English
English version: Regarding the 'meaning of the Vehicle (Yana)', there are two different levels of distinction. What is the question of the questioner? The answer does not clarify this meaning, but only says 'not attached to expedient means (upaya)', without saying 'not expedient means'. This is also a fault of not distinguishing between provisional (upaya) and real (paramartha). The commentary says: Even without waiting for enlightenment at the Lotus Assembly, those whose roots are mature will naturally turn to the Dharma, just like someone lodging at an inn will return home without being sent. The critique says: The commentary uses lodging at an inn to explain the phrase 'therefore, they will not meet'. Then, 'not attached to expedient means', does it refer to the ox-cart in the Three Vehicles? Or does it refer to the white ox-cart? Lodging at an inn, does it refer to the illusory city (化城, huà chéng)? Or does it refer to the treasure land (宝处, bǎo chù)? The commentary says: Using the ox-cart in the Three Vehicles as an analogy is because the Dharmalaksana school (法相宗, Fǎxiàng zōng) does not believe there is One Vehicle outside the Three Vehicles. They are like looking at an ox-cart from outside the gate in an open field, unable to distinguish between the two ox-carts (sheep cart and deer cart). Therefore, it is now judged that the ox-cart in the Three Vehicles, like the sheep cart and deer cart, all belong to the gate of expedient means. The critique says: Saying that it is because the Dharmalaksana school does not believe there is One Vehicle, so it is now judged that the ox-cart is the same as the sheep cart and deer cart, then, according to what is said below, 'completely different from the Three Vehicles', one should broadly rely on the realm of Samantabhadra Bodhisattva in the Avatamsaka Sutra to contemplate. It also says: 'Indeed, this Dharma is difficult to believe', so the sages compare the Three Vehicles to make a judgment. Moreover, Master Xianshou (贤首, Xiánshǒu) said, 'completely different from the Three Vehicles', is it specifically distinguishing the Dharmalaksana school? Or is the sutra master only making a judgment for the Dharmalaksana school? Moreover, the commentator says 'directly revealing the characteristics', if in the commentary of 'directly revealing the characteristics', it is said that the Dharmalaksana school does not believe there is One Vehicle outside the Three Vehicles, and a critique is made, then why not allow Master Xiao'an (笑庵, Xiào'ān) to clearly explain in three places in the following chapter that the Dharmalaksana school is connected to the ultimate teaching? And why not allow Zang** to distinguish the provisional beginning teaching? However, the book from Haedong (海东, Hǎidōng) is good evidence. And Juechao (觉抄, Juéchāo) says that most scholars of the Dharmalaksana school do not believe, etc., which refers to the intention of the sages and contains many meanings. It is wrong to take the branch as the main. The commentary says: The answer is based on, etc., the Agamas, etc., according to their own school, they say that it is a teaching that has been received, and they rely on it to cultivate, and use cultivation to move towards the fruit, and obtain two kinds of Nirvana. Now, according to the definitive Mahayana sutras such as the Lotus Sutra, they say that in the past there were only skillful means of empty words, and they could not truly cultivate the Four Immeasurables, so there was no actual practice. The critique says: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
