponded, and so half and full remain in non-correspondence.
Upon reaching the Lotus, people awaken to the fact that the conjured city is not ultimate reality. The Buddha tells them that what they practice is the bodhisattva path: this is correspondence of the Dharma. He also says that they are truly his children: this is correspondence of the person. Person and Dharma correspond together.
From the opening of the provisional at the Deer Park, the course passes through the various scriptural teachings and reaches the Lotus, where it first converges into reality. The Sutra of Immeasurable Meanings therefore says that reality had not been revealed for more than forty years. Those who have not corresponded in the Lotus may correspond only in Nirvāṇa. The Faxing Lun’s statement that those of middle and lower faculties enter the Dharma realm refers to bodhisattvas who later attain correspondence.
Where Do Śrāvakas Attain Correspondence?
Considered specifically in relation to śrāvakas, there are two kinds: first, secret correspondence; second, manifest correspondence.
In secret correspondence, when the Buddha first taught the five-precept Dharma to Tiwei, there were already people who secretly awakened to the forbearance in which dharmas do not arise. How, then, could there be no one who secretly awakened later amid sūtra, Vaipulya, and Prajñā? This point is not developed further here.
In manifest correspondence, śrāvakas who have not yet entered a stage may attain correspondence wherever they are, as with the three hundred bhikṣus who received predictions in Prajñā. Śrāvakas already abiding in the fruit must reach the Lotus, where they are pressed to believe and brought into correspondence. Those who claim to abide in the fruit yet do not correspond are in fact people of overweening pride who have not entered a stage. The five thousand at the Lotus assembly were separated from the assembly and rose to leave; only in Nirvāṇa did they again attain correspondence.
The Four Statements and the Final Question and Answer
Gathering the teachings as a whole, four statements can be made. The Avataṃsaka and Tripiṭaka are neither correspondence nor non-correspondence. Vaipulya and Prajñā are uniformly non-correspondence. The Lotus is uniformly correspondence. Nirvāṇa is both correspondence and non-correspondence. Why does Nirvāṇa still possess the side of non-correspondence? Because it again opens the various provisional teachings for later ages and guides those of dull faculties in future generations.
Someone asks: one can see bodhisattvas entering the Dharma realm through the Lotus and thereby corresponding with the Avataṃsaka, but one does not see anyone entering the One Vehicle through the Avataṃsaka and thereby corresponding with the Lotus.
The answer is that entering the Dharma realm as taught in the Avataṃsaka is itself entering the One Vehicle. The remaining implications can be known accordingly.
灌頂所記的智者說，在這一目先問一個根本問題：不同經教所說的法與承受教法的人，何時才真正會入真實？『合』若只看成兩套名目的拼接，方等同時說半、滿時便已可算合；本論卻一路追問到人與法是否一同轉入，顯示會合不是並列，而是歸實。
同時聽見，為何仍不算合
華嚴正面顯大，初分沒有聲聞，後分雖有聲聞在座，也不能進入其境界。此時半教尚未並立，沒有可說的會合。三藏轉而開三乘、接引小機，使人斷除見思；此時又只從小教著力，還未談滿教，同樣無從論合。
方等開始把半、滿同時宣說、彼此相對，又以滿教責斥半教。可是受半教的人即使聽到滿教，只是知道停小可恥，仍未進入大乘。草庵的意象正在這裡：人雖已聽見滿教，心卻仍以暫宿草庵為安穩。兩種教說同場，不等於受教之心已經轉入。
法已相合，為何人還沒有合
般若把問題推進一層。半字法門被說明為方便，能通入無生，也都可會入大乘；法的隔礙已經打開。可是窮子雖奉命領理家業，仍沒有希取一餐之物的心。法門雖由他領知，父子之情卻還沒有相認，所以本論判為合法而未合人。
到了法華，化城被看出不是究竟真實，往日所行又被指出本是菩薩道，法由此相合；佛子身分同時得到確認，人也相合。家業與孩子不再分屬兩邊，人法俱合才成為法華的完成語。
法華始合，是否否定此前一切得入
從鹿苑開權而至法華始得合實，說的是公開教化次第的總線；本論隨即又分祕密合與顯露合，使『始』不成為對此前一切悟入的抹除。
祕密合從提謂受五戒已有密悟說起，再反問修多羅、方等與般若之中豈會全無密悟。這條路本來不在公開次第中逐一標示，所以只點出而不展開。顯露合則依根機分流：未入位者可隨處得合，三百比丘受記就是例證；住果者必到法華受勸信而合；自稱住果卻不能信入者，實是增上慢未入位，退席後再待涅槃得合。
因此，法華始合實與前時可有密悟、未入位可隨處得合並不衝突。前者說一代公開教化何處全面會實，後者說個別根機何時實際得入。
既說一向合，涅槃為何仍要再開方便
四句把前面各段收緊。本論列華嚴、三藏同在非合非不合：華嚴尚未有半，何所論合；三藏既不論滿，何所可合。方等雖把半、滿並說，人心仍未轉入；般若雖合法，人仍未合，所以兩者一向不合。法華人法俱合，故一向合。
涅槃接續法華之後，仍為後世鈍根再開方便。就前文所說未在法華得合者到涅槃得合而言，它有合的一面；就又為末代開權、引導後世鈍根而言，它有不合的一面。合與不合不是互相取消，而是同時指出所歸與所引。
華嚴與法華是否只有單向會合
最後的問答把兩部經放在相反方向上檢驗。問者已看見因法華入法界而與華嚴相合，卻未看見因華嚴入一乘而與法華相合。回答不再另設一道橋，只指出華嚴的入法界本身就是入一乘。
這一句使兩條道路在所入之處相會。名稱不同，所入不是兩個終點；也因此，明合不合最終不是判哪一部經被另一部收編，而是辨眾生是否已由方便真正進入一乘。
釋籤之眼
湛然先分總明來意與正明合不合；正明又分正釋、問答，正釋依次是五味、所以、四句。『所以』先通論三乘在法華、涅槃得合，再別論聲聞的祕密與顯露；顯露又分未入位、住果、增上慢。
鏡中又以會解合。華嚴帶別而非合，純大不與小並而非不合；三藏純小未合大而非合，不與大並而非不合。涅槃本不住小，所以亦合；仍存方便，所以亦不合。四句的兩面因此各有落處。
對住果聲聞，湛然以敦逼解敦信，又以真得阿羅漢而不信大法無有是處為據；上慢者實未得入，真正得入者便不再是上慢。這使法華主會、涅槃收餘機各得其位。
至末問答，湛然只說依文釋疑，不另增長解。入法界即入一乘，已足以使華嚴與法華在所入處互相照見。
Zhiyi’s teaching as recorded by Guanding first asks a fundamental question in this topic: at what point do the Dharmas taught in different scriptural teachings and the people receiving them genuinely converge into reality? If “correspondence” meant only joining two sets of names, Vaipulya would already count as correspondence when it teaches half and full together. Yet the root treatise continues asking whether person and Dharma have turned together. Correspondence is therefore not juxtaposition but convergence into reality.
