English
English version: Question: Is what they explain meant to integrate into the perfect completion, thereby demonstrating its unobstructedness? Now, is it also the case that 'the same as the previous teachings of the Three Vehicles'? Furthermore, do the 'Ten Chapters' and Qingliang's 'Comprehensive Understanding of the Meaning and Divisions of Principles and Practices' and other texts all use 'same teaching' because they are named 'the same as the previous teachings'? The 'Chapter' text says: 'This is in terms of the same teaching of the One Vehicle, in order to explain the differences.' However, the commentator says: 'The same as the previous teachings of the Three Vehicles, therefore it is called the same.' Is this appropriate? Answer: Explanation: 'Also, the following two Separate Teachings to also those, etc., to the same exist.' The One Vehicle is the place of perfect enlightenment and complete virtue, while the Three Vehicles are the solitary gate of one aspect. Therefore, we know that the two schools are different. Now, we analyze this. Commentary: The previous chapter on 'Complete Virtue' is to analyze the current text. Furthermore, quoting 'Perfect Enlightenment and Complete Virtue' to explain the difference between the two schools, what difference is there from breaking firewood? In each virtue, are there countless aspects of virtue and the meaning of the Ten Profound Principles? It only increases redundant text and does not understand the meaning of the 'Chapter'. It is not like this. What relationship does the statement of 'Complete Virtue' have with burning firewood, choosing one cart from many carts, endless Buddha-dharma, one accomplishment being all accomplishments? Answer: Explanation: 'One aspect, one stillness' is one thing, one principle, the so-called final teaching of the Three Vehicles, the one aspect of True Thusness. Commentary: Interpreting one thing as one aspect, then should the final teaching be the True Thusness of phenomena? Because the 'Record' says 'the so-called final teaching of the Three Vehicles, the one aspect of True Thusness'. Qingliang says: 'Fundamental wisdom contemplates the one aspect of principle.' Zhao Gong says: 'One aspect is the aspect of emptiness.' Is it the True Thusness of phenomena? The following text says: 'One aspect, one stillness, one taste, principle, etc.', that is, it never says it is phenomena. Think about it. Answer: Explanation: It is still necessary to divide the schools. Although the text only mentions the difference between three and one, it implies the Small Vehicle, indicating that there are three schools: 1. The Small Vehicle School, 2. The Three Vehicle School, 3. The One Vehicle School. Commentary: Earlier it said 'However, the difference between this One Vehicle and Three Vehicles', here it says 'The aspects of practice, stages, causes, and effects explained by the Separate Teaching of the One Vehicle are completely different from the establishment and division of the Three Vehicle teachings', different in the middle question. It also says 'Revealing the difference in the meaning of the texts of the One Vehicle and Three Vehicles', and also says 'The difference between the One Vehicle and Three Vehicles is clearly shown.' --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
