大般涅槃經集解 36.69

36.69

案僧亮曰：兼答因緣二難。雖是因緣，而緣中有異，非一非三也。僧宗曰：答第四難也。若行於慈心未有悲喜，以四行不同，始終一人行此四德，豈得以利鈍為難耶？寶亮曰：答第二第三難也。第二難言：一緣眾生、二緣所須之法，佛不須緣。若爾，唯是一眾生也。境既是一，但應一也。第三難云：一緣眾生、二緣假名空、三緣實法空，是則境三，故應三也。此答意言：雖曰境同，然行人之行有深有淺，自有能行初一不能行後三，自有能行第二不能行第四，云何難言境是同故應一應三耶？

Sengliang states: This also answers the two objections regarding cause and condition. Although they are causes and conditions, within the conditions there are differences, neither one nor three. Sengzong states: This answers the fourth objection. If one practices the mind of loving-kindness, compassion and sympathetic joy are not yet present; because the four practices differ, from beginning to end one person practices these four virtues; how could one object based on sharp and dull capacities? Baoliang states: This answers the second and third objections. The second objection stated: first, taking sentient beings as the object; second, taking the requisite dharmas as the object; the Buddha does not need objects. If so, there is only one, sentient beings. Since the object is one, there should only be one. The third objection stated: first, taking sentient beings as the object; second, taking the emptiness of nominal designation as the object; third, taking the emptiness of actual dharmas as the object; thus the objects are three, so there should be three. The intent of this reply is: although the object is said to be the same, the practices of the practitioner have shallow and deep; there are those who can practice the first one but cannot practice the latter three, and those who can practice the second but cannot practice the fourth; how could one object that because the object is the same, there should be one or three?