Why Does Hearing Them Together Still Not Count as Correspondence?
The Avataṃsaka directly clarifies the great. There are no śrāvakas in its opening section; even when śrāvakas sit in its later section, they cannot enter that realm. The half teaching has not yet been set alongside it, and there is no correspondence to discuss. The Tripiṭaka then opens the three vehicles and receives those of small faculties, enabling them to sever the delusions of views and thought. Here the effort is again made only through the small teaching, while the full is not yet discussed; correspondence likewise has no point from which to arise.
Vaipulya begins to teach half and full together, to set them against one another, and to use the full to rebuke the half. Yet recipients of the half, even after hearing the full, only recognize the shame of remaining in the small and still do not enter the Great Vehicle. The image of the grass hut lies precisely here: although people have already heard the full teaching, their minds still take temporary lodging in the hut as secure. Two teachings occupying the same setting does not mean that the recipient’s mind has already turned and entered.
If the Dharma Corresponds, Why Has the Person Not Yet Corresponded?
Prajñā advances the question by one level. The half-word Dharma-gates are explained as skillful means that can pass into non-arising and can all converge into the Mahāyāna; the obstruction at the level of Dharma has been opened. Yet although the poor son is commanded to take charge of the family estate, he still has no desire to take even one meal’s worth. He has come to know the Dharma-gates, but father and child have not yet recognized one another. The root treatise therefore judges that the Dharma corresponds while the person does not.
Upon reaching the Lotus, the conjured city is recognized as not ultimate reality, and the practices of the past are revealed as themselves the bodhisattva path. The Dharma thereby corresponds. At the same time, the person’s identity as a buddha-child is confirmed, and the person corresponds as well. The family estate and the child no longer remain on opposite sides. Correspondence of both person and Dharma becomes the Lotus’ concluding statement.
Does First Correspondence in the Lotus Deny Every Earlier Entry?
The statement that correspondence with reality is first attained after the provisional is opened at the Deer Park and the course reaches the Lotus describes the general line of manifest transformation. The root treatise immediately distinguishes secret correspondence and manifest correspondence, preventing “first” from erasing every earlier entry.
Secret correspondence begins from the statement that some secretly awakened when Tiwei received the five precepts and then asks how sūtra, Vaipulya, and Prajñā could be wholly without secret awakening. This path is not individually marked along the public sequence and is therefore only indicated rather than unfolded. Manifest correspondence diverges according to faculties. Those who have not yet entered a stage may attain correspondence wherever they are, as shown by the prediction bestowed on the three hundred bhikṣus. Those abiding in the fruit must reach the Lotus and be pressed to believe. Those who claim to abide in the fruit yet cannot believe and enter are in fact people of overweening pride who have not entered a stage; after withdrawing from the assembly, they must await Nirvāṇa to attain correspondence.
Thus, first correspondence with reality in the Lotus does not conflict with the possibility of secret awakening earlier or of those who have not yet entered a stage attaining correspondence wherever they are. The former concerns where the public course of the Buddha’s teaching converges comprehensively into reality; the latter concerns when particular faculties actually gain entry.
If the Lotus Is Uniform Correspondence, Why Does Nirvāṇa Still Reopen Skillful Means?
The four statements gather the preceding passages tightly. The root treatise places the Avataṃsaka and the Tripiṭaka alike under neither correspondence nor non-correspondence: in the Avataṃsaka, the half has not yet arisen, so what correspondence could be discussed; in the Tripiṭaka, the full is not yet discussed, so what could correspond? In Vaipulya, although half and full are taught together, the person’s mind has not yet turned and entered. In Prajñā, although the Dharma corresponds, the person does not. The two are therefore uniformly non-correspondence. In the Lotus, person and Dharma correspond together, and so it is uniformly correspondence.
After the Lotus, Nirvāṇa again opens skillful means for those of dull faculties in later ages. In relation to those described earlier who did not correspond in the Lotus and attain correspondence in Nirvāṇa, it possesses the side of correspondence. In relation to reopening the provisional for the final age and guiding dull faculties of later generations, it possesses the side of non-correspondence. Correspondence and non-correspondence do not cancel one another; they point simultaneously to the destination and to those still being guided.
Do the Avataṃsaka and the Lotus Correspond in Only One Direction?
The final question and answer test the two scriptures in opposite directions. The questioner already sees that entering the Dharma realm through the Lotus corresponds with the Avataṃsaka, yet does not see entry into the One Vehicle through the Avataṃsaka corresponding with the Lotus. The answer does not establish another bridge. It simply points out that entry into the Dharma realm in the Avataṃsaka is itself entry into the One Vehicle.
This sentence brings the two paths together at what is entered. The names differ, but what is entered is not two destinations. Clarifying correspondence and non-correspondence therefore does not finally decide which scripture is incorporated by another; it distinguishes whether sentient beings have genuinely entered the One Vehicle through skillful means.
Through the Eye of the Shiqian
Zhanran first divides the passage into a general clarification of the intent and a direct clarification of correspondence and non-correspondence. The direct clarification is then divided into the direct explanation and questions and answers; the direct explanation proceeds through the five flavors, the reasons, and the four statements. The reasons first discuss generally how the three vehicles attain correspondence and then separately discuss the śrāvakas’ secret and manifest correspondence. The manifest is further divided into those who have not yet entered a stage, those abiding in the fruit, and those of overweening pride.
The Mirror further explains correspondence through convergence. The Avataṃsaka carries the Distinct and is therefore non-correspondence; because its purely great teaching is not presented alongside the small, it is not non-correspondence. The Tripiṭaka’s purely small teaching has not corresponded with the great and is therefore non-correspondence; because it is not presented alongside the great, it is not non-correspondence. Nirvāṇa originally does not abide in the small and is therefore also correspondence; because skillful means still remains, it is also non-correspondence. Each side of the four statements thereby has its place.
For śrāvakas abiding in the fruit, Zhanran explains pressing belief as a pressing exhortation and takes as his evidence that it is impossible for one who has truly attained arhatship not to believe the Great Dharma. People of overweening pride have not truly gained entry, while those who have gained entry are no longer of overweening pride. This gives the principal convergence in the Lotus and the gathering of the remaining faculties in Nirvāṇa their respective places.
At the final question and answer, Zhanran says only that the doubt is resolved according to the text and does not add an extended explanation. Entry into the Dharma realm is precisely entry into the One Vehicle; this is sufficient for the Avataṃsaka and the Lotus to illuminate one another at what is entered.