何尝约三宗料拣。不然。大疏玄谈。全拣全收。意兼小乘。分三宗差别不。且三宗差别。下同教中。广引经论。详辨义理。何特于此。紊繁章旨。 记曰。然此三宗寄于五教。则有二说。乃至今当前义至文更释。 评曰。文意既非三宗。从而又说二种权实。因妄至妄也。 记曰。若但明分相。则唯彰权实不因。义非绝待。岂知一外无三。独一圆极。今备该诸权。统摄一切。方尽圆融无碍之大宗也。 评曰。原其拣收。乃一乘家实德。故云不一是上分相门。不异是此该摄门。焚薪云。究竟正乘。坐断法界。旧曰圆融无是普法。斯则随举一门。理皆圆足。记云唯彰义非。今该方尽。皆斧凿痕。 记云。浮石乃至昔说三乘。泛总为别。今言即一揽别成总。乃成普法也。 评曰。昔说三乘。今日一乘。三时五时渐教也。圆释别教该摄门可乎。匪唯暗于章门连文。类之意皆失。 记曰。初二三存故。得有所依。后二三即是一。无可存坏。汝等所行。是菩萨道。故得入一乘也。 评曰。后二三即是一者。初二应不即一邪。初二亦即一者。何独云后二三即是一。又云汝等所行是菩萨道故得入一乘者。且别教之下。彼三乘法。宛若太虚。所谓义言也。今以法华释成可乎。又无不坏无 现代汉语译本： 为什么一定要按照三宗（San Zong，指法相宗、三论宗、华严宗）来选择和判断呢？不然的话，大疏（Da Shu，指《华严经疏》）所阐述的玄妙理论，应该是全部选择和接受，而不是有所拣择。如果兼顾小乘（Xiao Cheng，指小乘佛教），难道要将三宗的差别分开吗？而且三宗的差别，在下同教（Xia Tong Jiao，指佛教的教义分类）中，已经广泛引用经论，详细辨析义理了，为什么还要特别在这里进行区分，扰乱繁琐的章节主旨呢？ 《记》（Ji，指对经文的注解）中说：然而这三宗寄托于五教（Wu Jiao，指佛教的五种教义分类），则有两种说法。乃至于现在，当前的义理，甚至要通过文字来进一步解释。 评语说：既然文中的意思并非指三宗，又说什么两种权实（Quan Shi，指权教和实教），这是因为妄念而导致的妄念啊。 《记》中说：如果仅仅是阐明各自的分相，那么就只能彰显权实，而不是因为义理而存在，义理并非是绝对的。难道不知道一之外没有三，只有唯一圆满的境界吗？现在全部包含各种权教，统摄一切，才能完全体现圆融无碍的大宗。 评语说：探究其选择和接受的根本，乃是一乘（Yi Cheng，指大乘佛教）的真实功德，所以说‘不一’是上分相门（Shang Fen Xiang Men，指区分差别的法门），‘不异’是此该摄门（Gai She Men，指包含一切的法门）。《焚薪》（Fen Xin，佛教著作名）中说：‘究竟正乘，坐断法界。’旧说圆融无碍是普法（Pu Fa，指普遍的佛法）。因此，随便举出一个法门，其道理都是圆满充足的。《记》中说‘唯彰义非，今该方尽’，这都是斧凿的痕迹。 《记》中说：浮石（Fu Shi，人名）乃至过去所说的三乘，泛泛地总括为差别。现在说‘即一揽别成总’，乃是成就普法。 评语说：过去说三乘，现在说一乘，这是三时五时（San Shi Wu Shi，指佛教教义发展的不同阶段）的渐教（Jian Jiao，指渐进的教义）。用圆释（Yuan Shi，指圆满的解释）来解释别教（Bie Jiao，指区别的教义）的该摄门可以吗？这不仅是对章节和文句的理解不清，而且连文句的意义都丧失了。 《记》中说：最初的二三（指二乘和三乘）存在，所以可以有所依靠。后来的二三即是一，没有什么可以存在或坏灭。你们所行的是菩萨道（Pu Sa Dao，指菩萨的修行道路），所以可以进入一乘。 评语说：后来的二三即是一，那么最初的二三难道不即是一吗？如果最初的二三也即是一，为什么只说后来的二三即是一呢？又说‘你们所行的是菩萨道，所以可以进入一乘’，而且在别教之下，那三乘的法，宛如太虚，这就是所谓的义言啊。现在用法华（Fa Hua，指《法华经》）来解释和成就，可以吗？又没有不坏灭的。
English
English version: Why must we select and judge according to the Three Schools (San Zong, referring to the Faxiang School, the Sanlun School, and the Huayan School)? Otherwise, the profound theories expounded in the Da Shu (Da Shu, referring to the 'Huayan Sutra Commentary') should be selected and accepted in their entirety, rather than being selectively chosen. If we consider the Hinayana (Xiao Cheng, referring to Theravada Buddhism), should we separate the differences of the Three Schools? Moreover, the differences of the Three Schools have already been widely cited in scriptures and treatises in the Xia Tong Jiao (Xia Tong Jiao, referring to the classification of Buddhist doctrines), with detailed analyses of the meanings. Why should we specifically differentiate them here, disrupting the complex main points of the chapters? The 'Record' (Ji, referring to annotations on scriptures) says: However, these Three Schools are based on the Five Teachings (Wu Jiao, referring to the five classifications of Buddhist doctrines), and there are two interpretations. Even now, the current meaning must be further explained through the text. The commentary says: Since the meaning of the text does not refer to the Three Schools, why speak of two kinds of expedient and real (Quan Shi, referring to expedient teachings and real teachings)? This is delusion leading to delusion. The 'Record' says: If we only clarify their respective characteristics, then we can only highlight the expedient and the real, not because of the meaning. The meaning is not absolute. Do we not know that there is no three outside of one, only the unique and perfect realm? Now, fully encompassing all expedient teachings and unifying everything, we can fully embody the great principle of perfect harmony and non-obstruction. The commentary says: Investigating the root of its selection and acceptance is the real merit of the One Vehicle (Yi Cheng, referring to Mahayana Buddhism), so it is said that 'not one' is the Shang Fen Xiang Men (Shang Fen Xiang Men, referring to the Dharma gate of distinguishing differences), and 'not different' is the