X58n0996_華嚴一乘教義分齊章焚薪
卍新續藏第 58 冊 No. 0996 華嚴一乘教義分齊章焚薪
No. 996
焚薪卷第一(或曰析薪膏肓)(婺州張明刊)
可堂 師會 錄
韓非曰先王有郢書而後世多燕說議者曰家奮私智以講無詔之書幾何其不為燕說夫析薪之記教章是語獻替而對以鰕鲊者也又何暇其為燕說而已哉嗚呼美西子之捧心不自寤其醜乃蟷螂之用其才也昔者偽經亂轍南山聚而焚之曰毋以曲學誘諸子于亡羊之岐故吾作焚薪又聞穀梁左氏之病有能針而起之者斯文之病雖康成再出越人更生弗可及已故覆命其篇曰析薪膏肓云耳。
初題目雲華嚴者探玄雲華嚴之稱梵語名健拏驃訶健拏名雜華驃訶名嚴飾日照三藏說云西域別有一供養具名驃訶其狀六重下闊上狹飾以華寶一一重內皆安佛像良以此經六位重疊位位成佛正類彼事故立此名據此今唯標華嚴者乃約事為名也至豈非略名耶。
議曰此釋有乎三病二可笑三病者且茲經者疏抄如雲流通日久孰不知其華梵況此止釋一章門乎等閑會於梵語一病也探玄周疏具釋斯題玄言妙語溢目盈空置而勿用陸沉正義二病也吾祖廣演多門具收余義故有事名清涼見其旁來是以疏抄不錄今獨取此以旁為正三病也二可笑者不知人之不用而謂人之不知一可笑也欲以初卷探玄張己博
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本
卍新續藏第 58 冊 No. 0996 華嚴一乘教義分齊章焚薪
No. 996
焚薪卷第一(或曰析薪膏肓)(婺州張明刊)
可堂 師會 錄
韓非說，先王有了郢（Yǐng）地的書信，後世就多了燕（Yān）地的說法。議論的人說，各家憑藉自己的私智來講解沒有詔命的書籍，怎麼能不變成燕地的說法呢？那麼，我記錄『析薪』（xī xīn，劈柴）的教義章節，是進獻建議卻被回覆以醃魚肉，又哪裡有空閑變成燕地的說法呢？唉，西施（Xī Shī，中國古代美女）捧心卻不自覺自己的醜陋，就像螳螂（táng láng）使用它的才能一樣。過去，偽經擾亂了正道，南山（Nán Shān）的僧人聚集起來焚燒它們，說不要用片面的學說誘導人們走上迷途。所以我寫作《焚薪》。又聽說穀梁（Gǔ Liáng）、左氏（Zuǒ Shì）的疾病，有能用鍼灸治好的。但斯文的疾病，即使扁鵲（Biǎn Què）再次出現，越人（Yuè Rén）重生也無法醫治了。所以重新命名這篇為《析薪膏肓》罷了。
最初題目說『華嚴』，探玄（Tàn Xuán）中說，『華嚴』的稱謂，梵語名為健拏驃訶（Gaṇḍavyūha）（意為華麗的裝飾）。健拏（Gaṇḍa）名為雜華，驃訶（vyūha）名為嚴飾。日照三藏（Rì Zhào Sān Zàng）說，西域另有一種供養具名為驃訶，它的形狀是六重，下寬上窄，用華麗的寶物裝飾，每一重內都安放佛像。正是因為此經六位重疊，位位成佛，正像那供養具的形制，所以立此名。根據這個，現在只標『華嚴』，是就事來命名的。難道不是省略的名稱嗎？
議論說，這個解釋有三個毛病，兩個可笑之處。三個毛病是：況且這部經，疏抄（shū chāo，經書的註解）中如雲，流通日久，誰不知道它的華梵（指梵語和漢語）？況且這裡只是解釋一個章節的題目，隨便牽扯到梵語，這是一病。探玄周疏（Tàn Xuán Zhōu shū）詳細解釋了這個題目，玄妙的語言充滿篇幅，卻置之不用，埋沒了正義，這是二病。吾祖（指作者的祖師）廣泛演說多種門徑，全部收錄了其餘的含義，所以有事名，清涼（Qīng Liáng，指清涼國師）看到它從旁邊而來，因此疏抄不收錄，現在卻單獨取這個以旁為正，這是三病。兩個可笑之處是：不知道別人不用它，卻說別人不知道它，一可笑也。想要用初卷的探玄來張揚自己的博學
【English Translation】 English version
卍 New Continued Collection, Volume 58, No. 0996, Burning Fuel for the Chapter on the Differences in the Teachings of the Avataṃsaka One Vehicle
No. 996
Volume 1 of Burning Fuel (or Called Analyzing Fuel and Reaching the Marrow)(Published by Zhang Ming of Wuzhou)
Recorded by Ketang Shi Hui
Han Fei said, 'The former kings had letters from Ying (Yǐng, a place name), and later generations had many sayings from Yan (Yān, a place name).' Those who discuss say, 'Each family relies on their private wisdom to explain books without imperial edicts, how can they not become sayings from Yan?' Then, my recording of the doctrinal chapters of 'Analyzing Fuel' (xī xīn, splitting firewood) is offering suggestions but being answered with pickled fish and meat, how can I have time to become sayings from Yan? Alas, Xi Shi (Xī Shī, a famous beauty in ancient China) clutches her heart but does not realize her ugliness, just like a mantis (táng láng) using its talent. In the past, false scriptures disturbed the right path, and the monks of Nanshan (Nán Shān, a mountain name) gathered and burned them, saying, 'Do not use biased learning to lead people astray.' Therefore, I wrote 'Burning Fuel.' Also, I heard that the diseases of Guliang (Gǔ Liáng, a person's name) and Zuo Shi (Zuǒ Shì, a person's name) can be cured by acupuncture. But the diseases of this literature, even if Bian Que (Biǎn Què, a famous doctor in ancient China) reappears and Yue Ren (Yuè Rén, a doctor's name) is reborn, cannot be cured. Therefore, I renamed this chapter 'Analyzing Fuel and Reaching the Marrow'.'
