法華宗要 1.12

1.12

答：或有說者，三皆非實，如前文說。而言一實二非真者，三中之一與無三之一俱是佛乘，通說是實；餘二不用開，別言非實。由是義故，二文不違。或有說者，唯二非實，如後文故。而說三乘皆方便者，於一實中加二非實合說為三，是三非實。如人手內實有一菓，方便言三。三非是實，無三菓故，考而論之，一菓是實、二是方便，有一菓故。如《智度論》云：「於一佛乘開為三分。」如人分一斗米以為三聚，亦得言「會三聚歸一」，亦得言「會二聚歸」，會三會二猶是一義，不相違也。或有說者，前後二文各有異意，不可一會。所以然者，三乘之教有其二種：一者別教、二通教。別教三乘三皆非實，皆是方便，以彼教說三僧祇劫唯修四度，百劫之中修相好業，最後身中修於定惠，菩提樹下成無上覺，如是因果以為佛乘，是故佛乘亦是方便。若論通教所說三乘，佛乘是實，定餘二非真，以彼教說於十地中具修六度萬行圓滿致薩婆若，此薩婆若果不與三世合，如是因果究竟真實，此為佛乘，豈是方便？是故當知二文意異。「我有方便力，開示三乘法」者，是顯別教所說三乘也，「唯是一事實，餘二則非真」者，是對通教所說三乘，其餘諸文皆作是通。

Answer: Some say that all three are unreal, as the previous text says. As for saying that the one is real and the two are not true, the one within the three and the one that has no three are both the Buddha-vehicle, so broadly speaking it is real; the other two need not be opened, so specifically speaking they are unreal. Due to this meaning, the two texts do not contradict each other.
Some say that only two are unreal, because of the latter text. As for saying that the Triyāna are all provisional expedients, by adding the two unreal [vehicles] to the one real, they are spoken together as three, and these three are unreal. It is like a person who truly has one fruit in hand, but provisionally says there are three. 'Three' is not real, because there are not three fruits; yet examining and discussing it, the one fruit is real and the two are expedients, because there is one fruit. As the Dazhidulun says: 'Within the one Buddha-vehicle, it is opened into three portions.' Just as a person divides one peck of rice into three heaps, one may say 'converging the three heaps into one,' or one may say 'converging the two heaps'; converging three or converging two is still the same meaning, and they do not contradict each other.
Some say that the earlier and later texts each have a different intention and cannot be reconciled as one. Why is this? There are two kinds of Triyāna teachings: first, the distinct teaching; second, the common teaching. In the Triyāna of the distinct teaching, all three are unreal and all are provisional expedients, because that teaching says that in three asaṃkhyeya kalpas one cultivates only four pāramitās, during one hundred kalpas cultivates the karma of the marks and characteristics, in the final body cultivates meditative concentration and wisdom, and attains anuttarā samyaksambodhi beneath the bodhi tree. Taking such causes and fruit as the Buddha-vehicle, the Buddha-vehicle is therefore also a provisional expedient. But discussing the Triyāna preached in the common teaching, the Buddha-vehicle is real, and definitely the other two are not true, because that teaching says that within the ten grounds one fully cultivates the six pāramitās, perfects the myriad practices, and attains sarvajñā; this fruit of sarvajñā does not combine with the three periods of time, and such cause and fruit are ultimate and real. This being the Buddha-vehicle, how could it be an expedient? Therefore one should know that the intentions of the two texts differ. 'I have the power of skillful means to open and reveal the teachings of the Triyāna' clarifies the Triyāna preached in the distinct teaching; 'Only this one matter is real; the other two are not true' addresses the Triyāna preached in the common teaching. The rest of the texts are all resolved in this manner.