English
English version: Unifying the three vehicles into one is Mahayana (Great Vehicle). Separating out the teaching for the foolish is Hinayana (Small Vehicle). Turning the mind towards the Great Vehicle is because by this one can approach Buddhahood (Buddha-phala). Commentary: ‘Turning the mind towards the Great Vehicle, all approach Buddhahood,’ as the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra) says: ‘If those whose nature is not definitely inclined towards the Śrāvakayāna (Hearer Vehicle), upon hearing this Dharma, will quickly be able to attain their own non-outflow ground, etc.’ The Samdhinirmocana Sutra (Explanation of the Profound Meaning Sutra) also says: ‘Universally for those who aspire to all vehicles, is it to approach Buddhahood?’ Although the Avatamsaka Sutra (Flower Garland Sutra) distinguishes the differences between the upper and lower vehicles, that is not the meaning here. Record: The ‘opening’ mentioned above is the opening into three schools within one great skillful Dharma. Commentary: Here, it cites Tanxuan's statement to prove that the Ekayana (One Vehicle) is a separate teaching. Earlier, it said that expedient means are matched with the One Vehicle, belonging to the same Dharma and truly attained. Are you contradicting yourself? Earlier, it said that it was only interpreting the meaning as text, not like Yufeng distinguishing the third samadhi, and this is why. Record: It should be known that although only the three vehicles are selected in the division of characteristics, the Patriarch's intention is precisely that there are three different schools. Commentary: The previous text is precisely about the differences between the three schools, and is it a separate purpose of the division of characteristics? Is it about the three schools? Is it about combining the foolish Dharma with the turning of the mind? Is it about separating the foolish Dharma from the turning of the mind? Below, it re-shows the three schools, accomplishing the root and branch of the manifest Dharma? Is it about the division of characteristics? Record: The Lotus Sutra unifies the three and returns to one, precisely to refute the Small Vehicle, so it says ‘no.’ Commentary: The Lotus Sutra unifies the three and returns to one, is it the ultimate of the gradual teaching? Is it the common teaching of the perfect teaching? The text says ‘precisely to refute the Small Vehicle,’ is it about combining the foolish Dharma with the turning of the mind to refute? Is it about separating the foolish Dharma from the turning of the mind to refute? The Lotus Sutra here is not the Small Vehicle, is its meaning the same as or different from the previous ‘precisely to refute the Small Vehicle’? Record: Question: Does the concluding teaching also have the two vehicles? Answer: The two vehicles within the boundary, the previous teaching does not have, only this teaching has. An ancient person said: ‘This is speaking of the previous Small Vehicle, not that the concluding teaching has it.’ This statement is too superficial. Commentary: Is this question and answer elaborating on the meaning before severing delusion? If it is elaborating on the previous meaning, why say that the ancient person's statement is too superficial? If it is elaborating on the later meaning, why say that the concluding teaching uniquely has the two vehicles within the boundary, and the proclamation has nothing to say about it? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 守。
