肇論新疏 3.278

3.278

初二句雙審。若我下，出第一過，明人法相即，既人法相即，人三法三，何云法一也？又若我下，出第二過，明人法兩異，無為有為兩分，有為三乘應（不）冥會於無為之理，何言三乘冥會耶？

The first two clauses investigate both sides. From "If the self" onwards, it brings out the first fault, clarifying the identity of person and Dharma: since person and Dharma are identical, if persons are three, then the Dharma is three—how could one say the Dharma is one? Furthermore, from "If the self" onwards, it brings out the second fault, clarifying the difference between person and Dharma: the unconditioned and the conditioned are divided into two, so the conditioned three vehicles should not profoundly commune with the unconditioned principle—how can one speak of profound communion for the three vehicles?