肇論疏 3.43

3.43

責三乘之異，故云責異也。有名曰俱出火宅則無患一也下，法喻雙明也。三子俱出火宅，三乘同出生死也。而彼岸無異異自我耳者，牒前言也。若我即無為下，若一則人法無別，不得言法同而人別也。若我異無為下，若異即人法全別，不得言人會無為也。無為自無為下，明所以異。不同是一，故曰不通也。然則我與無為下，雙結一異兩關也。一則不合有三乘，異則不得有一乘也。三乘之名何由而生者，一異兩關。既無有三，何得有三乘名字耶？

He challenges the differences among the three vehicles; hence it is called "Challenging Difference." From "The Named One says: If they together leave the burning house, then their affliction-free state is one" downward, both the doctrine and the metaphor are clarified. The three children all together leave the burning house; the three vehicles alike leave birth and death. "Yet the other shore is not different; the difference comes from oneself" takes up the preceding words. From "If the self is identical to the unconditioned" downward: if they are one, then person and Dharma have no difference, and one cannot say that the Dharma is identical while persons differ. From "If the self is different from the unconditioned" downward: if they are different, then person and Dharma are completely distinct, and one cannot say that the person joins with the unconditioned. From "The unconditioned is of itself unconditioned" downward clarifies the reason for difference. Not being identical as one, it is therefore said not to connect. From "If so, then between the self and the unconditioned" downward, he doubly concludes the two dilemmas of oneness and difference. If they are one, it is unfitting that there be three vehicles; if they are different, one cannot attain the one vehicle. "Whence could the names of the three vehicles arise?": these are the two dilemmas of oneness and difference. Since neither three nor one is possible, how could the names of the three vehicles exist?