法華文句記 8.101

8.101

次私破中但破初章，餘二亦例於初章中，但破三為一門，未破一為三門。初文兩重，初破門義，次以非因破。初門義者，初句定中但定三通一句，破其門義，但以不通遮之任自非門，亦應更云：若其通者昔何不通，使至今耶？昔不通者於昔非門。「若開」下至今即開，開已非三，何得以三為一作門？顯他不知體內體外，是故須破。準佛本意元為通一，故未開時本來是門。彼未云開而言是門，是故須破。故知三為一門尚自不可，一為三門何俟別破？

Next, in my personal refutation, only the first chapter is refuted, and the remaining two also follow the same pattern; within the first chapter, it refutes only the three serving as the gate for the one, and has not yet refuted the one serving as the gate for the three. The first passage has two levels: first, refuting the meaning of "gate," and next, refuting by its not being a cause. First, regarding the meaning of gate: in the initial phrase of determination, he only determines the single phrase that the three lead through, refuting its meaning of gate; merely negating it with non-leading, it naturally is not a gate; one should also further say: if it led through, why did it not lead through in the past, causing it to wait until now? That which did not lead through in the past was not a gate in the past. From "if opened" downward: coming to the present, it is then opened; once opened, it is no longer three; how can one take the three as serving as the gate for the one? This reveals that he does not understand within the essence and outside the essence, which is why it must be refuted. Based on the Buddha's original intent, it was originally meant to lead to the one, so before being opened it was originally a gate; he, without speaking of opening, said it is a gate; hence it must be refuted. Therefore we know that taking the three as the gate for the one is already unacceptable; what need is there to separately refute the one serving as the gate for the three?