[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [法華文句記](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1719) › 7.213 # 法華文句記 7.213 法華文句記 7.213 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [7.213](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1719.7.213) 「問一雲一雨與一音同異」者，問意以一地一雨與一音教，為同為異？答意者，今一雲一雨別譬開顯，彼一音之教通於因果及以偏圓，於中先分因果、次辨偏圓。先因果別，別意雖爾，亦隨諸教二種雲雨以譬諸教因果隨分一音，今從究竟雲雨以問，答中別申二種一音。言「下地」者，或指圓教六根，或指別教地前，若指初住已上等覺已前，豈可全無隨類一音？次辨偏圓中先出舊非，次正解中三：先圓、次偏、後明自報。先圓中引《大論》者，破上三師。所言「報」者，即酬答也。如此一音亦通下地，但不關六根。次「婆沙」去引偏擬圓，類例欲同，然其秖是三藏教佛之一音耳。若不爾者，能以《婆沙》釋《華嚴》不？五百羅漢有七菩薩見解以不？瑜伽尚別，同異永乖。 > Regarding 'asking about the identity and difference between the one cloud / one rain and the single voice': the intention of the question is whether the one earth and one rain are identical to or different from the teaching of the single voice. The intention of the answer is that the present one cloud and one rain specifically illustrate opening and revealing, whereas that teaching of the single voice pervades cause and effect as well as the one-sided and perfect. Therein, it first distinguishes cause and effect, and next discerns the one-sided and perfect. First, regarding the difference of cause and effect: although the specific intention is like this, it also follows the two kinds of clouds and rain of the various teachings to illustrate the single voice according to the allotted share of cause and effect in the various teachings. Now asking from the perspective of the ultimate cloud and rain, the answer specifically puts forward two kinds of single voice. As for 'the lower grounds': this either refers to the six faculties of the perfect teaching, or refers to \[the stages\] prior to the grounds of the distinct teaching. If it referred to from the first abidance upward and before equal enlightenment, how could there be entirely no single voice that accords with kinds? Next, in discerning the one-sided and perfect: first, pointing out old errors; next, in the correct explanation there are three: first, the perfect; next, the one-sided; last, clarifying one's own reward. First, in the perfect, citing the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa: this refutes the three masters above. What is termed 'reward' (bao) is responding (chouda). Such a single voice also pervades the lower grounds, but it is not concerned with the six faculties. Next, from 'Vibhāṣā' onward, citing the one-sided to compare with the perfect: it intends for their instances to be the same, yet that is merely the single voice of the Buddha of the Tripiṭaka teaching. Were it not so, could one use the Vibhāṣā to explain the Avataṃsaka? Do the five hundred arhats have the views and understanding of the seven bodhisattvas? Even the Yogācāra is different; identity and difference are eternally contrary. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 7.212](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1719.7.212) - [Next: 7.214](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1719.7.214) - [Up: 7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1719.7) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1719~en-mt.7.213) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1719.7.213](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1719.7.213) · Pramāṇa