Chinese
记曰。又问此上诸论。义当始教。何以于此终教引邪。答断惑中有二义。乃至当知经论义实多含。此诸论等。义通三教。是故此中引成终教之义。 评曰。问中云。何以于此终教引答。又结云。是故此中引成终教之义。此则三车。唯属实教。不通初门。乃令始教进非三乘。退非愚法。是何乘耶。且大乘初门。一宗文籍。于此三宗。竟无所归耳。又瑜伽声闻决择杂集论等。并空有二宗经文。并为实教大乘。则始教之下。宛若大虚也。以记云终教引故。又云。当知经论义实多含。成终教故。若谓深必该浅。并属终教者。且章文正辨三宗差别。孰云以后摄前邪。又既云引成终教之义。记家乃谓。章文唯约断惑中初义也。若尔。则三宗义亦不成。以始教许出。无界内二乘故。又若三车唯终顿者。何以焚薪云。若后义虽始教。而愚法二乘亦在所引中邪。又复累及所引探玄权字徒施。以云经论义实多含。归终教故。仍使分教中一三乘教义不极成。以引成此中三车唯终顿故。遂使三宗乃成破法。非缘起好法。以缺大乘初门。摄生方便故。昔人三车唯属初门。今判三车齐归终顿。过犹不及也。又若谓章文唯约初义者。如何说得终顿教下有二乘耶。以初义无二声闻故。又复细视文意。虽约初义。而不能承用初义。何者 守。 记曰：又问，以上这些论述，从义理上来说应当属于始教（Dharmachakra of the genesis，佛陀初转法轮时期的教法）。为什么在这里引用终教（Dharmachakra of the conclusion，佛陀最后时期所说的教法）的观点呢？回答是，断除迷惑包含两种含义。应当知道，经论的义理实际上包含很多内容。这些论述等，义理上贯通三教（Three Vehicles，声闻乘、缘觉乘、菩萨乘）。因此，在这里引用它们来成就终教的义理。 评曰：问中说，‘为什么在这里引用终教的观点？’，最后总结说，‘因此，在这里引用它们来成就终教的义理’。这样说来，三车（Three Vehicles，以三种不同的交通工具来比喻佛陀引导众生的三种教法）就只属于实教（True teaching，真实之教），不贯通初门（Initial teaching，初始的教法）。这使得始教既不能进入三乘，又不能退回到愚法（Ignorant teachings，低级的、不究竟的教法）。这是什么乘呢？而且大乘（Mahayana，大乘佛教）的初门，一宗的文献，在这三宗中，竟然没有归属。此外，《瑜伽师地论》（Yogacarabhumi-sastra，瑜伽行者的修行阶位）、《声闻地论》（Sravakabhumi-sastra，声闻乘的修行阶位）、《决择分》（Viniscaya-samgraha，对各种问题的决断）、《杂集论》（Abhidharma-samuccaya，阿毗达摩的概论）等，以及空宗（Emptiness school，主张一切皆空的宗派）和有宗（Existence school，主张一切存在的宗派）的经文，都属于实教的大乘。那么，在始教之下，就好像一片空虚。因为《记》中说引用的是终教的观点。又说，‘应当知道，经论的义理实际上包含很多内容，成就终教的义理’。如果说深奥的义理必然包含浅显的义理，都属于终教，那么，章文（Commentary，对经文的注释）正是为了辨别三宗的差别，谁说以后面的包含前面的呢？而且既然说引用它们来成就终教的义理，记家（Commentator，注释者）却说，章文只是关于断除迷惑中的初始含义。如果这样，那么三宗的义理也不能成立，因为始教允许超出无界内的二乘（Two Vehicles，声闻乘和缘觉乘）的修行者存在。而且如果三车只属于终教和顿教（Sudden teaching，顿悟之教），那么，为什么《焚薪》（Burning firewood，比喻去除烦恼）中说，即使后面的义理属于始教，愚法和二乘也包含在所引用的内容中呢？而且还会牵连到所引用的《探玄记》（Tanxuanji，对《华严经》的注释）中的权字（Expedient word，方便之说）徒劳无功，因为说经论的义理实际上包含很多内容，归属于终教。仍然使得分教（Divided teaching，将佛陀的教法分为不同的阶段）中的一三乘教义不能完全成立，因为引用它们来成就这里的三车只属于终教和顿教。于是使得三宗成为破法（Breaking the Dharma，破坏佛法），而不是缘起好法（Good Dharma of dependent origination，因缘和合而生的好的佛法），因为缺少大乘的初门，摄生方便（Means of embracing sentient beings，接引众生的方便法门）。过去的人认为三车只属于初门，现在判断三车都归属于终教和顿教，矫枉过正了。而且如果说章文只是关于初始含义，那么，怎么能说终教和顿教下有二乘呢？因为初始含义中没有二声闻。而且仔细观察文意，虽然是关于初始含义，却不能承用初始含义。为什么呢？
English
Shou. Commentary says: Again, it is asked, these above discussions, in terms of meaning, should belong to the Dharmachakra of the genesis (the Buddha's teachings during the initial turning of the Dharma wheel). Why are the views of the Dharmachakra of the conclusion (the Buddha's teachings during the final period) cited here? The answer is that the eradication of delusion contains two meanings. It should be known that the meaning of the sutras and treatises actually contains a lot of content. These discussions, etc., are consistent with the Three Vehicles (Sravaka Vehicle, Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, Bodhisattva Vehicle) in meaning. Therefore, they are cited here to accomplish the meaning of the Dharmachakra of the conclusion. Critique says: The question says, 'Why are the views of the Dharmachakra of the conclusion cited here?', and finally concludes, 'Therefore, they are cited here to accomplish the meaning of the Dharmachakra of the conclusion.' In this way, the Three Vehicles (three different vehicles used as metaphors for the Buddha's three teachings to guide sentient beings) only belong to the True teaching, and do not penetrate the Initial teaching. This makes the Dharmachakra of the genesis neither able to enter