Gai She Men (Gai She Men, referring to the Dharma gate of encompassing everything). The 'Burning Fuel' (Fen Xin, the name of a Buddhist text) says: 'Ultimately, the correct vehicle, sitting firmly in the Dharma realm.' The old saying is that perfect harmony and non-obstruction is the universal Dharma (Pu Fa, referring to the universal Buddha Dharma). Therefore, whatever Dharma gate is mentioned, its principles are complete and sufficient. The 'Record' says 'only highlights the meaning, now encompasses completely,' these are all traces of artificiality. The 'Record' says: Fushi (Fu Shi, a person's name) and even the Three Vehicles spoken of in the past, vaguely generalize into differences. Now it is said that 'immediately one encompasses the differences to become the whole,' which is to achieve the universal Dharma. The commentary says: In the past, it was said to be the Three Vehicles, now it is said to be the One Vehicle, this is the gradual teaching (Jian Jiao, referring to gradual teachings) of the three times and five times (San Shi Wu Shi, referring to different stages of the development of Buddhist doctrines). Is it permissible to use the perfect explanation (Yuan Shi, referring to perfect explanation) to explain the encompassing gate of the distinct teaching (Bie Jiao, referring to distinct teachings)? This is not only a lack of understanding of the chapters and sentences, but also a loss of the meaning of the sentences. The 'Record' says: The initial two or three (referring to the Two Vehicles and Three Vehicles) exist, so there is something to rely on. The later two or three are one, there is nothing to exist or perish. What you are practicing is the Bodhisattva path (Pu Sa Dao, referring to the path of Bodhisattvas), so you can enter the One Vehicle. The commentary says: The later two or three are one, then are the initial two not one? If the initial two are also one, why only say that the later two or three are one? It is also said that 'what you are practicing is the Bodhisattva path, so you can enter the One Vehicle,' and under the distinct teaching, the Dharma of the Three Vehicles is like the void, this is the so-called meaning. Is it permissible to use the Lotus Sutra (Fa Hua, referring to the 'Lotus Sutra') to explain and achieve this? Also, there is nothing that does not perish. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chinese
可存。是取昔以否。夫该摄大旨者。可堂曰。纵收诸教。一一同圆。故唯有一乘。更无余也。圭山曰。二地中广明十恶十善。即该人天乘也。四谛品及五地十重四谛。即该声闻乘也。六地十重十二因缘。即该缘觉乘也。 部般若不出三天偈文。涅槃法华出现品中一两门记尽。清凉曰。既不厌舍。曾何乘之。一成一切成。无一众生不具佛智。贤首曰。如经中以普贤眼见一切众生。皆已究竟。故云唯有一乘。更无余也。 记曰。何以不作问。及结语邪。答。一乘隐显者。对别机小智说也。 评曰。一乘隐显对别机小智者。三乘存坏。对普机大智说否。若对大智。何曰三乘。若亦别机。何独隐显。 记曰。是则下三结指二。初结成一异二门相即也。 评曰。且章云。是则不坏不一。而明不异者。盖坏相之作。非不思议故也。若将下。指配照此不坏不一。乃分相门。而明否异。乃该摄门。何尝明相即之义耶。之章云不一不异。而抄家却以一异释成。相反若是。非唯坏其不一。抑亦坏其不异。不知其可也。 记曰。若尔。何故清凉但言同顿同实。 评曰。拣权通说。诸祖同途。特诸清凉。故生疣赘。 记曰。合后三教。为一性宗。则后三合为一乘。至义分齐开同别处。将彼二 可存（Ke Cun，人名）。是取昔以否？夫该摄大旨者，可堂（Ke Tang，人名）曰：‘纵收诸教，一一同圆，故唯有一乘（Ekayana，唯一佛乘），更无余也。’圭山（Gui Shan，地名）曰：‘二地中广明十恶十善，即该人天乘（乘，vehicle，此处指教法）也。四谛品及五地十重四谛，即该声闻乘（Śrāvakayāna，声闻乘）也。六地十重十二因缘，即该缘觉乘（Pratyekabuddhayāna，缘觉乘）也。’ 部般若不出三天偈文，涅槃法华出现品中一两门记尽。清凉（Qing Liang，人名）曰：‘既不厌舍，曾何乘之？一成一切成，无一众生不具佛智。’贤首（Xian Shou，人名）曰：‘如经中以普贤（Samantabhadra，菩萨名）眼见一切众生，皆已究竟，故云唯有一乘，更无余也。’ 记曰：‘何以不作问，及结语邪？’答：‘一乘隐显者，对别机小智说也。’ 评曰：‘一乘隐显对别机小智者，三乘存坏，对普机大智说否？若对大智，何曰三乘？若亦别机，何独隐显？’ 记曰：‘是则下三结指二，初结成一异二门相即也。’ 评曰：‘且章云：是则不坏不一，而明不异者，盖坏相之作，非不思议故也。若将下，指配照此不坏不一，乃分相门，而明否异，乃该摄门，何尝明相即之义耶？之章云不一不异，而抄家却以一异释成，相反若是，非唯坏其不一，抑亦坏其不异，不知其可也。’ 记曰：‘若尔，何故清凉但言同顿同实？’ 评曰：‘拣权通说，诸祖同途，特诸清凉，故生疣赘。’ 记曰：‘合后三教，为一性宗，则后三合为一乘，至义分齐开同别处，将彼二’