妙法蓮華經文句 4.80

4.80

From “Solely by means of the One Buddha Vehicle”: Guangzhai takes this as the oneness of cause, but now we say it is the oneness of teaching. The perfect and sudden teaching is named the One Buddha Vehicle; thus the 'Introductory Chapter' says 'preaching the Mahāyāna sūtras,' which is the meaning of teaching. From the distinctive teaching on down, all are called discourses with remainder; being not of definitive meaning, they are not the Buddha's One Vehicle. Guangzhai says: 'Having no two refers to no pratyekabuddhas or śrāvakas; having no three refers to no bodhisattvas of one-sided practice.' Another says: 'Having no bodhisattvas and pratyekabuddhas constitutes having no two; having no śrāvakas constitutes having no three.' If one adopts this interpretation, it merely negates the various vehicles of the Tripiṭaka and preserves the shared vehicle—how does that relate to the One Buddha Vehicle? Another says: 'Having no pratyekabuddhas constitutes having no two; having no śrāvakas constitutes having no three, preserving the Mahāyāna of the bodhisattvas.' If so, it merely eliminates the two vehicles within the Tripiṭaka and does not eliminate the bodhisattva within the Tripiṭaka; this preserves [a teaching] with remainder—how does that relate to the Buddha Vehicle? Where in any sūtra or treatise is the śrāvaka taken as the third? Since there is no such sequence, these are completely erroneous assertions. If one relies on your interpretation, having no two is having no pratyekabuddhas, having no three is having no bodhisattvas, and the first being the śrāvaka would not be eliminated; if that were so, it would be utterly chaotic. Now, 'solely by means of the One Buddha Vehicle' refers purely to the vehicle of the perfect teaching that expounds the Buddha-dharma. 'Having no other vehicles' means having no discourses with remainder that carry expedients as in the distinctive teaching. 'Having no two' means having none of the two carried along in the Prajñā[pāramitā]. 'Having no three' means having none of the three confronted in the Vaipulya. Since these twos and threes are all absent, how much more so the three within the Tripiṭaka?