English
English version: Ke Cun (name of a person). Is it taking the past as it is? As for those who encompass the great principles, Ke Tang (name of a person) said: 'Even if all teachings are gathered, each one is perfectly complete, therefore there is only one Ekayana (唯一佛乘, the One Vehicle), and nothing else.' Gui Shan (name of a place) said: 'In the second stage, the extensive explanation of the ten evils and ten good deeds encompasses the human and celestial vehicle (乘, vehicle, here referring to teachings). The chapter on the Four Noble Truths and the Four Noble Truths in the five stages and ten levels encompass the Śrāvakayāna (声闻乘, Hearer Vehicle). The twelve links of dependent origination in the sixth stage and ten levels encompass the Pratyekabuddhayāna (缘觉乘, Solitary Realizer Vehicle).' The verses of the Prajñā section do not go beyond the three days, and the one or two aspects in the chapter on the appearance of Nirvana and Lotus Sutra are completely recorded. Qing Liang (name of a person) said: 'Since one is not tired of abandoning, what vehicle is there? One accomplishment is all accomplishments, and no sentient being lacks the wisdom of the Buddha.' Xian Shou (name of a person) said: 'As in the sutra, with the eyes of Samantabhadra (普贤, name of a Bodhisattva), all sentient beings are seen to have already reached the ultimate, therefore it is said that there is only one vehicle, and nothing else.' The commentary says: 'Why is there no question or concluding remark?' The answer is: 'The hidden and manifest aspects of the One Vehicle are spoken to those of separate capacities and small wisdom.' The critique says: 'The hidden and manifest aspects of the One Vehicle are for those of separate capacities and small wisdom. Is the existence or destruction of the Three Vehicles spoken to those of universal capacities and great wisdom? If it is for great wisdom, why are they called the Three Vehicles? If it is also for separate capacities, why only hidden and manifest?' The commentary says: 'Therefore, the following three conclude by pointing to two, initially concluding the mutual identity of the two doors of one and different.' The critique says: 'Moreover, the chapter says: 'Therefore, it is neither destroyed nor one,' and explains that it is not different, because the creation of the destroyed aspect is inconceivable. If the following is used to match and illuminate this 'neither destroyed nor one,' it is dividing the aspect door, and explaining that the difference is the encompassing door. How does it explain the meaning of mutual identity? The chapter says 'neither one nor different,' but the commentator explains it as one and different, which is the opposite. It not only destroys its 'not one,' but also destroys its 'not different.' I don't know how it can be so.' The commentary says: 'If so, why does Qing Liang only speak of being the same in suddenness and the same in reality?' The critique says: 'Selecting the provisional and universally speaking, the ancestors are on the same path, especially Qing Liang, hence creating superfluous growths.' The commentary says: 'Combining the latter three teachings into one nature school, then the latter three combine into one vehicle, to the point where the meaning and boundaries open up the same and different places, taking those two' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 教为同教。彼一为别教。