考據Apparatus
明合不合先問半、滿與諸味如何在諸經中開合，再以法、人兩面辨方等、般若與法華，繼而分三乘、聲聞及四句，末以華嚴入法界與法華一乘互相發問。本單元的重點不在把諸經排成一條名稱表，而在逐層辨何法已會、何人未會，以及何種根機於何處得會。
一、科判定位
本單元是別解五章第五章判教相的第四目，起於「四、明合不合者」〔T33 0809a26〕，止於末答「《華嚴》入法界，即是入一乘〔云云〕。」〔T33 0809b29〕；下一段已轉第五目料簡。
《法華玄義釋籤》（T1717）先以「先總明來意」〔T33 0959c08〕與「初正釋，次問答釋疑。」〔0959c09〕分全相；正釋再分五味有合不合、合不合所以、四句分別三層。合不合所以又分「初通明三乘得合之處，次別顯聲聞得合之處。」〔0959c21〕；聲聞一層先分祕密、顯露，顯露再分未入位、住果與增上慢。依此可收為六節：總明來意、五味各辨、三乘得合、聲聞二合、四句分別、問答釋疑。
全相八個原典段落都在智者講說、灌頂記錄一層，未見另署私釋或記者附語的轉語。科文是後釋所判，不倒作本論自列的六個標題。
二、成立與傳本
本論卷前自署「沙門灌頂述」〔T33 0681a05〕，並記灌頂在江陵承聞玄義，後「《玄》、《文》各十卷」〔T33 0681a22〕書而傳之；本單元所在半卷則題智者大師說。故成立層次仍是一句可盡：智者於玉泉說玄義，灌頂受聞筆錄，現存《玄義》《文句》各十卷；本相沒有客觀標記可再切出灌頂自行附語。
本相以 T1716 為底，《釋籤》T1717 為同宗嫡傳正釋。智旭《法華經玄義節要》與法照《法華經三大部讀教記》保存後世節錄，智銓《法華經玄籤證釋》保存後出考辨；這些都是傳承見證，不改動底本文字。
三、所引經論覆核
華嚴、無量義與前段三味
| 本論所言 | 今本覆核 | 關係 |
|---|---|---|
| 「若《華嚴》正隔小明大，於彼初分永無聲聞，後分則有，雖復在坐，如聾如瘂，非其境界。」〔T33 0809a28〕 | 舊譯《大方廣佛華嚴經》（T0278）後分列「爾時，諸大聲聞舍利弗、目揵連、摩訶迦葉」〔T09 0679b28〕，又說「在祇洹林而悉不見如來自在、如來莊嚴、如來境界」〔0679c02〕及「此是菩薩智慧境界，非諸聲聞智慧境界。」〔0679c28〕 | 後分有聲聞而不見如來境界的場景直接扣合；今本另用盲人到寶洲為譬〔T09 0680b12〕，未以『如聾如瘂』作同句。『初分永無』是本論範圍判語，不以一次未檢得代證。 |
| 本論引《無量義經》「三法、四果、二道不一。」〔T33 0809b03〕 | 《無量義經》（T0276）同作「三法、四果、二道不一。」〔T09 0386b07〕 | 逐字相合；本論續以不一釋不合。 |
| 方等段取「止宿草庵」〔T33 0809b06〕 | 《妙法蓮華經》（T0262）作「猶處門外，止宿草庵，」〔T09 0018a29〕 | 核心四字同文；這是〈信解品〉窮子譬，不是方等經題下的引文。 |
華嚴段說尚無半教，三藏段說尚不論滿教，兩段都沒有把半、滿並陳後再會合。方等才有雙明、相對、以滿彈半三層，然而受半者只知恥小而未入大。
般若與法華的人法二合
| 本論所言 | 今本覆核 | 關係 |
|---|---|---|
| 般若段說命領家業而「不悕取一餐之物」〔T33 0809b09〕 | 《妙法蓮華經》作「爾時窮子，即受教勅，領知眾物，金銀珍寶及諸庫藏，而無悕取一飡之意。」〔T09 0017b04〕 | 場景相合；本論作不、餐、物，今本作無、飡、意，各守其本。 |
| 法華段說覺悟化城非真實 | 《妙法蓮華經》作「當觀察籌量所得涅槃非真實也。但是如來方便之力，於一佛乘分別說三。」〔T09 0026a21〕 | 本論是場景壓縮，不冒作根經整句。 |
| 本論以「汝等所行，是菩薩道」〔T33 0809b11〕證合法 | 《妙法蓮華經》同作「汝等所行，是菩薩道，」〔T09 0020b23〕 | 逐字相合，今本句末續文另在後。 |
| 本論以「汝實我子」〔T33 0809b12〕證合人 | 《妙法蓮華經》作「此實我子，我實其父。」〔T09 0017b13〕 | 義位相合，代詞與句式不同。 |
| 本論引《無量義經》「四十餘年，未顯真實。」〔T33 0809b14〕 | 今本作「種種說法，以方便力，四十餘年未曾顯實。」〔T09 0386b01〕 | 本論節引與今本有曾字及真實、顯實之別，並錄不判。 |
本論以半字法門通入摩訶衍為合法，以受命領知而無希取之心為未合人；到法華才以菩薩道合法、父子相認合人，結成人法俱合。今本異文只用於考據，不回改白話所依的 T1716 句形。
三乘、聲聞與失本所指
| 本論所言 | 今本覆核 | 關係 |
|---|---|---|
| 「《法性論》明中、下二根入法界者」〔T33 0809b15〕 | 《出三藏記集》（T2145）只著錄「法性論上下〔釋慧遠〕」〔T55 0083a12〕；《佛祖統紀》（T2035）後來轉述「依法性論鈍根菩薩三處入法界。初般若。次法華。後涅槃。」〔T49 0158b10〕 | 所指待考。前者是書目，後者是後世傳述，都不是失本《法性論》正文。 |
| 「初為提謂說五戒法，已有密悟無生忍者」〔T33 0809b18〕 | 窺基《阿彌陀經通贊疏》（T1758）轉述「三七日內為提謂長者說三歸五戒十善等」〔T37 0330b26〕及「提謂得不起法忍即無生法忍」〔0330b29〕；智銓另記提謂經藏中已無〔X 0630a13–14〕 | 所指待考。後世轉述只證傳承內容，不升格為原經逐字。 |
| 「例如《般若》三百比丘得記者是也。」〔T33 0809b20〕 | 《摩訶般若波羅蜜經》（T0223）先記「般若波羅蜜品時，三百比丘從座起，以所著衣上佛，發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心」〔T08 0229b16〕，後授記「是三百比丘，從是已後六十一劫當作佛，皆號名大相。」〔0229b20〕 | 人數、發心與授記都有今本明文；《大智度論》T1509 又重引此場景〔T25 0353b18–24〕。 |
| 「若住果聲聞，決至《法華》敦信令合。」〔T33 0809b21〕 | 《妙法蓮華經》作「若有比丘實得阿羅漢，若不信此法，無有是處。」〔T09 0007c04〕 | 根經明實得而不信無有是處；敦信的敦逼義由《釋籤》明釋。 |
| 「五千簡眾起去，到《涅槃》中，方復得合。」〔T33 0809b23〕 | 《妙法蓮華經》記「會中有比丘、比丘尼、優婆塞、優婆夷五千人等，即從座起，禮佛而退。所以者何？此輩罪根深重及增上慢，未得謂得、未證謂證」〔T09 0007a07〕；《大般涅槃經》（T0374）另有「聲聞緣覺信順如是大涅槃經，自知己身有如來性」〔T12 0412b11〕及「諸阿羅漢悉當得是大涅槃故。」〔0423a23〕 | 法華退席與上慢場景明確；涅槃兩句只證聲聞得入的一般結構，未明稱同一五千。把兩會相接是本論判語。 |
祕密合以提謂初例反況修多羅、方等、般若都可能有密悟，本論於此不再逐時展開；顯露合則分未入位隨處得合、住果必至法華、增上慢退席後至涅槃三類，三者不可併成同一位次。
華嚴與法華的末問答
