大乘玄論 3.18

3.18

次引經文。問曰：經云「十方佛土中，唯有一乘法，無二亦無三。」云何名無二無三耶？答曰：有人言，無二者無聲聞緣覺二，無三者無偏行六度菩薩。又昔三乘皆是方便，今教別有一車，異昔三也。問：何以然？答：經云「佛以方便力，示以三乘教。」通以三為方便，則以三為方便，則以一為真實，則會昔三乘歸今一實也。又云「願賜我等三種寶車。」昔既索三，今便賜一，故索所不與、與所不索，則知別有大車異昔三小，以文理推之則有四車也。評曰：三車四車，諍論紛綸由來久矣。了之則一部可通，迷之則八軸皆壅。今以八文徵之，方見此釋為謬。第一文云「如來但以一佛乘故，為眾生說法，無有餘乘若二若三。」此文次第列三乘也。但以一佛乘者，謂佛乘為第一也。無有餘乘若二若三者，無有緣覺為第二、聲聞為第三。以此文詳之，則唯有三車，則執四為謬矣。問曰：經常列三乘，不作次二次第，今何以然耶？答曰：以佛乘為第一、緣覺為第二、聲聞為第三，此從上數至下，豈非次第耶？問曰：何故作此次第耶？答曰：此正判三乘有無義也。初句明唯有一佛乘；次句無二無三，明無餘乘。以唯有一佛乘故，佛乘為實；無二無三故，二乘為方便也。又〈普門品〉中亦列佛乘為初、次及緣覺、後明聲聞，與今同矣。第二文云「尚無二乘，何況有三。」《大論》舉況者，皆舉勝以況劣。若言第三是偏行六度菩薩者，昔三乘中佛乘為勝、二乘為劣。若言第三，乃應舉三況餘二，云何舉二況第三耶？三者偈云「唯此一事實，餘二則非真。」唯此一事者，即一佛乘實也。餘二則非真，緣覺聲聞此二非真也。則以偈文釋長行無二無三意，佛恐像末鈍根尋經不解，故轉勢頌之，令煥然易悟。第四文云「諸佛語無異，唯一無二乘。」全同前矣。第五文云「但以一乘法，教化諸菩薩，無聲聞弟子。」此文最分明。既云但以一乘教化菩薩，則有菩薩也；無聲聞弟子，則無餘二乘也。六者〈信解品〉云「密遣二人。」七者〈化城喻品〉云「世間無有二乘而得滅度，唯一佛乘而得滅度耳。」八者偈云「唯有一佛乘，息處故說二。」諸文甚多，略舉八證。此釋既非，則四乘義謬，會三亦失。復有人言：但有三乘，會三歸一者，歸三中佛乘，非三外別有一也。評曰：若但有三乘，不違八證。尋經首尾，復害六文。佛以方便力示三乘教，則知三乘皆是方便，云何會二方便歸一方便耶？又云「於一佛乘，分別說三。」又云「於一佛乘，隨宜說三。」又諸子索三，父皆不與。明無三可趣索，有一以賜機。若三中之一是實有者，諸子無所索、父無所賜也。又虛指門外，明有三車；諸子出門，無三可見。若三中之一是實有者，父非虛指、子出應見。又三中之一是實者，則會二歸一，不名會三歸一。問：立四則違八證，辨三復害六文。請會通之，令無豪滯。答：世間淺識言不相違，況復一切智人說應鉾楯？又如來說八萬法藏乃至塵沙法門尚無二言，況一經中應有兩說？以此推之，是知失在學人，何復敢嫌大聖。今所明者，八證六文猶一意耳，且會二文餘皆可領：一云「方便說三」，次云「唯一是實，餘二非實」者。唯一佛乘，欲引導眾生故，方便說三。考實而言，唯一佛乘是實、餘二非真，是故說三說二猶一意耳。假設近喻以況遠旨。如父手中唯有一果，欲引諸子，說一果為三果。考實而論，唯有一果無二果。是故二文無相違也。以三二既明，會義可領。晚見《法華論》釋「十方佛土中，尚無二乘，何況有三」，與今意同。論云「此是遮者，明無二乘涅槃，唯佛究竟無上菩提有大涅槃耳。」此但明無有二乘、唯有佛乘，不言無偏行六度菩薩，故光宅失旨也。