Chinese
评曰。后三合为一乘。至义分齐开同别者。且义分齐中。亦如贞元合后三。开同别否。 记曰。是故且同顿实至不地抄云。若同三乘。亦收前四。则当始小。是故清凉亦同诸祖。总会诸权。以入一实也。 评曰。地抄若同三乘。亦收前四。别教邪。同教邪。若同教者。何诸祖云。若下同诸乘道十无碍一部太宗。又云。下同诸乘下约融通说。若别教者。何以法真大师。亦引成同教。 记曰。分诸乘者。明统列方便。总入正乘。融本末者。显一理遍通。权实无碍。 评曰。此云分诸乘。乃统列方便。下曰。如是立中同教之内。亦列别教一乘。然此列方便。或是彼别教应非彼列别教。或是此列方便。应非记之不审。此居一焉。又融本末时。引理遍通。而弃义门异者。融本末中。应坏权实邪。今释曰。分诸乘者。显法不同也。如经露地所授。并临门三车等。融本末者。说一切乘无差别也。如会三归一等。 记云。初标数六重者。显全收也。 评曰。显全收者。为与前语。所以现全收同邪。为与三宝童。或亦通收同邪。若与三宝章同者。何以下亦引证融本末邪。若与前科同者。该摄分乘二义同乎。章家分诸乘。记家显全收。歒体相违也。 记曰。皆 教义分为同教和别教。其中一种是别教。 评论说：后三种教义合为一乘（Ekayana，唯一交通工具/道路）。至于在义理的区分上，是开显同教还是别教呢？那么在义理的区分中，是否像贞元时期那样，合并后三种教义，然后开显同教和别教呢？ 解释说：因此，且以同于顿教和实教为例。《至不地抄》中说：‘如果与三乘（Triyana，三种交通工具/道路）相同，也包括前四种教义。’那么应当从始教和小教开始。因此，清凉也与诸位祖师相同，总括所有的权教，以进入一实之境。 评论说：《地抄》中说：‘如果与三乘相同，也包括前四种教义。’这是别教呢？还是同教呢？如果是同教，为什么诸位祖师说：‘下同诸乘道十无碍一部太宗。’又说：‘下同诸乘’是就融通的角度来说的。如果是别教，为什么法真大师也引用它来成就同教呢？ 解释说：区分诸乘，是为了表明统摄和排列方便法门；总归于正乘，是为了彰显一理遍通，权教和实教之间没有障碍。 评论说：这里说‘区分诸乘’，是为了统摄和排列方便法门。下面说：‘像这样，在同教之内，也排列了别教的一乘。’然而，这种排列方便法门，或许是彼别教的，不应是彼排列别教；或许是此排列方便法门，不应是解释的不审。这居于哪一种呢？又在融通本末时，引用理遍通，而舍弃义门差异，在融通本末中，难道应该破坏权教和实教吗？现在解释说：‘区分诸乘’，是为了彰显法门的不同。例如经中所说的露地所授，以及临门三车等。‘融通本末’，是为了说明一切乘没有差别。例如会三归一等。 解释说：最初标出六重，是为了显示完全收摄。 评论说：显示完全收摄，是为了与前面的话语相同，所以现在完全收摄同教吗？是为了与三宝章相同，或者也通收同教吗？如果与三宝章相同，为什么下面也引用来证明融通本末呢？如果与前面的科判相同，那么该摄分乘二义相同吗？章家的区分诸乘，与记家的显示完全收摄，二者体相违背啊。 解释说：都是...
English
Teachings are divided into Common Teaching (Tongjiao) and Distinct Teaching (Biejiao). One of them is Distinct Teaching. Commentary: The latter three teachings are combined into the One Vehicle (Ekayana). As for distinguishing between Common and Distinct based on the difference in meaning, is it to reveal Common Teaching or Distinct Teaching? Then, in the distinction of meaning, is it like in the Zhenyuan period, where the latter three teachings are merged, and then Common and Distinct Teachings are revealed? Note: Therefore, let's take being the same as the Sudden Teaching (Dunjiao) and Real Teaching (Shijiao) as an example. The 'Zhibudi Chao' says: 'If it is the same as the Three Vehicles (Triyana), it also includes the previous four teachings.' Then it should start from the Initial Teaching (Shijiao) and Small Teaching (Xiaojiao). Therefore, Qingliang is also the same as all the Patriarchs, encompassing all the Provisional Teachings (Quan Jiao) to enter the realm of One Reality. Commentary: The 'Di Chao' says: 'If it is the same as the Three Vehicles, it also includes the previous four teachings.' Is this Distinct Teaching or Common Teaching? If it is Common Teaching, why do the Patriarchs say: 'Below is the same as the Three Vehicles, the unobstructed part of the Daoshi Wuwai Yibu Taizong.' And also say: 'Below is the same as the Three Vehicles' is spoken from the perspective of harmonization. If it is Distinct Teaching, why does Dharma Master Fazhen also cite it to accomplish Common Teaching? Note: Distinguishing the Vehicles is to show the encompassing and arranging of expedient means; totally entering the Correct Vehicle is to manifest that one principle pervades, and there is no obstruction between Provisional and Real Teachings. Commentary: Here it says 'Distinguishing the Vehicles' is to