本論問何以只見菩薩因法華入法界而與華嚴合，未見因華嚴入一乘而與法華合；答以「《華嚴》入法界，即是入一乘〔云云〕。」〔T33 0809b29〕。《大方廣佛華嚴經》（T0278）確有「入法界品第三十四之一」〔T09 0676a05〕，也有「諸佛唯以一乘得出生死」〔0429b13〕，但兩語不在一個同句。故『入法界即入一乘』按智者教判綜合語讀，不偽稱今本逐字同文。
四、釋籤釋要〔鏡〕
《法華玄義釋籤》先判五味：前三味不合，般若有合不合，法華一向合，並說合是會的異名。華嚴後分之聲聞，湛然省稱「準《不思議境界經》云」〔T33 0959c13〕以菩薩迹示聲聞補釋；智銓後指藏中有兩部近題〔X0592 0632a11〕，今本《大方廣佛華嚴經不思議佛境界分》（T0300）與《大方廣如來不思議境界經》（T0301）分別有「復有無量千俱胝諸菩薩眾，示聲聞形，亦皆來集。」〔T10 0905b21〕與「復有無量千億菩薩現聲聞形，亦來會坐。」〔T10 0909a24〕，但數目、地點不與湛然所述五百聲聞全同。
自鹿苑以下，《釋籤》分通明三乘與別顯聲聞。祕密一層說「初祕中以提謂況出三時，此文可以通冠一切。」〔T33 0959c25〕；顯露一層先說未入位者不專在法華，再說住果不過法華，最後說上慢之輩至涅槃。對敦信，湛然明取敦逼義，並以實得阿羅漢而不信無有是處作判準；又說「上慢之人實不得入，得入之人非增上慢。」〔0960a05〕。於「五千起去」〔0960a07〕，湛然另引大《纓珞·譬喻品》：「復有五千菩薩聞佛說如來法身功德，即從座起遶佛三匝而退。」〔0960a08〕，並判方等抑挫、涅槃得入〔0960a19–a22〕；智銓指「是菩薩瓔珞經，此出第九卷譬喻品，即第三十一品」〔X0592 0632a19〕，而今本《菩薩瓔珞經》（T0656）場景在卷第十一〔T16 0095a19〕譬喻品第三十二〔0097c26〕——卷品兩形並錄不判。
四句中，湛然以華嚴帶別而非合、純大不與小並而非不合；以三藏純小未合大而非合、不與大並而非不合；涅槃則「本不住小名亦合，仍存方便名亦不合。」〔0960a27〕。末問答只標釋疑如文，不另增一套解說。
五、諸家異釋
智銓《法華經玄籤證釋》（X0592）直接對讀本相，說「法性論明中、下二根入法界，謂鈍菩薩三處入法界：上根在般若，中根在法華，下根在涅槃。」〔X 0632a13〕，又以「敦逼文者，不論會中實有此人，實無此人，佛欲其深信大法，故作此語，以為敦逼。」〔0632a16〕解敦信。這是後世解與失本文義轉述，不倒作《法性論》原文。
知禮《觀音玄義記》（T1727）說「漸化已來法華入者，望前已鈍。復有未入，待至涅槃，法華猶利。」〔T34 0896a24〕，並以「法華破大陣、涅槃收殘黨，法華為刈穫、涅槃是捃拾。」〔0896a25〕表述法華主會、涅槃收餘機的結構。此處沒有把餘機逐字限定為同一五千。
智圓《涅槃經疏三德指歸》（X0662）明問「法華五千退席合在涅槃得悟，何得不經法華耶？」〔X 0367c15〕，答以「退席是未證謂證，其實凡夫若住小果，只於彼會而得入住。」〔0367c16〕，把退席上慢者與真住小果者分開。這是山外直接問答，與湛然的判釋並錄，不代為裁決。
智旭《法華經玄義節要》（X0589）節錄本相，保存人／今、坐／座、草庵／艸菴、餐／䬸等傳文字形及省略差異；法照《法華經三大部讀教記》（X0585）則把本論聲聞段與《釋籤》敦逼解並列。二者是摘錄與接受史見證，不升格為本論所引經論。
六、術語
合、會。 合是會的異名，在本相指法或人歸會於實，不是文字拼接或彼此折衷。
半、滿。 半、滿可以相隔、並明、相對，也可以滿彈半。它們在不同教說中所處關係不同，不固定指兩部單一經典。
合法、合人。 般若使半字法門通入大乘，只成法合；受教者仍無希取之心，所以人未合。法華既使所行成菩薩道，又使父子相認，故人法俱合。
祕密合、顯露合。 兩者是聲聞得合的隱顯方式。祕密合不逐時顯說，顯露合則依未入位、住果、增上慢分流。
敦信。 本論用於住果聲聞至法華令合；《釋籤》以敦逼解之，重點是令真得果者深信大法，不另添身體強迫之義。
非合非不合、亦合亦不合。 前者分屬華嚴與三藏，兩個否定各有所據；後者分屬涅槃，不住小與仍存方便兩面並存，不能互相抵銷。
七、譬喻、互讀與承衍
草庵、家業、一餐、化城與父子，是本相推進人法二合的主要意象。草庵顯方等聞滿而下劣心未改；受命領家業卻無希取，顯般若法合而人未合；覺知化城非究竟、所行即菩薩道，又確認父子，才顯法華人法俱合。
與《無量義經》互讀，三法、四果、二道不一與四十餘年未顯真實，分別成三藏不合及法華始合實的兩處證言；與《摩訶般若波羅蜜經》互讀，三百比丘發心受記顯示未入位者不必專待法華；與《大般涅槃經》互讀，只能確立聲聞得入的一般結構，不能補造同一五千的續傳。
本目承衍前三目：竪入、料簡、教化境界已辨諸教相狀，至此再問各時所說的法與所化的人是否真正會入。下一目通別料簡將從合不合的總判，轉入通別、益不益與諸教的進一步分辨。
八、校本定位
一、本單元以 T1716 為底，起於 0809a26，止於 0809c01 前；末尾〔云云〕是所傳夾註，隨正文保留。
二、本相精確範圍內沒有大正正文異讀標記；只有一枚隨文夾註。這一負項依原始標記的完整元素清點，不由詞搜零命中推出。
三、《釋籤》對位範圍有六組校記：0959c18 辭／詞、0959c20 以後／已彼、0960a02 合／合合、0960a12 言／言有、0960a12 此／善女、0960a17 虛／靈。這些只屬 T1717 校記，不回灌 T1716。
四、智旭節本所見人／今、坐／座、艸菴、希、䬸等，是後世節本文字，不列作 T1716 大正異讀。
五、所有頁錨取引文首字之前最近同版行號；同行多引各自繫其首字行。X 藏引文只取新纂版行號，不取並行舊版行號。
Clarifying correspondence and non-correspondence first asks how half and full and the various flavors open and converge across the scriptures. It then distinguishes Vaipulya, Prajñā, and the Lotus from the two perspectives of Dharma and persons, proceeds to the three vehicles, the śrāvakas, and the four statements, and finally poses reciprocal questions concerning entry into the Dharma realm in the Avataṃsaka and the One Vehicle in the Lotus. The unit does not merely arrange the scriptures into a list of names. At each level, it distinguishes which Dharma has already converged, which person has not, and where each kind of faculty comes into correspondence.
