妙法蓮華經文句 8.43

8.43

問：方便當體是門？為通實相故為門？私答：具二義，為實相門，可解。當體是門，如《華嚴》尋善知識得種種法門，算砂觀海等。此二門各有開閉，昔不言三是方便，故其門掩；今說三是方便，故其門開。昔不說一是真實，實門掩；今說一是真實，故實門開。二者，此方便復通實相，故三乘方便為一乘門。實相亦二義：一、當體虛通故名之為門，如《淨名》不二門、《華嚴》法界門等；二、能通方便作門，劉虬云「通物之功乃由乎一，故一為方便之門，汲引之效頗賴於三，故三為真實之相。言非三則方便之門得開，語唯一則真實之相可示。」有人云，具論有三義：一、以三為方便一為真實；二、三一皆方便，非三非一為真實；三、三一為二，非三非一為不二，二不二皆權，非二非不二為實。此三章得為門。如以三為一門，此以權通實，若以一為三門，以實起權，乃至二不二亦爾互得為門，亦互得為相，但不得互為權實耳。私謂以三為一門者，三乘通實相不？若不通則非門，須開三始得是門。若開三者非復三也，云何以三為實相門？又三非佛因，那得是實相門？破此一義，餘二例去（云云）。

Question: Is the expedient itself the gate in its very essence, or is it a gate because it leads into the real mark? My private answer: It possesses both meanings. That it serves as a gate to the real mark can be understood. That it is a gate in its very essence is like the Avataṃsaka, where seeking good spiritual friends one attains various dharma-gates, such as counting grains of sand, contemplating the ocean, and so forth. Both of these gates have their opening and closing: formerly, it was not stated that the three are expedients, so their gate was shut; now, it is stated that the three are expedients, so their gate is opened. Formerly, it was not stated that the one is the real, so the real gate was shut; now, it is stated that the one is the real, so the real gate is opened. Second, this expedient further leads into the real mark; therefore, the expedients of the three vehicles serve as the gate to the One Vehicle. The real mark also has two meanings: first, in its very essence it is open and unobstructed, hence named a gate, like the non-dual gate in the Vimalakīrti or the dharma-realm gate in the Avataṃsaka; second, it can lead into expedients and serve as a gate. Liu Qiu says: "The efficacy of penetrating things indeed derives from the one, therefore the one is the gate of expedient means; the effect of guiding and drawing beings relies greatly upon the three, therefore the three are the marks of the real. Saying it is not three allows the gate of expedient means to open; speaking solely of the one allows the mark of the real to be demonstrated." Someone says there are three meanings when fully discussed: first, taking the three as expedient and the one as real; second, both the three and the one are expedient, while neither three nor one is the real; third, three and one constitute duality, neither three nor one constitutes non-duality, both duality and non-duality are expedient, and neither duality nor non-duality is the real. These three propositions can serve as gates. For instance, taking the three as the gate to the one uses the expedient to penetrate the real; taking the one as the gate to the three uses the real to give rise to the expedient; and so on down to duality and non-duality, which likewise can mutually serve as gates and mutually serve as marks, but they cannot mutually serve as expedient and real. In my private view, regarding taking the three as the gate to the one: do the three vehicles penetrate the real mark or not? If they do not penetrate, they are not a gate, and one must open the three before they can be a gate. If one opens the three, they are no longer three; how then could the three be the gate to the real mark? Moreover, the three are not the Buddha-cause; how could they be the gate to the real mark? Refuting this one meaning, the other two follow suit by analogy, and so on.