encompass and arrange expedient means. Below it says: 'Like this, within the Common Teaching, the One Vehicle of Distinct Teaching is also arranged.' However, this arrangement of expedient means, perhaps it belongs to that Distinct Teaching, it should not be that arrangement of Distinct Teaching; perhaps it is this arrangement of expedient means, it should not be that the explanation is unclear. Which one does this reside in? Also, when harmonizing the root and branches, citing the principle of pervasiveness, and abandoning the differences in the meaning gates, in harmonizing the root and branches, should the Provisional and Real Teachings be destroyed? Now the explanation says: 'Distinguishing the Vehicles' is to manifest the differences in the teachings. For example, the teachings given in the open ground mentioned in the sutras, and the three carts at the gate, etc. 'Harmonizing the root and branches' is to explain that all vehicles are without difference. For example, the convergence of the three refuges into one, etc. Note: Initially marking out six levels is to show complete inclusion. Commentary: Showing complete inclusion, is it to be the same as the previous words, so now completely including the Common Teaching? Is it to be the same as the Three Jewels chapter, or also universally including the Common Teaching? If it is the same as the Three Jewels chapter, why is it also cited below to prove the harmonization of root and branches? If it is the same as the previous classification, then are the two meanings of encompassing and dividing the vehicles the same? The Zhang family's distinguishing of the vehicles, and the Ji family's showing of complete inclusion, are contradictory in their essence. Note: All are... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 名一乘者。即圆教摄四。皆名圆也。
Chinese
评曰。圆教摄四皆名圆者。且此中一乘。为泯权皈实一乘邪。为望正乘而为方便。受一乘名邪。若望正乘而为方便受一乘名者。何用清凉全收义耶。若泯权归实一乘者。此一乘。何反不及所流辨邪。以下记文。独判摄方便。为非即圆通自在义故。 记曰。故经下二引经。是菩萨道。即一乘也。 评曰。是菩萨道即一乘者。正乘邪。方便乘邪。若正乘者。何以章云是同非别。若方便乘者。何以前文引为三即一。现全收句。 记曰。方便乘者。分别有十。乃至若横依方便。进趣法门。即有二义。通说一乘。一由依究竟一乘教成。何以故。从一乘流故。又为一乘教所目故。二与彼究竟圆乘为方便故。故说一乘非即圆通自在义也。一切三乘等。并名一乘。若谓是所流为取目无异事等。即圆通法也。若言说方便是方便。则三乘等非即圆通义也。 评曰。若谓横依方便所流所目三乘等即圆通法者。为事圆通邪。理事圆通邪。若同教理事圆通者。何唯所流所目而特拣摄方便邪。且摄方便非理事圆通乎。若别教事事圆通者。何以前记将作同教因法邪。据此即有二种同教也。又若所流所目乃圆通法。摄方便为非圆通法者。其法相交参。就胜门八义意趣教事深细十义方 现代汉语译本： 所谓‘一乘’（Ekayana，唯一乘载之意），即圆教（perfect teaching）统摄四教（four teachings），皆可称为‘圆’。 评述：圆教统摄四教皆可称为‘圆’，那么，这里所说的一乘，是泯除权巧归于真实的一乘呢？还是相对于正乘（true vehicle）而言，作为方便而接受一乘之名呢？如果是相对于正乘而言，作为方便而接受一乘之名，为何清凉（Qingliang，指华严宗清凉澄观大师）要全部收摄其义呢？如果是泯除权巧归于真实的一乘，那么，这一乘，为何反而不如其所流出的方便呢？因为下面的记录文字，单独判别统摄方便，认为其并非即是圆融通达自在之义。 记录：所以经文下面两次引用经典，所说的是菩萨道（Bodhisattva path），即是一乘。 评述：说是菩萨道即是一乘，是正乘呢？还是方便乘呢？如果是正乘，为何章节中说的是相同而非差别？如果是方便乘，为何前面的文字引用时，说是三即一，现在却全部收摄其义？ 记录：方便乘，分别有十种，乃至如果横向依靠方便，进趣佛法之门，即有两种含义：通俗地说一乘，一是由于依靠究竟一乘之教而成，为什么呢？因为是从一乘流出。又是被一乘之教所标示。二是与那究竟圆乘作为方便。所以说一乘并非即是圆融通达自在之义。一切三乘（three vehicles）等，都可称为一乘。如果说是所流出的，作为标示，没有差异等，即是圆通之法。如果说言说方便是方便，那么三乘等并非即是圆通之义。 评述：如果说横向依靠方便所流出的、所标示的三乘等即是圆通之法，是事圆通（phenomenal perfection）呢？还是理事圆通（perfection in principle and phenomena）呢？如果同于教理的事理圆通，为何唯独所流出的、所标示的，而特别拣择统摄方便呢？难道统摄方便不是事理圆通吗？如果是别教（distinct teaching）的事事圆通（perfection in every phenomenon），为何之前的记录将其作为同教（common teaching）的因法呢？根据此说，即有两种同教了。又如果所流出的、所标示的乃是圆通之法，统摄方便为非圆通之法，那么其法相交错参杂，就殊胜之门八义意趣教事深细十义方面而言，又该如何呢？