1. Doctrinal-Outline Placement
This unit is the fourth topic within Classifying the Teaching, the fifth of the Five Chapters in the separate explanation. It begins with 「四、明合不合者」 tr. “Fourth, clarifying correspondence and non-correspondence”〔T33 0809a26〕 and ends with the final answer, 「《華嚴》入法界，即是入一乘〔云云〕。」 tr. “Entering the Dharma realm in the Avataṃsaka is precisely entering the One Vehicle, and so forth”〔T33 0809b29〕. The next paragraph has already turned to the fifth topic, Resolving Questions.
The Fahua Xuanyi Shiqian (T1717) first divides the whole topic into 「先總明來意」 tr. “first, generally clarifying the intent of its arising”〔T33 0959c08〕 and 「初正釋，次問答釋疑。」 tr. “first, the direct explanation; next, questions and answers resolving doubt”〔0959c09〕. The direct explanation is further divided into three levels: correspondence and non-correspondence within the five flavors, the reasons for correspondence and non-correspondence, and distinction through the four statements. The reasons are again divided into 「初通明三乘得合之處，次別顯聲聞得合之處。」 tr. “first, generally clarifying where the three vehicles attain correspondence; next, separately revealing where the śrāvakas attain correspondence”〔0959c21〕. The śrāvaka level first divides secret and manifest, and then divides the manifest into those not yet established in a stage, those abiding in the fruit, and those of overweening pride. These yield six sections: generally clarifying the intent, distinguishing the five flavors, the three vehicles attaining correspondence, the śrāvakas’ two kinds of correspondence, distinction through four statements, and questions and answers resolving doubt.
All eight paragraphs of the source text belong to the single layer of Zhiyi’s teaching recorded by Guanding. No transition marks a private explanation or an addition by the recorder. The divisions are established by the later commentary and are not retrojected as six headings explicitly listed by the root treatise.
2. Formation and Transmission
The prefatory matter of the root treatise is signed 「沙門灌頂述」 tr. “recounted by the śramaṇa Guanding”〔T33 0681a05〕. It records that Guanding heard the Profound Meaning at Jiangling and later wrote and transmitted 「《玄》、《文》各十卷」 tr. “ten fascicles each of the Xuanyi and the Wenju”〔T33 0681a22〕; the half-fascicle containing this unit is separately headed as spoken by Master Zhiyi. Its formation can therefore be stated in one sentence: Zhiyi taught the Profound Meaning at Yuquan, Guanding heard and recorded it, and the received Xuanyi and Wenju each comprise ten fascicles. This unit contains no objective marker by which a separate addition composed by Guanding could be carved out.
This unit takes T1716 as its base and T1717, the Shiqian, as the direct inherited commentary of the same tradition. Zhixu’s Fahua Jing Xuanyi Jieyao and Fazhao’s Fahua Jing San Dabu Dujiao Ji preserve later excerpts, while Zhiquan’s Fahua Jing Xuanqian Zhengshi preserves later evidentiary analysis. These are witnesses to transmission and do not alter the wording of the base text.
3. Scriptures and Treatises Cited by Zhiyi
The Avataṃsaka, the Sutra of Immeasurable Meanings, and the First Three Flavors
| Statement in the root treatise | Verification in the received text | Relationship |
|---|---|---|
| 「若《華嚴》正隔小明大，於彼初分永無聲聞，後分則有，雖復在坐，如聾如瘂，非其境界。」 tr. “As for the Avataṃsaka, it directly separates the small and clarifies the great. In its opening section there are never any śrāvakas; in its later section there are. Although sitting in the assembly, they are as though deaf and mute, for it is not their realm”〔T33 0809a28〕. | The later section of the older translation of the Mahāvaipulya Buddhāvataṃsaka Sūtra (T0278) lists 「爾時，諸大聲聞舍利弗、目揵連、摩訶迦葉」 tr. “At that time, the great śrāvakas Śāriputra, Maudgalyāyana, and Mahākāśyapa”〔T09 0679b28〕. It further says, 「在祇洹林而悉不見如來自在、如來莊嚴、如來境界」 tr. “Although in Jeta Grove, they did not see the Tathāgata’s mastery, the Tathāgata’s adornments, or the Tathāgata’s realm”〔0679c02〕, and 「此是菩薩智慧境界，非諸聲聞智慧境界。」 tr. “This is the realm of bodhisattva wisdom, not the realm of śrāvaka wisdom”〔0679c28〕. | The scene in which śrāvakas are present in the later section yet do not see the Tathāgata’s realm corresponds directly. The received text separately uses blind people arriving at a jeweled continent as its simile〔T09 0680b12〕; it does not use 『如聾如瘂』 in the same sentence. 『初分永無』 is the root treatise’s judgment concerning the textual range and is not proved merely by one unsuccessful search. |
| The root treatise cites the Sutra of Immeasurable Meanings: 「三法、四果、二道不一。」 tr. “The three Dharmas, four fruits, and two paths are not one”〔T33 0809b03〕. | The Sutra of Immeasurable Meanings (T0276) likewise reads, 「三法、四果、二道不一。」 tr. “The three Dharmas, four fruits, and two paths are not one”〔T09 0386b07〕. | The wording agrees exactly; the root treatise continues by explaining that not being one means non-correspondence. |
| The Vaipulya passage takes up 「止宿草庵」 tr. “temporarily lodging in a grass hut”〔T33 0809b06〕. | The Sutra of the Lotus Blossom of the Wondrous Dharma (T0262) reads, 「猶處門外，止宿草庵，」 tr. “still remaining outside the gate and temporarily lodging in a grass hut”〔T09 0018a29〕. | The central four graphs agree. This is from the poor-son parable in the “Faith and Understanding” chapter, not a quotation under the title of a Vaipulya scripture. |
The Avataṃsaka passage says that the half teaching does not yet exist, while the Tripiṭaka passage says that the full teaching is not yet discussed. Neither passage first presents half and full together and then brings them into correspondence. Only with Vaipulya do the three relations appear: teaching both together, setting them against one another, and using the full to rebuke the half. Yet recipients of the half merely recognize the shame of remaining in the small and have still not entered the great.