Next is citing scriptural passages. Question: The sūtra says: "In the buddha-lands of the ten directions, there is only the Dharma of the One Vehicle; there is neither a second nor a third." What does "neither a second nor a third" mean? Answer: Some say that "no second" means there are not the two of śrāvakas and pratyekabuddhas, while "no third" means there is no bodhisattva who exclusively practices the six perfections. Furthermore, the three vehicles of the past were all expedient means, and the present teaching distinctly possesses one cart that is different from the past three. Question: Why is that? Answer: The sūtra says, "The Buddha, through the power of expedient means, showed the teaching of the three vehicles." Generally taking the three as expedient means, if the three are expedient means, then the one is real, which converges the past three vehicles to return to the present one reality. It also says, "We pray that you bestow upon us the three kinds of precious carts." In the past they asked for three, and now he bestows one; hence what was asked for was not given, and what was given was not asked for. From this one knows there is distinctly a great cart different from the past three small ones; deducing this from text and principle, there are four carts. Assessment: The debate over three carts or four carts has been entangled for a long time. If one understands it, the whole text can be penetrated; if one is confused about it, all eight fascicles are blocked. Now, examining it through eight textual passages, one only then sees that this interpretation is erroneous. The first passage says, "The Tathāgata, solely by means of the one Buddha Vehicle, preaches the Dharma for sentient beings; there is no other vehicle, whether a second or a third." This passage lists the three vehicles in order. "Solely by means of the one Buddha Vehicle" refers to the Buddha Vehicle as the first. "There is no other vehicle, whether a second or a third" means there is no pratyekabuddha as the second, nor śrāvaka as the third. Scrutinizing it through this passage, there are only three carts, so grasping at four is erroneous. Question: Sūtras usually list the three vehicles without making this kind of sequence; why is it like this now? Answer: Taking the Buddha Vehicle as the first, pratyekabuddha as the second, and śrāvaka as the third—this counts down from above; how is it not a sequence? Question: Why make this sequence? Answer: This precisely determines the meaning of the existence and nonexistence of the three vehicles. The first phrase clarifies that there is only the one Buddha Vehicle; the next phrase, "neither a second nor a third," clarifies that there are no other vehicles. Because there is only the one Buddha Vehicle, the Buddha Vehicle is real; because there is neither a second nor a third, the two vehicles are expedient means. Furthermore, the "Universal Gate Chapter" also lists the Buddha Vehicle first, next pratyekabuddha, and lastly śrāvaka, which is identical to the present [passage]. The second passage says, "There are not even two vehicles, how much less could there be three?" When the Mahāprajñāpāramitopadeśa raises an a fortiori comparison, it always raises the superior to compare with the inferior. If one says the third is the bodhisattva who exclusively practices the six perfections, then among the three vehicles of the past, the Buddha Vehicle was superior and the two vehicles were inferior. If one speaks of a third, one ought to have raised the third to compare with the other two; how could one raise the two to compare with the third? Third, the verse says, "Only this one matter is real; the other two are not true." "Only this one matter" is the reality of the one Buddha Vehicle. "The other two are not true" means that these two, pratyekabuddha and śrāvaka, are not true. This uses the verse passage to explain the intent of "neither a second nor a third" in the prose; fearing that those of dull faculties in the Semblance and Final ages would consult the sūtra without understanding, the Buddha shifted the momentum and versified it to make it clear and easy to awaken to. The fourth passage says, "The words of the buddhas are without difference: solely one, without two vehicles." This is entirely the same as the former. The fifth passage says, "Solely by means of the Dharma of the One Vehicle does he teach and transform bodhisattvas; there are no śrāvaka disciples." This passage is the most distinct. Since it says that solely by means of the One Vehicle does he teach and transform bodhisattvas, there are bodhisattvas; "there are no śrāvaka disciples" means there are no other two vehicles. Sixth, the "Faith and Understanding Chapter" says, "Secretly dispatched two men." Seventh, the "Parable of the Conjured City Chapter" says, "In the world there are not two vehicles that attain extinction and crossing over; there is only the one Buddha Vehicle that attains extinction and crossing over." Eighth, the verse says, "There is only the one Buddha Vehicle; for the sake of resting places, two were preached." The various passages are very numerous; I briefly raise eight proofs. Since that interpretation is incorrect, the doctrine of four vehicles is erroneous, and the convergence of the three is also lost. Yet another person says: There are only three vehicles; "converging the three to return to the one" means returning to the Buddha Vehicle among the three, not that there is distinctly an extra one outside the three. Assessment: If there are only three vehicles, it does not contradict the eight proofs; yet examining the sūtra from beginning to end, it harms six textual passages. "The Buddha, through the power of expedient means, showed the teaching of the three vehicles" shows that the three vehicles are all expedient means; how could one converge two expedients to return to one expedient? Also it says, "Regarding the one Buddha Vehicle, he discriminately preached three." Also it says, "Regarding the one Buddha Vehicle, according with what is fitting, he preached three." Furthermore, the sons asked for three, and the father gave none of them, clarifying that there were no three that could be sought after, and there was one to bestow according to capacity. If the one among the three were real, the sons would have nothing to ask for and the father would have nothing to bestow. Furthermore, pointing falsely outside the gate, he made clear that there were three carts; when the sons went out the gate, there were no three to be seen. If the one among the three were real, the father would not have pointed falsely, and the sons, going out, ought to have seen it. Moreover, if the one among the three were real, then it would be converging two to return to one, not converging three to return to one. Question: Establishing four contradicts the eight proofs, while distinguishing three harms the six passages. Please harmonize them so that there is no slightest obstruction. Answer: In the world, even those of shallow understanding do not contradict their own words; how much less could the speech of the Omniscient One be contradictory? Furthermore, when the Tathāgata preached eighty thousand Dharma treasuries down to dust-sand Dharma-gates, he still had no two words; how could there be two conflicting accounts within a single sūtra? Deducing from this, one knows the fault lies with the student; how could one dare blame the Great Sage? What is clarified now is that the eight proofs and six passages have only a single intent; just harmonizing two passages, the rest can all be grasped: one says "expediently preaching three," and next it says "only one is real, the other two are not real." Regarding only the one Buddha Vehicle, wishing to guide sentient beings, he expediently preached three. When examined according to reality, only the one Buddha Vehicle is real, and the other two are not true; therefore, preaching three and preaching two have only one intent. Let us tentatively posit an everyday analogy to illustrate the distant purport: just as a father has only one piece of fruit in his hand, and wishing to entice his sons, he speaks of the one fruit as three fruits; when examined according to reality, there is only one fruit and not two fruits. Therefore, the two passages do not contradict each other. Since three and two are clarified, the meaning of convergence can be grasped. Later I saw the Saddharmapuṇḍarīkopadeśa explaining "In the buddha-lands of the ten directions, there are not even two vehicles, how much less could there be three?", which is identical to the present view. The treatise says: "This is a refutation, clarifying that there is no nirvāṇa of the two vehicles, but only the Buddha's ultimate unexcelled bodhi possessing great nirvāṇa." This only clarifies that there are no two vehicles and only the Buddha Vehicle, not saying that there is no bodhisattva who exclusively practices the six perfections; hence Guangzhai lost the purport.