[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) › [法華玄論](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1720) › 5.13 # 法華玄論 5.13 法華玄論 5.13 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [5.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1720.5.13) 評曰：文似不然，但意不失旨。所以然者，既由一通三，豈非一為三門？說三為通一，則三為一門。但一為三門，此從實赴權，謂出門也；說三通一，從權入實，謂入門也。門既有二，相亦應宜然。說三表一故三為一相，說實令識權故一為三相，以理詳之具此意也。但注經偏用一為三門、三為一相，意猶未圓。若如前用，義無失也。但上來三種皆一往方言，未究環中之極。若具論者，可有三義：一者以三為方便、一為真實；二者三一皆方便、非三一為真實；三者明三一為二、非三一為不二，二不二皆為權、非二非不二為實。此之三種互得為門。如以三為一門，此以權通實；若以一為三門，以實赴權，乃至二不二亦爾。既互得為門，亦互得為相，但不得互為權實耳。 > In appraisal: The phrasing seems otherwise, yet the intended meaning does not miss the point. Why is this so? Since the three are penetrated by means of the one, how could the one not be the gate to the three? Speaking the three is to penetrate the one, so the three are the gate to the one. But the one being the gate to the three—this is going from the real to meet the provisional, meaning going out the gate; speaking the three to penetrate the one—this is entering the real from the provisional, meaning entering the gate. Since gates are twofold, marks should also be likewise: speaking the three expresses the one, so the three are the marks of the one; speaking the real causes one to recognize the provisional, so the one is the mark of the three. Examining it in principle, it contains this meaning. However, the commentary's exclusive use of the one as the gate to the three, and the three as the marks of the one, is still not complete in meaning. If employed as previously stated, the principle is without fault. However, the three above are all provisional statements from a single perspective, not having exhausted the ultimate within the ring. If fully discussed, there can be three meanings: first, taking the three as skillful means and the one as the real; second, taking both three and one as skillful means, and neither three nor one as the real; third, explaining three and one as duality, neither three nor one as non-duality, both duality and non-duality as provisional, and neither duality nor non-duality as real. These three can mutually serve as gates. For example, taking the three as the gate to the one—this uses the provisional to penetrate the real; if taking the one as the gate to the three, this uses the real to meet the provisional; up to duality and non-duality, it is also likewise. Since they can mutually serve as gates, they can also mutually serve as marks; it is only that they cannot mutually serve as provisional and real. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 5.12](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1720.5.12) - [Next: 5.14](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1720.5.14) - [Up: 5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1720.5) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1720~en-mt.5.13) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1720.5.13](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1720.5.13) · Pramāṇa