The Two Correspondences of Dharma and Persons in Prajñā and the Lotus
| Statement in the root treatise | Verification in the received text | Relationship |
|---|---|---|
| The Prajñā passage says that they are commanded to take charge of the family estate yet 「不悕取一餐之物」 tr. “do not desire to take even one meal’s worth”〔T33 0809b09〕. | The Sutra of the Lotus Blossom of the Wondrous Dharma reads, 「爾時窮子，即受教勅，領知眾物，金銀珍寶及諸庫藏，而無悕取一飡之意。」 tr. “At that time, the poor son received the command and took charge of and came to know the many things—gold, silver, precious treasures, and the various storehouses—yet had no thought of desiring so much as one meal from them”〔T09 0017b04〕. | The scene agrees. The root treatise has 『不／餐／物』, while the received text has 『無／飡／意』; each source retains its own graphs. |
| The Lotus passage says that one awakens to the conjured city as not real. | The Sutra of the Lotus Blossom of the Wondrous Dharma reads, 「當觀察籌量所得涅槃非真實也。但是如來方便之力，於一佛乘分別說三。」 tr. “One should examine and consider that the nirvāṇa attained is not real. It is only through the power of the Tathāgata’s skillful means that three are distinctively taught within the One Buddha-Vehicle”〔T09 0026a21〕. | The root treatise compresses the scene and does not pass itself off as the received sutra’s complete sentence. |
| The root treatise uses 「汝等所行，是菩薩道」 tr. “What you practice is the bodhisattva path”〔T33 0809b11〕 as evidence for the Dharma corresponding. | The Sutra of the Lotus Blossom of the Wondrous Dharma likewise reads, 「汝等所行，是菩薩道，」 tr. “What you practice is the bodhisattva path”〔T09 0020b23〕. | The wording agrees exactly; the received text’s continuation follows later. |
| The root treatise uses 「汝實我子」 tr. “You are truly my child”〔T33 0809b12〕 as evidence for the person corresponding. | The Sutra of the Lotus Blossom of the Wondrous Dharma reads, 「此實我子，我實其父。」 tr. “This is truly my child, and I am truly his father”〔T09 0017b13〕. | The position in the meaning agrees, while the pronouns and sentence form differ. |
| The root treatise cites the Sutra of Immeasurable Meanings: 「四十餘年，未顯真實。」 tr. “For more than forty years, reality had not yet been revealed”〔T33 0809b14〕. | The received text reads, 「種種說法，以方便力，四十餘年未曾顯實。」 tr. “Teaching the Dharma in various ways through the power of skillful means, for more than forty years he had never revealed reality”〔T09 0386b01〕. | The root treatise’s excerpt and the received text differ through the graph 『曾』 and the forms 『真實／顯實』. They are recorded side by side without adjudication. |
The root treatise treats the half-word Dharma-gates’ passage into the Mahāyāna as the Dharma coming into correspondence, while the absence of a desire to take anything after receiving the command and taking charge is the person’s remaining out of correspondence. Only with the Lotus does the bodhisattva path bring the Dharma into correspondence and the recognition between father and child bring the person into correspondence, yielding correspondence of both person and Dharma. Variants in the received texts belong only in the apparatus and do not alter the T1716 sentence forms on which the vernacular layer depends.
The Three Vehicles, the Śrāvakas, and a Lost Referent
| Statement in the root treatise | Verification in the received text | Relationship |
|---|---|---|
| 「《法性論》明中、下二根入法界者」 tr. “The Faxing Lun clarifies that those of middle and lower faculties enter the Dharma realm”〔T33 0809b15〕. | The Chusanzang Jiji (T2145) records only 「法性論上下〔釋慧遠〕」 tr. “The Faxing Lun, upper and lower fascicles [by the monk Huiyuan]”〔T55 0083a12〕. The Fozu Tongji (T2035) later transmits, 「依法性論鈍根菩薩三處入法界。初般若。次法華。後涅槃。」 tr. “According to the Faxing Lun, bodhisattvas of dull faculties enter the Dharma realm in three places: first Prajñā, next the Lotus, and last Nirvāṇa”〔T49 0158b10〕. | The referent remains under investigation. The first source is a bibliographic record and the second a later transmission; neither is the text of the lost Faxing Lun. |
| 「初為提謂說五戒法，已有密悟無生忍者」 tr. “When the five-precept Dharma was first taught to Tiwei, there were already those who secretly awakened to the forbearance in which dharmas do not arise”〔T33 0809b18〕. | Kuiji’s Amituo Jing Tongzan Shu (T1758) later transmits, 「三七日內為提謂長者說三歸五戒十善等」 tr. “Within twenty-one days, he taught Elder Tiwei the three refuges, five precepts, ten wholesome deeds, and so forth”〔T37 0330b26〕, and 「提謂得不起法忍即無生法忍」 tr. “Tiwei attained the forbearance in which dharmas do not arise—that is, the forbearance of non-arising”〔0330b29〕. Zhiquan separately records that the Tiwei Sūtra was no longer present in the canon〔X 0630a13–14〕. | The referent remains under investigation. The later transmissions establish only a transmitted account and are not elevated into the original scripture’s verbatim wording. |
| 「例如《般若》三百比丘得記者是也。」 tr. “For example, there are the three hundred bhikṣus in Prajñā who received predictions”〔T33 0809b20〕. | The Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra (T0223) first records, 「般若波羅蜜品時，三百比丘從座起，以所著衣上佛，發阿耨多羅三藐三菩提心」 tr. “At the time of the chapter on the perfection of wisdom, three hundred bhikṣus rose from their seats, presented the Buddha with the robes they were wearing, and aroused the mind of unsurpassed complete awakening”〔T08 0229b16〕, and later bestows the prediction, 「是三百比丘，從是已後六十一劫當作佛，皆號名大相。」 tr. “These three hundred bhikṣus, after sixty-one eons from this time, will become buddhas, all named Great Mark”〔0229b20〕. | The number, arousal of the aspiration, and prediction all appear explicitly in the received text. The Dazhidu Lun (T1509) also cites this scene〔T25 0353b18–24〕. |
| 「若住果聲聞，決至《法華》敦信令合。」 tr. “Śrāvakas abiding in the fruit must reach the Lotus, where they are pressed to believe and brought into correspondence”〔T33 0809b21〕. | The Sutra of the Lotus Blossom of the Wondrous Dharma reads, 「若有比丘實得阿羅漢，若不信此法，無有是處。」 tr. “If a bhikṣu has truly attained arhatship yet does not believe this Dharma, that is impossible”〔T09 0007c04〕. | The root sutra makes it impossible for one who has truly attained not to believe; the force of 『敦信』 as a pressing exhortation is explained explicitly by the Shiqian. |
| 「五千簡眾起去，到《涅槃》中，方復得合。」 tr. “The five thousand were separated from the assembly and rose to leave; only in Nirvāṇa did they again attain correspondence”〔T33 0809b23〕. | The Sutra of the Lotus Blossom of the Wondrous Dharma records, 「會中有比丘、比丘尼、優婆塞、優婆夷五千人等，即從座起，禮佛而退。所以者何？此輩罪根深重及增上慢，未得謂得、未證謂證」 tr. “Within the assembly were five thousand bhikṣus, bhikṣuṇīs, upāsakas, and upāsikās who immediately rose from their seats, bowed to the Buddha, and withdrew. Why was this? This group had deep and grave roots of wrongdoing and overweening pride, claiming attainment where none was attained and claiming realization where none was realized”〔T09 0007a07〕. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra (T0374) separately has, 「聲聞緣覺信順如是大涅槃經，自知己身有如來性」 tr. “Śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas who believe and follow this Great Nirvāṇa Sūtra know that their own bodies possess tathāgata-nature”〔T12 0412b11〕, and 「諸阿羅漢悉當得是大涅槃故。」 tr. “All arhats will attain this great nirvāṇa”〔0423a23〕. | The Lotus scene of withdrawal and overweening pride is explicit. The two Nirvāṇa sentences establish only a general structure in which śrāvakas attain entry; they do not explicitly identify the same five thousand. Connecting the two assemblies is the root treatise’s judgment. |
Secret correspondence uses the early example of Tiwei to infer that secret awakening may also occur in sūtra, Vaipulya, and Prajñā, but the root treatise does not unfold it period by period here. Manifest correspondence divides into three distinct kinds: those who have not yet entered a stage may attain correspondence wherever they are; those abiding in the fruit must reach the Lotus; and those of overweening pride withdraw and reach Nirvāṇa later. These three cannot be merged into a single stage.