the Three Vehicles nor able to retreat to the Ignorant teachings. What vehicle is this? Moreover, the initial gate of the Mahayana (Great Vehicle), the literature of one school, has no belonging in these three schools. In addition, the Yogacarabhumi-sastra (Stages of practice for Yogacarins), Sravakabhumi-sastra (Stages of practice for Sravakas), Viniscaya-samgraha (Decisions on various issues), Abhidharma-samuccaya (Overview of Abhidharma), etc., as well as the sutras of the Emptiness school and the Existence school, all belong to the Mahayana of the True teaching. Then, under the Dharmachakra of the genesis, it is like a void. Because the Commentary says that the views of the Dharmachakra of the conclusion are cited. It also says, 'It should be known that the meaning of the sutras and treatises actually contains a lot of content, accomplishing the meaning of the Dharmachakra of the conclusion.' If it is said that profound meanings necessarily contain shallow meanings, and all belong to the Dharmachakra of the conclusion, then the Commentary is precisely to distinguish the differences between the three schools. Who says that the latter contains the former? Moreover, since it is said that they are cited to accomplish the meaning of the Dharmachakra of the conclusion, the Commentator says that the Commentary is only about the initial meaning in the eradication of delusion. If so, then the meaning of the three schools cannot be established, because the Dharmachakra of the genesis allows the existence of practitioners of the Two Vehicles (Sravaka Vehicle and Pratyekabuddha Vehicle) who exceed the realm of no-boundary. Moreover, if the Three Vehicles only belong to the Dharmachakra of the conclusion and the Sudden teaching, then why does 'Burning firewood' (a metaphor for removing afflictions) say that even if the later meaning belongs to the Dharmachakra of the genesis, the Ignorant teachings and the Two Vehicles are also included in the cited content? Moreover, it will also involve the expedient word (skillful means) in the cited Tanxuanji (Commentary on the Avatamsaka Sutra) being in vain, because it is said that the meaning of the sutras and treatises actually contains a lot of content, belonging to the Dharmachakra of the conclusion. It still makes the one Three Vehicles teaching in the Divided teaching not fully established, because they are cited to accomplish that the Three Vehicles here only belong to the Dharmachakra of the conclusion and the Sudden teaching. Thus, the three schools become breaking the Dharma, rather than the Good Dharma of dependent origination, because of the lack of the initial gate of the Mahayana, the means of embracing sentient beings. In the past, people thought that the Three Vehicles only belonged to the initial gate, but now they judge that the Three Vehicles all belong to the Dharmachakra of the conclusion and the Sudden teaching, which is overcorrection. Moreover, if it is said that the Commentary is only about the initial meaning, then how can it be said that there are Two Vehicles under the Dharmachakra of the conclusion and the Sudden teaching? Because there are no two Sravakas in the initial meaning. Moreover, looking closely at the meaning of the text, although it is about the initial meaning, it cannot inherit the initial meaning. Why? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------