。此中所拣通大也。释以愚法。能拣一乘也。释以终教可乎。能所不分。判妙为粗。二过也。 记曰。若望等者。本末出界。今既出已。非不得也。仍在所引之中。故皆无得望一乘也。 评曰。前引探玄分二之文。又引清凉后一不共之语。若尔。则后一为不共一乘。前四为共教三乘。三乘中通愚法及回心也。今却用显法本末圣言。拣定义何邪。且下章云。愚法二乘并在所引诸子中。故知三乘外别有小乘等者。乃是开愚法异回心三宗差别也。前引开二。此用分三。宽成允当。又云。故皆无得望一乘者。望圆教一乘邪。终教一乘邪。若望终教。此中岂以终教为一乘。若望圆教。圆教一乘。岂独拣于愚法。 记曰。约同教者。未显无尽。故非别教。如善财见三千尘数知识。探玄判曰。同教者义同此也。同者同前诸教三乘。故名同也。 评曰。此约同教。是华严否。彼约同教。是法华否。纵二处皆曰约同。而部类天别。授彼证此。殊非正当。又曰。同者同前诸教三乘故名同者。记家释同教得名所教也。太一曰。华严经又前之五会。及十明已后。尽不思义品。即以一乘别教。从三乘说。今亦尔否。若尔。华严前之五会。极不思议品。应是同教邪。别不然者。何引三千世界尘数知识。又清凉曰。同顿同实 此处所拣择的是通教的大乘。如果解释为愚法，就能拣别出一乘。如果解释为终教可以吗？能诠和所诠不分，把妙法判为粗法，这是两种过失。 《记》中说：‘如果期望等同，那么从根本到末端都超出了界限。’现在既然已经超出，并非不能这样说。仍然在所引用的范围之内，所以都不能期望一乘。 《评》中说：前面引用了探玄将佛法分为二的文句，又引用了清凉关于‘后一’是不共的说法。如果这样，那么‘后一’就是不共的一乘，前面的四种就是共教的三乘，三乘中包括愚法和回心。现在却用显法的根本和末端圣言来拣别定义，这是为什么呢？而且下章说：‘愚法二乘都在所引用的诸子之中。’由此可知三乘之外另有小乘等，这是开愚法和回心三宗的差别。前面引用开二，这里用分三，宽泛而恰当。又说：‘所以都不能期望一乘’，是期望圆教的一乘呢？还是终教的一乘呢？如果期望终教，那么这里岂不是把终教作为一乘？如果期望圆教，圆教的一乘，难道仅仅拣别愚法吗？ 《记》中说：‘如果按照同教来说，就没有显现无尽的道理，所以不是别教。’例如善财童子见到三千尘数那么多的善知识。探玄判说：‘同教的意义与此相同。’同，是与前面的诸教三乘相同，所以名为同教。 《评》中说：这里所说的同教，是《华严经》的同教吗？那里所说的同教，是《法华经》的同教吗？即使两处都说‘按照同教’，但部类却有天壤之别，用那里的证据来证明这里，实在是不恰当。又说：‘同，是与前面的诸教三乘相同，所以名为同教。’《记》的作者解释同教，是得到名称的所教。太一说：《华严经》又在之前的五会，以及十明之后，直到不思议品，就用一乘别教，从三乘来说。现在也是这样吗？如果这样，《华严经》之前的五会，以及极不思议品，应该是同教吗？如果不是这样，为什么引用三千世界尘数那么多的善知识？而且清凉说：‘同顿同实’
English
Modern Chinese version Here, what is being selected is the Great Vehicle of the Tong Teaching (Tongjiao) [teaching common to both Hinayana and Mahayana]. If explained as the teaching for the ignorant (Yufa) [those of dull faculties], it can distinguish the One Vehicle (Yicheng) [the ultimate vehicle to Buddhahood]. Is it acceptable to explain it as the concluding teaching (Zhongjiao) [the Lotus Sutra teaching]? The object and subject of the teaching are not distinguished, and the wonderful Dharma is judged as coarse, these are two faults. The Commentary says: 'If one expects equality, then from the root to the branch, it exceeds the boundary.' Now that it has exceeded, it is not that it cannot be said. It is still within the scope of what is cited, so none can expect the One Vehicle. The Critique says: Previously, the text from Tanxuan dividing the Dharma into two was cited, and also the saying from Qingliang that 'the latter one' is uncommon. If so, then 'the latter one' is the uncommon One Vehicle, and the previous four are the Three Vehicles of the common teaching, which includes the teaching for the ignorant and those who turn their minds towards the Mahayana. Now, however, the fundamental and terminal sacred words of the Manifest Teaching are used to select and define, why is this? Moreover, the following chapter says: 'The Two Vehicles of the teaching for the ignorant are all within the cited sons.' From this, it is known that outside the Three Vehicles, there are separate Hinayana teachings, etc., which is the difference between opening the teaching for the ignorant and the three schools of turning the mind. Previously, opening two was cited, here dividing three is used, which