The Final Question and Answer on the Avataṃsaka and the Lotus
The root treatise asks why one sees bodhisattvas entering the Dharma realm through the Lotus and thereby corresponding with the Avataṃsaka, but does not see the reverse—entering the One Vehicle through the Avataṃsaka and thereby corresponding with the Lotus. It answers, 「《華嚴》入法界，即是入一乘〔云云〕。」 tr. “Entering the Dharma realm in the Avataṃsaka is precisely entering the One Vehicle, and so forth”〔T33 0809b29〕. The Mahāvaipulya Buddhāvataṃsaka Sūtra (T0278) does contain 「入法界品第三十四之一」 tr. “Chapter Thirty-Four, Entry into the Dharma Realm, Part One”〔T09 0676a05〕 and 「諸佛唯以一乘得出生死」 tr. “The buddhas emerge from birth-and-death only through the One Vehicle”〔0429b13〕, but the two phrases do not occur in a single sentence. 『Entering the Dharma realm is precisely entering the One Vehicle』 must therefore be read as Zhiyi’s synthetic classificatory statement and not falsely presented as identical wording in the received Avataṃsaka.
4. Essential Explanations from the Shiqian [the Mirror]
The Fahua Xuanyi Shiqian first judges the five flavors: the first three flavors do not correspond, Prajñā has both correspondence and non-correspondence, and the Lotus corresponds without qualification. It also says that correspondence is another name for convergence. In supplementing the śrāvakas in the later section of the Avataṃsaka, Zhanran refers in abbreviated form to 「準《不思議境界經》云」 tr. “according to what is said in the Sūtra of the Inconceivable Realm”〔T33 0959c13〕. Zhiquan later points out that the canon contains two works with similar titles〔X0592 0632a11〕. The received Section on the Inconceivable Buddha-Realm of the Mahāvaipulya Buddhāvataṃsaka Sūtra (T0300) and Mahāvaipulya Sūtra on the Tathāgata’s Inconceivable Realm (T0301) respectively contain, 「復有無量千俱胝諸菩薩眾，示聲聞形，亦皆來集。」 tr. “There were also assemblies of bodhisattvas, measureless thousands of koṭis in number, who displayed the forms of śrāvakas and all came to gather”〔T10 0905b21〕, and 「復有無量千億菩薩現聲聞形，亦來會坐。」 tr. “There were also measureless thousands of koṭis of bodhisattvas manifesting śrāvaka forms who likewise came and sat in the assembly”〔T10 0909a24〕. Their numbers and settings do not fully agree with Zhanran’s account of five hundred śrāvakas.
From the Deer Park onward, the Shiqian distinguishes a general clarification of the three vehicles from a separate revelation concerning śrāvakas. Concerning the secret, it says, 「初祕中以提謂況出三時，此文可以通冠一切。」 tr. “In the first, the secret, Tiwei is used to infer the three later periods; this passage can generally extend over them all”〔T33 0959c25〕. Concerning the manifest, it first says that those who have not yet entered a stage are not restricted to the Lotus, next that those abiding in the fruit do not pass beyond the Lotus, and finally that those of overweening pride reach Nirvāṇa. For pressing belief, Zhanran explicitly takes the sense of pressing exhortation, using the impossibility that one truly attaining arhatship would not believe as his criterion; he then says, 「上慢之人實不得入，得入之人非增上慢。」 tr. “Those of overweening pride have not truly gained entry, while those who have gained entry are not of overweening pride”〔0960a05〕. At 「五千起去」 tr. “the five thousand rose and left”〔0960a07〕, Zhanran further cites the “Parables” chapter of the larger Yingluo: 「復有五千菩薩聞佛說如來法身功德，即從座起遶佛三匝而退。」 tr. “There were also five thousand bodhisattvas who, on hearing the Buddha teach the qualities of the Tathāgata’s Dharma-body, immediately rose from their seats, circumambulated the Buddha three times, and withdrew”〔0960a08〕. He then judges this in terms of Vaipulya suppression and their entry in Nirvāṇa〔0960a19–a22〕. Zhiquan identifies it with, 「是菩薩瓔珞經，此出第九卷譬喻品，即第三十一品」 tr. “This is the Pusa Yingluo Jing; it appears in Fascicle Nine, in the ‘Parables’ chapter, which is Chapter Thirty-One”〔X0592 0632a19〕, while the received Pusa Yingluo Jing (T0656) places the scene in Fascicle Eleven〔T16 0095a19〕, “Parables,” Chapter Thirty-Two〔0097c26〕. The two fascicle and chapter forms are recorded side by side without adjudication.
In the four statements, Zhanran explains the Avataṃsaka as non-correspondence because it carries the Distinct, yet as not non-correspondence because, being purely great, it is not presented alongside the small. He explains the Tripiṭaka as non-correspondence because its purely small teaching has not corresponded with the great, yet as not non-correspondence because it is not presented alongside the great. As for Nirvāṇa, 「本不住小名亦合，仍存方便名亦不合。」 tr. “Because it originally does not abide in the small, it is called also corresponding; because skillful means still remains, it is called also non-corresponding”〔0960a27〕. The final question and answer are marked only as resolving doubt according to the text, without establishing another set of explanations.
