[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) › 3.299 # 法華義疏 3.299 法華義疏 3.299 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [3.299](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1721.3.299) 「舍利弗！我今亦復如是」下，此第三、明順同門，以三世諸佛既作此說，釋迦順而同之亦作此說，以理既無二故諸佛道同，若不信釋迦之言則違三世佛教，罪之太也；若信釋迦之言則信三世佛說，則福之深也。為明勸信故辨順同也。就文為兩：初、明顯一；次、明破二。顯一之中，初、明教門；次、辨教所表理。「知諸眾生有種種欲」者，五乘欲樂不同也。「深心所著」者，習五乘欲深，是故著於五乘也。「隨其本性」者，習欲既深則便成性，性不可改隨而說之。「以種種因緣」者，上明知機，今明順機說教也。「舍利弗！如此皆為得一佛乘」者，上明教門，今謂教所表理也。「十方世界中尚無二乘何況有三」者，上明有一，今明無二也。二乘不知唯有一，是故明有一；不知無有二，是故今破二。又欲發後方便說三，是故先明道理無三也。但此經破二凡有三門：一者、用一破二。如前云「唯有一佛乘，無有餘乘若二若三」，後偈亦云「唯有一事實，餘二則非真」，是為以一破二。二者、以二破三。則如今文「尚無二乘何況有三」，二乘者緣覺也，三乘者聲聞也。緣覺為勝於理尚無，聲聞為劣豈當得有？此意明至理尚不可有二，何況有三耶？又作此破者，法華之會乃通為三乘而正破聲聞，故〈譬喻品〉云「為諸聲聞說大乘經」，是以今舉無緣覺之勝指斥聲聞之劣，此名以二破三也。三者、以三破二。明於一佛乘方便說三，三既是權，二豈是實耶？前之二門以無斥有，後之一門以權破實。 > From 'Śāriputra! I now am also like this' onwards is the third section, explaining the gate of conforming and agreeing. Since the buddhas of the three periods of time have already spoken in this way, Śākyamuni conforms to and agrees with them by also speaking in this way. Because the principle is not dual, the path of the buddhas is identical; if one does not believe Śākyamuni's words, one opposes the teachings of the buddhas of the three periods of time, and the transgression is grave indeed; if one believes Śākyamuni's words, one believes the preachings of the buddhas of the three periods of time, and the merit is profound indeed. It is to encourage faith that conforming and agreeing are explained. With respect to the text, there are two parts: first, revealing the one; next, refuting the two. Within revealing the one, first the teaching gate is explained, and next the principle represented by the teaching is distinguished. Regarding 'knowing that sentient beings have various desires': the desires and inclinations of the five vehicles are different. Regarding 'what their deep minds are attached to': their habituation to the desires of the five vehicles is deep, and therefore they are attached to the five vehicles. Regarding 'in accordance with their fundamental natures': since their habituation to desires is deep, it becomes their nature; nature cannot be altered, so he speaks in accordance with it. Regarding 'by means of various causes and conditions': above it was explained that he knows their capacities; now it is explained that he speaks the teaching in accordance with their capacities. Regarding 'Śāriputra! All such things are for the sake of attaining the one Buddha vehicle': above was the teaching gate; now this refers to the principle represented by the teaching. Regarding 'In the worlds of the ten directions there are not even two vehicles, how much less three': above it was explained that there is the one; now it is explained that there are not two. Those of the two vehicles do not know that there is solely the one, and therefore he explains that there is the one; they do not know that there are not two, and therefore he now refutes the two. Furthermore, wishing to introduce the subsequent expedient preaching of the three, he first explains that the principle is without three. However, this sūtra's refutation of the two has three gates in all: first, using the one to refute the two. As said earlier, 'there is solely the one Buddha vehicle, and there are no other vehicles, whether two or three,' and a later verse also states, 'Solely the one matter is real, / The other two are not true,' this is using the one to refute the two. Second, using the two to refute the three. This is like the present passage, 'there are not even two vehicles, how much less three': the second vehicle is the pratyekabuddha, and the third vehicle is the śrāvaka. If the pratyekabuddha is superior and yet does not exist in principle, how could the śrāvaka, which is inferior, possibly exist? This intent clarifies that the ultimate principle cannot even admit two, how much less could it admit three? Furthermore, making this refutation is because the assembly of the Lotus Sūtra addresses the three vehicles in common yet specifically refutes the śrāvakas; hence the 'Parable Chapter' says, 'expounding the Mahāyāna sūtra for the śrāvakas.' Thus he now brings up the absence of the superior pratyekabuddha to criticize and expose the inferior śrāvaka; this is called using the two to refute the three. Third, using the three to refute the two. It explains that within the one Buddha vehicle, three are expediential spoken; since the three are provisional, how could the two be real? The former two gates criticize existence with nonexistence; the latter one gate refutes the real with the provisional. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 3.298](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1721.3.298) - [Next: 3.300](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1721.3.300) - [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.3.299) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1721.3.299](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1721.3.299) · Pramāṇa