法華文句記 5.26

5.26

「從但以」下釋教一，於中先正明教一，次「自別教」下明教一中所無，先示正釋，次破三師。破中光宅尚亦知無四階菩薩，但光宅指昔不明，故《玄》文有破，此云偏行尚該通別，但由光宅猶尚不語通乘是權，故須破之，況今復以菩薩而為第三。其第二師同於光宅，亦知廢偏菩薩，但列三名望於光宅，顛倒異耳。「若作」下通破二師，亦但成破三藏菩薩，未涉通別故未全當。第三師同於嘉祥，嘉祥尚然，故並不知三乘共位，及《瓔珞》等次第行者是方便菩薩。若不爾者，何故《大瓔珞》第九，〈三道品〉中慧品中「慧眼菩薩問佛云：云何三乘？佛言：菩薩乘者，復有三種，謂菩薩大乘、菩薩支佛、菩薩聲聞。支佛亦三：謂支佛大乘、支佛支佛、支佛聲聞。聲聞亦三，謂聲聞大乘、聲聞支佛、聲聞聲聞。」故知菩薩三者，別菩薩也，如《大經》中釋別五味，亦寄三乘判菩薩位；支佛三者通三乘也；聲聞三者三藏三乘。又第八云：「慧眼菩薩曰：復有定意名無盡門，超過三乘成菩薩號。」既超三乘，乃是超前三種三乘，不可獨云超第三乘。經又不云超二三乘，豈非圓教菩薩乘耶？「若爾」下破，中有四：先破所存三藏菩薩，尚存三藏必存通別；次「何處」下破其列名；三「若依」下縱難；四「若如」下結難。

From "merely with" downward explains the oneness of teaching. In it, first, the oneness of teaching is directly clarified; next, from "from the separate teaching" downward clarifies what is absent within the oneness of teaching: first showing the correct explanation, and next refuting the three masters. In the refutation, Guangzhai also already knew there are no four-stage bodhisattvas, but Guangzhai's pointing to the past was not clear, so the text of the Profound Meaning has a refutation; here, saying "one-sided practice" still covers both common and separate, but because Guangzhai still did not state that the common vehicle is provisional, he must be refuted, especially since he now further takes bodhisattvas as the third. The second master is the same as Guangzhai, also knowing to abolish the one-sided bodhisattva, but merely in listing the three names compared to Guangzhai, it is inverted and different. From "if taking" downward comprehensively refutes both masters: it also merely succeeds in refuting the Tripiṭaka bodhisattva, not yet touching on the common and separate, so it is not completely appropriate. The third master is the same as Jiaxiang; Jiaxiang was still like this, so they all did not know that the common stages of the three vehicles, and the sequential practitioners of the Yingluo and the like, are provisional bodhisattvas. Were it not so, why in the ninth chapter of the Da yingluo, in the Wisdom Chapter of the "Three Paths Chapter," did "the Bodhisattva Huiyan ask the Buddha: 'What are the three vehicles?' The Buddha said: 'As for the Bodhisattva Vehicle, there are again three kinds, namely, the Bodhisattva Great Vehicle, the Bodhisattva Pratyekabuddha, and the Bodhisattva Śrāvaka. The Pratyekabuddha also has three: namely, the Pratyekabuddha Great Vehicle, the Pratyekabuddha Pratyekabuddha, and the Pratyekabuddha Śrāvaka. The Śrāvaka also has three: namely, the Śrāvaka Great Vehicle, the Śrāvaka Pratyekabuddha, and the Śrāvaka Śrāvaka.'" Thus we know that the three kinds of bodhisattva are the separate bodhisattva; as in the Great Sūtra explaining the separate five flavors, it also relies on the three vehicles to determine the bodhisattva stages; the three kinds of pratyekabuddha are the common three vehicles; the three kinds of śrāvaka are the Tripiṭaka three vehicles. Furthermore, the eighth chapter says: "The Bodhisattva Huiyan said: 'There is again a concentrated mind called the inexhaustible gate, which surpasses the three vehicles and accomplishes the title of bodhisattva.'" Since it surpasses the three vehicles, it is surpassing the preceding three kinds of three vehicles; it cannot be said solely to surpass the third vehicle. Nor does the sūtra say surpassing the second and third vehicles; is this not the Bodhisattva Vehicle of the perfect teaching? From "if so" downward is the refutation, in which there are four parts: first, refuting the Tripiṭaka bodhisattva that is maintained—if the Tripiṭaka is still maintained, the common and separate must also be maintained; next, from "in what place" downward refutes their listing of names; third, from "if relying on" downward presents a concessive objection; fourth, from "if like" downward concludes the objection.