5. Explanations of Various Masters
Zhiquan’s Fahua Jing Xuanqian Zhengshi (X0592) directly cross-reads this unit. It says, 「法性論明中、下二根入法界，謂鈍菩薩三處入法界：上根在般若，中根在法華，下根在涅槃。」 tr. “The Faxing Lun clarifies that those of middle and lower faculties enter the Dharma realm. This means that bodhisattvas of dull faculties enter the Dharma realm in three places: those of upper faculties in Prajñā, those of middle faculties in the Lotus, and those of lower faculties in Nirvāṇa”〔X 0632a13〕. It further explains pressing belief with, 「敦逼文者，不論會中實有此人，實無此人，佛欲其深信大法，故作此語，以為敦逼。」 tr. “As for the passage of pressing exhortation, it does not discuss whether such a person actually was or was not present in the assembly. The Buddha wished them to believe deeply in the Great Dharma and therefore spoke these words as a pressing exhortation”〔0632a16〕. This is a later explanation and transmission of the meaning of the lost treatise; it is not retrojected as the text of the Faxing Lun.
Zhili’s Guanyin Xuanyi Ji (T1727) says, 「漸化已來法華入者，望前已鈍。復有未入，待至涅槃，法華猶利。」 tr. “Among those gradually transformed, those entering at the Lotus were already dull in comparison with those before them. There were still others who did not enter and waited until Nirvāṇa, so those at the Lotus were still of sharper faculties”〔T34 0896a24〕. It further expresses the structure of the Lotus as the principal convergence and Nirvāṇa as gathering the remaining faculties through, 「法華破大陣、涅槃收殘黨，法華為刈穫、涅槃是捃拾。」 tr. “The Lotus breaks the great battle formation, while Nirvāṇa gathers the remaining forces; the Lotus is the harvest, while Nirvāṇa is the gleaning”〔0896a25〕. This passage does not identify the remaining faculties verbatim as the same five thousand.
Zhiyuan’s Niepan Jing Shu Sande Zhigui (X0662) directly asks, 「法華五千退席合在涅槃得悟，何得不經法華耶？」 tr. “The five thousand who withdrew from the Lotus assembly should awaken in Nirvāṇa; how could they not have passed through the Lotus?”〔X 0367c15〕. It answers, 「退席是未證謂證，其實凡夫若住小果，只於彼會而得入住。」 tr. “Those who withdrew claimed realization without having realized it. In fact, if ordinary persons abide in a fruit of the small, they attain entry and abide only in that assembly”〔0367c16〕, separating those who withdrew in overweening pride from those who truly abide in the fruit of the small. This is a direct question and answer from the Shanwai tradition. It is recorded together with Zhanran’s judgment without being adjudicated in its place.
Zhixu’s Fahua Jing Xuanyi Jieyao (X0589) excerpts this unit and preserves such transmitted graph forms and omissions as 『人／今』, 『坐／座』, 『草庵／艸菴』, and 『餐／䬸』. Fazhao’s Fahua Jing San Dabu Dujiao Ji (X0585), in turn, places the root treatise’s śrāvaka passage alongside the Shiqian’s explanation of pressing exhortation. These are witnesses to excerpting and reception history and are not elevated into scriptures or treatises cited by the root text.
6. Terminology
Correspondence and convergence. The Shiqian explains correspondence as another name for convergence. In this unit, it means a Dharma or a person converging into reality, not the joining of written passages or a compromise between two positions.
Half and full. Half and full may be separated, taught together, set against one another, or related through the full rebuking the half. Their relationship differs among the teachings; they do not refer invariably to two individual scriptures.
The Dharma corresponding; the person corresponding. Prajñā brings the half-word Dharma-gates into the Mahāyāna and accomplishes correspondence of the Dharma alone. The recipients still lack the desire to take anything, and so the person has not corresponded. The Lotus both reveals their practice as the bodhisattva path and brings father and child to recognize one another, and so person and Dharma correspond together.
Secret correspondence; manifest correspondence. These are hidden and manifest modes by which śrāvakas attain correspondence. Secret correspondence is not individually revealed period by period, while manifest correspondence diverges according to those who have not yet entered a stage, those abiding in the fruit, and those of overweening pride.
Pressing belief. The root treatise uses this for śrāvakas abiding in the fruit who reach the Lotus and are brought into correspondence. The Shiqian explains it as a pressing exhortation whose point is to have those who truly attained the fruit believe deeply in the Great Dharma; it does not add a sense of physical coercion.
Neither correspondence nor non-correspondence; both correspondence and non-correspondence. The first applies to the Avataṃsaka and the Tripiṭaka, with a distinct basis for each negation. The second applies to Nirvāṇa, where not abiding in the small and still retaining skillful means coexist without canceling one another.
7. Similes · Cross-Reading · Carrying Forward
The grass hut, family estate, single meal, conjured city, and father and child are the unit’s principal images for advancing the two correspondences of Dharma and persons. The grass hut reveals that, in Vaipulya, the full has been heard while the inferior mind remains unchanged. Being commanded to take charge of the family estate yet having no desire to take even one meal’s worth reveals Prajñā as correspondence of the Dharma while the person remains out of correspondence. Only recognizing the conjured city as not ultimate, seeing one’s practice as the bodhisattva path, and recognizing the relation of father and child reveal correspondence of both person and Dharma in the Lotus.
Read with the Sutra of Immeasurable Meanings, the three Dharmas, four fruits, and two paths not being one and the failure to reveal reality for more than forty years become two pieces of evidence respectively for the Tripiṭaka’s non-correspondence and the first correspondence with reality in the Lotus. Read with the Mahāprajñāpāramitā Sūtra, the three hundred bhikṣus’ arousal of the aspiration and receipt of predictions shows that those who have not yet entered a stage need not wait exclusively for the Lotus. Read with the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra, one can establish only the general structure of śrāvakas attaining entry; one cannot fabricate a continuation concerning the same five thousand.
This topic carries forward the preceding three topics. Having distinguished vertical entry, resolving questions, and the realms of the teaching’s transformation as characteristics of the various teachings, it now asks whether the Dharma taught and the people transformed at each stage genuinely converge. The next topic’s further treatment of shared and distinct, benefit and non-benefit, and the various teachings proceeds from this general judgment of correspondence and non-correspondence.
8. Placement of the Editions
First, this unit takes T1716 as its base. It begins at 0809a26 and ends with the inline note anchored at 0809c01, before the following paragraph. The final 〔云云〕 is transmitted with the body and is preserved.
Second, the precise range of this unit contains no Taishō variant-reading markers and only one inline note. This negative finding follows from a complete count of the elements in the raw markup and is not inferred from a zero-result term search.
Third, the corresponding range of the Shiqian has six groups of critical notes: at 0959c18 『辭／詞』, at 0959c20 『以後／已彼』, at 0960a02 『合／合合』, at 0960a12 『言／言有』, at 0960a12 『此／善女』, and at 0960a17 『虛／靈』. These belong only to the critical notes of T1717 and are not retrojected into T1716.
Fourth, such forms as 『人／今』, 『坐／座』, 『艸菴』, 『希』, and 『䬸』 in Zhixu’s digest are graphs in a later excerpt and are not listed as Taishō variants of T1716.
Fifth, every page anchor is the nearest same-edition line number preceding the first graph of the quotation; multiple quotations on the same line are each tied to the line containing their own first graph. Quotations from the Extended Canon use only the new-compilation line numbers, not the parallel old-edition line numbers.