法華文句記 6.77

6.77

次明體數不同者，舊三師中初一全非，次師似當然，第三師今不全許者，其理未顯，並由不說佛菩薩乘離合初後同異，所以須會不會。「所以」下破古，先通非之。次別引教，初引昔三，三既在昔驗一在今。次「華嚴」下皆引證四，即能所具列，初云說，次云出，說約教法，出約行儀，初三從應，第二從機，當知定有四法故也。「地論」等者，地論在別，尚列四觀觀於十善，當知諸法咸通四觀。瓔珞三乘即前三教，三各開三即別教之乘也。平等即是圓教乘也。「今約教」下重以教門判向三四，但云三四未言優劣，故須教判。若三乘對真論同異者，即判初家；判三四九屬別圓者，更須約行方分別圓，應知藏通大意亦爾。雖引前經具足四教，妙部未顯，復須歷味方辯今經，《正法華》中亦先云象馬羊，後乃各賜大白象車，同一梵文誰非誰是？有人問云：出不見車是故即索，此未立城應須索城。今為答之，城約有譬，見何須索？

Next, regarding the clarification that the substance and number differ: among the former three masters, the first is completely wrong; the next master seems acceptable; but the third master is not fully accepted now, because his principle is not yet clear, and both stem from not explaining whether the Buddha-vehicle and the bodhisattva-vehicle are separate or combined, beginning or end, identical or different; therefore there must be harmonisation, and yet they fail to harmonise. Below 'Therefore', in refuting the ancients, he first refutes them generally. Next, he separately cites scriptural teachings: first citing the past three; since three were in the past, it verifies that the one is in the present. Next, from 'Avataṃsaka' onward, all cite scriptural passages to prove the four; that is, both the expounding and the emerging are fully listed: first it says 'expound', next it says 'emerge'; 'expound' relates to the doctrinal teaching, while 'emerge' relates to the conduct and etiquette; the first three stem from the response, and the second stems from the capacity; one should know that there are definitely four dharmas. 'Treatise on the Daśabhūmika Sūtra' and so forth: the Daśabhūmika Treatise belongs to the distinct [teaching], yet it still lists four contemplations to contemplate the ten virtuous deeds; one should know that all dharmas universally admit of the four contemplations. The three vehicles of the Yingluo [sūtra] are precisely the previous three teachings; the three each unfolding into three is the vehicle of the distinct teaching; 'equality' is precisely the vehicle of the perfect teaching. Below 'Now in terms of the teachings', he re-evaluates the aforementioned three and four through the doctrinal gates; merely saying three or four does not yet state superiority and inferiority, so doctrinal evaluation is necessary. If the three vehicles are evaluated for identity and difference in relation to the true, that evaluates the first master; evaluating the three, four, and nine as belonging to the distinct and perfect further requires considering practice before distinguishing distinct and perfect; one should know that the general meaning of the Tripiṭaka and shared [teachings] is also like this. Although the earlier sūtras are cited as possessing all four teachings, the wondrous text has not yet been revealed; one must again pass through the flavors to distinguish the present sūtra. In the True Lotus Sūtra it also first mentions elephants, horses, and sheep, and later each is bestowed a great white ox carriage; derived from the same Sanskrit text, which is wrong and which is right? Someone asked: 'Emerging and not seeing the carriages, they thereupon demanded them; here, before the city was conjured, they should have demanded the city.' Now I answer it: the city is an analogy based on what exists; seeing it, why should they demand it?