[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) › [法華義疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1721) › 3.297 # 法華義疏 3.297 法華義疏 3.297 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.297](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1721.3.297) 數之次第謂一二三，上既言但以一佛乘，是故今明無有第二乘、第三乘，此是從上數以至下，故為次第。所以前明佛乘有者，為欲釋成上唯有一事，故前明唯有一也。文相歷然，不應更有異釋。有人言：若二者，聲聞、緣覺二乘也；若三者，謂三乘之中大乘也。有人言：若二者，大、小二乘也。有人言：若二者，人、天乘也；若三者，謂三乘也。此悉非解，不須破之。「一切十方諸佛法亦如是」者，所以有此文來者，上明唯有一乘，無有餘乘若二若三。時眾謂釋迦獨作此判則不信受，是故今引十方諸佛為證，非獨我明唯有一乘無有餘乘，十方諸佛亦如是說也。 > The sequence of numbers is called one, two, three. Above it was already stated, 'solely by means of the one Buddha vehicle'; therefore now it is explained that there is neither a second vehicle nor a third vehicle. This is counting from the top down, hence it is sequential. The reason the Buddha vehicle was explained first as existing was to explain and consummate that above there is solely one matter; therefore it was first explained that there is solely the one. The textual phrasing is distinct and clear; there should not be any different interpretation. Some people say: 'if two' means the two vehicles of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas; 'if three' means the Great Vehicle among the three vehicles. Some people say: 'if two' means the two vehicles, Mahāyāna and Hīnayāna. Some people say: 'if two' means the human and heavenly vehicles; 'if three' means the three vehicles. None of these are correct understandings; there is no need to refute them. Regarding 'The Dharma of all buddhas of the ten directions is also like this': the reason this passage occurs is that above it was explained that there is solely the one vehicle and there are no other vehicles, whether two or three. The assembly at that time thought that Śākyamuni made this determination on his own and thus would not faithfully accept it; therefore, the buddhas of the ten directions are now cited as verification, showing that it is not I alone who explain that there is solely the one vehicle and no other vehicles—the buddhas of the ten directions also speak in this way. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.296](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1721.3.296) - [Next: 3.298](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1721.3.298) - [Up: 3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1721.3) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1721~en-mt.3.297) — English, machine translation ## Linked texts (1) - [法華論疏](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1818.2.488) — Classical Chinese --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1721.3.297](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1721.3.297) · Pramāṇa