[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Buddhist Literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha) › [Taishō Tripiṭaka (Chinese Buddhist canon)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho) › [法界圖記叢髓錄](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1887b) › 1.153 # 法界圖記叢髓錄 1.153 法界圖記叢髓錄 1.153 - **Language:** Classical Chinese ### [1.153](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1887b.1.153) 古記云：藏疏云：論主作四門解釋（云云）。此四門名雖是疏主自作，然彼論中本具其義，故云論主作四門也。問：此四門者皆一乘耶？或三乘耶？答：一云：四門皆是一乘。何者？初門則通教及義，乃至通因及果，混通無礙（云云），如是約十種普法名；第二門則無別之別；第三門則別而無別；第四門則總別無礙故。一云：初後二門同前釋也；第二則依根本入開九入末，同於三乘依一心本流成六道；第三則會九入末歸根本入，亦同三乘會六道差別歸平等一心之義。故此二門並三乘也。一云：初一一乘。次二三乘，亦同前釋。第四門則雖明六相，六相教興意云：破定執見以現緣起。既云破執而後現德，故是修相門之圓融義。故對初門總釋現本之一乘，故云三乘也。一云：論主於前三門不明六相，至第四門論六相故，約此論文相現著，則前三三乘、後一一乘也。然第四門明六相時，將前三門本末論故。約第四門看，則前之三門皆亦一乘也。問：此第四本末無礙，其義云何？答：一云：第八會疏云「本會舒為末會，末會卷為本會故」。今此亦爾，開根本總成九入末會，九入末成根本總也。一云：一乘中無定本末故，舉一為主，餘則為伴。是以於十入中隨舉為本，餘則為末也。一云：本則自恒本、末亦自恒末，而無礙也。謂一向根本入名為總，非以餘九入名為總；一向餘九入名為別，非以根本入名為別也。問：若爾，何成本末無礙耶？答：依總開別時，若破根本總而成九入末，則別礙於總也。會別成總時亦若爾，則總礙於別也。然而總不動而成別、別不動而成總，故本則恒本、末則恒末，而能成無礙也。問：六相章云：椽即是舍故名總相，舍即是椽故名別相（已上）。依此文，則可許本還為末、末還為本耶？答：一乘之中若不成則已，成則離始終故，雖云椽即是舍，既是舍時離始終故，非是先有別椽後成舍也。是故不云本還為末、末還為本也。問：椽是別緣，既云椽即是舍，故亦有攝入等別為總之義，故亦可云末還為本之義。何不然耶？答：若攝入等為總之義，即是根本入故，但以總名為總，不以別名為總也。是以攝入等若為總，則但云根本入也。 > The Ancient Record states: Master Zang's commentary says that the author of the treatise provides an explanation through four gates, and so forth. Although the names of these four gates were formulated by the commentary's author himself, their principles were originally contained within that treatise; hence it is said that the author of the treatise provides four gates. Question: Are these four gates entirely of the One Vehicle, or are they of the three vehicles? Answer: One view says that all four gates belong to the One Vehicle. Why? Because the first gate extends through teachings and meanings, and even through causes and effects, blending and pervading without obstruction, and so on; thus it is named in terms of the ten kinds of universal dharmas. The second gate is the particular of the non-particular; the third gate is the particular yet non-particular; and the fourth gate is the non-obstruction of the universal and the particular. Another view says that the first and last gates are explained as above; the second gate unfolds the branches of the nine entries based on the root entry, which is the same as the three vehicles' unfolding of the six destinies based on the root of the one mind; and the third gate converges the branches of the nine entries back to the root entry, which is also identical to the three vehicles' principle of converging the distinctions of the six destinies back to the impartial one mind. Therefore, both of these two gates belong to the three vehicles. Another view says that the first gate alone is the One Vehicle. The middle two are of the three vehicles, which is also as explained above. As for the fourth gate, although it explains the six characteristics, the intention behind the arising of the teaching of the six characteristics is: "Shattering fixed clinging and views in order to manifest pratītyasamutpāda." Since it speaks of shattering clinging and thereafter manifesting virtues, this is the meaning of perfect interfusion in the gate of cultivated characteristics. Therefore, in contrast to the first gate's One Vehicle of generally explaining and manifesting the root, it is called the three vehicles. Another view says: The author of the treatise did not explain the six characteristics in the previous three gates, but only came to discuss the six characteristics in the fourth gate; thus, in terms of the clear manifestation of textual characteristics, the former three are of the three vehicles and the latter one is of the One Vehicle. However, when the fourth gate explains the six characteristics, it takes the root and branch of the previous three gates to discuss them. Viewed from the perspective of the fourth gate, then, the previous three gates are also all of the One Vehicle. Question: As for this fourth \[gate\], the non-obstruction of root and branch, what is its meaning? Answer: One view says: The commentary on the eighth assembly states, "Because the root assembly expands into the branch assemblies, and the branch assemblies contract into the root assembly." Here it is also like this: opening the universal root forms the branch assemblies of the nine entries, and the branch assemblies of the nine entries form the universal root. Another view says: Because within the One Vehicle there are no fixed root and branch, positing one as the ruler, the rest are the retinue. Therefore, whichever among the ten entries is posited as the root, the rest are branches. Another view says: The root is of itself eternally the root, and the branches are also of themselves eternally branches, and yet they are unobstructed. That is to say, solely the root entry is named the universal, and the other nine entries are not named the universal; solely the other nine entries are named the particular, and the root entry is not named the particular. Question: If so, how is the non-obstruction of root and branch established? Answer: When unfolding the particular based on the universal, if the universal root were destroyed to form the branches of the nine entries, then the particular would obstruct the universal. When converging the particular to form the universal, if it were also like this, then the universal would obstruct the particular. However, the universal without moving forms the particular, and the particular without moving forms the universal; therefore the root is eternally the root, and the branches are eternally branches, and yet they can achieve non-obstruction. Question: The Section on the Six Characteristics states: "The rafter is precisely the house, hence it is named the universal characteristic; the house is precisely the rafter, hence it is named the particular characteristic" (end of quote). Relying on this text, then, may it be accepted that the root reverts to being branches, and branches revert to being the root? Answer: Within the One Vehicle, if something is not formed, it remains so; but once formed, it is free from beginning and end. Thus, although it says that the rafter is precisely the house, precisely when it is the house it is free from beginning and end; it is not that there are first distinct rafters and afterwards they form a house. Therefore, one does not say that the root reverts to being branches, or branches revert to being the root. Question: The rafter is a particular condition. Since it says that the rafter is precisely the house, there is also the meaning that particulars such as inclusion and entry become the universal; hence one could also speak of the meaning of branches reverting to being the root. Why is this not so? Answer: If particulars such as inclusion and entry have the meaning of being the universal, that is precisely the root entry; it is only named the universal by the name "universal," not named the universal by the name "particular." Therefore, if inclusion, entry, and the like are the universal, one simply speaks of the root entry. > — English (machine translation) (machine translation) - [Previous: 1.152](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1887b.1.152) - [Next: 1.154](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1887b.1.154) - [Up: 1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1887b.1) ## Translations (1) - [English (machine translation)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1887b~en-mt.1.153) — English, machine translation --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1887b.1.153](https://indike.org/pramana/in.bauddha.taisho.1887b.1.153) · Pramāṇa