法華文句記 8.48

8.48

次「車三」下答三一中亦先約譬，次約理教。先譬中云「息處所樂三一不同」者，車可非息處，城可非所樂。車既皆云運載，息其東西馳走；城云快得安隱，令其樂於中止。次約法中「盡無生智不異」等者，並是通義，失藏三乘及別菩薩盡無生智不名為理，習盡不盡不名為教，知見得否亦復如是。如何初立理教，乃以智習釋之？況正當三藏二乘，唯以通教答義，故不可也。應知通教三人各證無生故三，三人同坐解脫床故一，是則人理相望人三理一，三藏人理相望亦然。但菩薩與二乘不得同坐解脫床耳。次「三家」下答動靜者，城豈無造立之日，及須能通之路；車可無作訖之時，及以所至之極。故知果城為因車之所至，果車踐城路之能通。故使索車即是求城，滅城即是等賜，二義無別，何足辨殊？故釋仍闕先譬文也。「難云云」者，意令準望餘文難之，略如向辨。順此注意，故略論之。

Next, from "Three carts" down, answering regarding three and one is also first in terms of the parable, and next in terms of principle and teaching. First, in the parable, saying that "the place of rest and what is enjoyed differ in three and one": the carts can indeed be a place of rest, and the city can indeed be what is enjoyed. The carts are all said to carry and convey, putting an end to running about eastward and westward; the city is said to be quickly gaining peace and security, causing them to delight in halting midway. Next, in terms of dharma, "the wisdom of exhaustion and non-arising being not different" and so forth are all shared meanings, missing the fact that for the three vehicles of the Tripiṭaka and the bodhisattva of the distinct [teaching], the wisdom of exhaustion and non-arising is not called principle, the exhaustion or non-exhaustion of habit-energies is not called teaching, and the attainment or non-attainment of knowledge and vision is likewise. How could one, having first established principle and teaching, then explain them by wisdom and habit-energies? What is more, when it directly applies to the two vehicles of the Tripiṭaka, answering solely through the shared teaching is unacceptable. One should know that the three types of persons of the shared teaching each realize non-arising, hence there are three; the three types of persons sit together on the bed of liberation, hence there is one. Thus, viewing persons and principle relative to each other, the persons are three and the principle is one. Viewing persons and principle relative to each other in the Tripiṭaka is also like this; only, bodhisattvas and the two vehicles cannot sit together on the bed of liberation. Next, from "The three masters" down, answering regarding dynamic and static: could the city lack a time of construction or the need for a thoroughfare? Could the carts lack a time of completion or the ultimate destination they reach? Thus we know that the fruition city is that which is reached by the causal carts, and the fruition carts tread upon what the city's road can traverse. Thus, demanding the carts is precisely seeking the city; destroying the city is precisely the equal bestowing. The two meanings do not differ; why bother to distinguish them? Therefore, the explanation still lacks the preceding text of the parable. Regarding "Objections, and so forth": the intention is to prompt objections by analogy with other passages, briefly as explained above. In accord with the intention of this commentary, it is briefly discussed.