is broad and appropriate. It also says: 'So none can expect the One Vehicle,' is it expecting the One Vehicle of the Perfect Teaching (Yuanjiao) [the highest teaching]? Or the One Vehicle of the Concluding Teaching? If expecting the Concluding Teaching, then is the Concluding Teaching regarded as the One Vehicle here? If expecting the Perfect Teaching, does the One Vehicle of the Perfect Teaching only select the teaching for the ignorant? The Commentary says: 'If according to the Common Teaching, the inexhaustible principle is not manifested, so it is not the Distinct Teaching (Biejiao) [teaching distinct to the Mahayana].' For example, Sudhana (Shancai) [a youth in the Gandavyuha Sutra] sees three thousand dust-mote numbers of good advisors. Tanxuan judges: 'The meaning of the Common Teaching is the same as this.' Common, is the same as the previous Three Vehicles of the teachings, so it is named Common Teaching. The Critique says: Is the Common Teaching mentioned here the Common Teaching of the Avatamsaka Sutra (Huayan Jing)? Is the Common Teaching mentioned there the Common Teaching of the Lotus Sutra (Fahua Jing)? Even if both places say 'according to the Common Teaching,' the categories are as different as heaven and earth, using the evidence there to prove here is truly inappropriate. It also says: 'Common, is the same as the previous Three Vehicles of the teachings, so it is named Common Teaching.' The author of the Commentary explains the Common Teaching as the teaching from which the name is derived. Taiyi says: 'The Avatamsaka Sutra is also in the previous five assemblies, and after the Ten Understandings, until the Inconceivable Qualities chapter, it uses the One Vehicle Distinct Teaching, speaking from the Three Vehicles.' Is it the same now? If so, the previous five assemblies of the Avatamsaka Sutra, and the extremely Inconceivable Qualities chapter, should be the Common Teaching? If it is not so, why cite the dust-mote numbers of good advisors in the three thousand worlds? Moreover, Qingliang says: 'Same sudden, same real.' --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
者。该彼所诠。入圆成此。彰其无碍。今云。同前诸教三乘。亦若此否。又十章并清凉总相会通义理分齐行愿义记诸文同教。皆以同前诸教。作得名所以否。章文云。此约同教一乘。以明异耳。抄家却云。同前诸教三乘。故名同也。岂为允当。 记曰。又彼下二别教至又彼等者。至相同在。一乘则圆明具德处。三乘则一相孤门。故知二宗不同。今约以辨。 评曰。具德前章。以辨今文。又引圆明具德。明二宗不同。何异折薪。一一德中。具无量德相十玄之义邪。唯益繁文。不谙章旨。不然。具德之言。与焚薪多车拣一车。无尽佛法。一成一切成。有何干预。 记曰。一相一寂。即一事一理。所谓三乘终教。一相真如也。 评曰。将一事解一相者。终教应是事真如那。以记三所谓三乘终教一相真如故。清凉曰。根本智观理一相。肇公曰。一相者即空相也。事真如否。下文曰。一相一寂一味理等。即未尝云事。思之。 记曰。尚须分宗者。文中虽但云三一差别。意兼小乘。明有三宗。一小乘宗。二三乘宗。三一乘宗。 评曰。前云然此一乘三乘差别。此云。其别教一乘所明行位因果等相。与彼三乘教施设分齐全别。不同中问。又云开示一乘三乘文义差别。又云。一乘三乘差别显耳。 现代汉语译本： 问：他们所诠释的，是为了融入圆成，从而彰显其无碍。现在说，‘与之前的诸教三乘相同’，也是这样吗？还有，《十章》以及清凉的《总相会通义理分齐行愿义记》等文章都说‘同教’，都是因为‘与之前的诸教相同’而得名的吗？《章》文中说：‘这是就同教一乘来说，为了说明不同之处。’而抄家却说：‘与之前的诸教三乘相同，所以叫做同。’这难道恰当吗？ 答：解释：‘又彼下二别教至又彼等者。至相同在。’一乘则是圆明具德之处，三乘则是一相孤门。所以知道二宗不同。现在就此辨析。 评论：‘具德’前一章，是为了辨析现在的文章。又引用‘圆明具德’，来说明二宗不同，这和折柴有什么区别？每一个德中，都具有无量德相，以及十玄的意义吗？只会增加繁琐的文字，不理解《章》的旨意。不是这样的，‘具德’的说法，和焚烧柴火，多车中拣选一车，无尽佛法，一成一切成，有什么关系呢？ 答：解释：‘一相一寂’，就是一事一理，所谓三乘终教，一相真如啊。 评论：将一事解释为一相，那么终教应该是事真如吗？因为《记》中说‘所谓三乘终教一相真如’。清凉说：‘根本智观理一相。’肇公说：‘一相者即空相也。’是事真如吗？下文说：‘一相一寂一味理等’，即未曾说是事，思考一下。 答：解释：尚且需要分宗，文中虽然只说三一差别，意思是兼顾小乘，说明有三宗：一、小乘宗，二、三乘宗，三、一乘宗。 评论：前面说‘然而这一乘三乘差别’，这里说‘其别教一乘所明行位因果等相，与彼三乘教施设分齐全别’，不同中问。又说‘开示一乘三乘文义差别’，又说‘一乘三乘差别显耳’。