大般涅槃經疏 28.28

28.28

「我於經」下，第十八明一乘三乘。諸部之中無此計。何者？一三皆是大乘所說，非其境界，所以無此。文云一乘一道一因等，並云不解我意者。《法華》明解一乘一道，即知三乘同還一理，即是此乘，何得言非？解云：前文亦云能得常住二子不墮惡道，此那更云執常不解佛意？何異執一乘一道不解佛意耶？又若言三乘同歸一乘得成佛者，《大論》何故問云：聲聞人成佛不成佛？論主答云：此事非論義者所知。若爾，豈可得言同歸一理為定是耶？文中二：初明皆得佛道，即是一乘；後明不得，即是三乘。言羅漢二種現在未來者，現在正斷，未來不生。「我經中」下，第十九明佛性離眾生即眾生。諸部亦無，並是近代所計即離。當果與真神即是離眾生有，心及眾生即眾生有，並不得佛意。文中二：先舉六事及三文明離、後說眾生即是佛性。

From "I, in the sūtras" below, the eighteenth clarifies the one vehicle and the three vehicles. Among the various [Hīnayāna] schools, there is no such assertion. Why? Both the one and the three are taught by the Mahāyāna and are not their sphere, so they do not have this. The text says that "one vehicle, one path, one cause," and so forth all mean not understanding my intent. The *Lotus Sūtra* clarifies understanding the one vehicle and the one path, namely knowing that the three vehicles together return to the single principle, which is this vehicle; how could one say it is not? The explanation says: earlier the text also said that being able to attain permanence means the two sons do not fall into evil destinies; how then does it further say that clinging to permanence is not understanding the Buddha's intent? How is this different from clinging to the one vehicle and one path being not understanding the Buddha's intent? Furthermore, if one says that the three vehicles equally return to the one vehicle and attain the realization of buddhahood, why does the *Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra* ask: "Do śrāvakas attain buddhahood or not?" The author of the treatise answers: "This matter is not something that debaters can know." If so, how can one definitively state that equally returning to the single principle is right? The text has two parts: first clarifying that all attain the Buddha's path, which is the one vehicle; later clarifying that they do not attain it, which is the three vehicles. As for speaking of the arhat as of two kinds, present and future: in the present they are correctly severing [afflictions], and in the future [afflictions] will not arise. From "In my sūtras" below, the nineteenth clarifies whether the buddhadhātu is apart from sentient beings or identical to sentient beings. The various schools also do not have this; these are all positions asserted in recent times regarding identity and separation. The future fruition and the true spirit are existing apart from sentient beings; the mind and sentient beings are existing as sentient beings; neither captures the Buddha's intent. The text has two parts: first adducing the six matters and the three illuminations to clarify separation, and later explaining that sentient beings are precisely the buddhadhātu.