The initial title says 'Avataṃsaka', and in Tan Xuan (Tàn Xuán, a commentary), it says, 'The term 'Avataṃsaka', in Sanskrit, is called Gaṇḍavyūha (meaning magnificent decoration). Gaṇḍa means various flowers, and vyūha means adornment. Tripiṭaka Rizhao (Rì Zhào Sān Zàng, a translator's name) said that in the Western Regions, there is another offering tool called vyūha, its shape is six-layered, wide at the bottom and narrow at the top, decorated with magnificent treasures, and each layer contains Buddha statues. It is precisely because this sutra has six overlapping positions, and each position becomes a Buddha, just like the shape of that offering tool, so this name is established. According to this, now only 'Avataṃsaka' is marked, which is named according to the matter. Isn't it an abbreviated name?'
The discussion says that this explanation has three faults and two laughable points. The three faults are: Moreover, this sutra, as mentioned in the commentaries (shū chāo, commentaries on scriptures), has been circulating for a long time, who doesn't know its Chinese and Sanskrit (referring to Sanskrit and Chinese)? Moreover, this is only explaining the title of one chapter, casually involving Sanskrit, this is one fault. Tan Xuan Zhou Shu (Tàn Xuán Zhōu shū, a commentary) explained this title in detail, and the profound words fill the pages, but it is not used, burying the correct meaning, this is the second fault. My ancestor (referring to the author's ancestor) widely expounded many paths and fully included the remaining meanings, so there is a name for the matter. Qingliang (Qīng Liáng, referring to National Teacher Qingliang) saw it coming from the side, so the commentaries did not include it, but now it is taken alone to make the side the correct, this is the third fault. The two laughable points are: not knowing that others do not use it, but saying that others do not know it, this is the first laughable point. Wanting to use the Tan Xuan of the first volume to promote one's own erudition
覽二可笑也嗚呼撿行數字錄令傳寫廢后進之分陰不亦可焚乎。
析薪又曰言一乘教義分齊者此總相標名今此一乘具同別二教教義之分齊也以下列十門釋此教義不出三乘一乘若別教一乘則三乘等本來不異若同教一乘則三一合明故今雖標一乘攝三乘等俱盡所以統收不異故曰一運載含融故曰乘故此教義具同別之分齊也正同大疏義理分齊雖有四科亦唯同別二教之分齊至今存此一題以標名者順下十門首明建立一乘末辯義理分齊則先教后義中間八門不出同別義意包羅此最允當唯存此名也。
議曰此段有膏肓之疾者二暗僻不通者七夫欲圖龍鬚知龍之有四足頭尾鱗須之具然後得其彷彿今說一乘不知一乘乃緣起圓融無盡普法而云不出三乘一乘豈不妄乎遷居而忘妻膏肓之疾者一也世之傳形神者雖有天機之巧如神之妙未有昧平生者能得之今說教義而以能詮為教所詮為義得非平日不識眉目而為之傳神者乎是亦妄也是知復子之不救膏肓之疾者二也七不通者夫別教一乘圓融具德卓絕獨立余如虛空縱收諸教一一同圓故曰唯有一乘更無餘也亦謂不出三一暗而不通者一也且章家別下具明二門今棄初門唯取后義又不明言取捨之意暗而不通者二也又會解釋同教曰三乘一乘和合不異今云本來不異又次引愿抄總證曰統收不異今試問之此三不異同乎異乎
暗而不通者三也又今引此抄總證同別皆曰統收而同教百非曰決謂全收只作同教意切不可要全收諸教亦是別教又反質曰若爾全揀門復是何教此正要揀收對說同別爾今卻問曰統收全收行相何異分相之全揀復是何教今文還以揀收對說以否暗而不通者四也會解曰三乘一乘和合不異差當中特改正曰此約三一具故名同會解累曰共三一又見引至相會三歸一則印許曰若依此義但釋教章可也今記曰三一合明亦將問曰此中縱無五句定有四句為一為異若一何以妄加破斥又乃特自改正若異何義為當觀其下文又不承用三乘為教一乘為義回三入一之說暗僻不通者五也夫以別該同皆成無礙圓收諸教一一同圓故曰統收不異運載含融豈容三一併明權實角立者哉於戲住持十餘載未明行愿抄文暗而不通者六也此之教義方余疏抄但是所況而與地品全同至相和尚以章章之今承用爾義如攝益處顯今引玄談可見妄誕非唯暗于章文抑亦不曉大疏指鹿為馬暗而不通者七也又復施之於人加以行文用語無不暗僻於戲曾不體究但作蠅鉆譬猶葉公見而絕倒今已斑斕更加強項法藥不投聞義不徙得非不療之膏肓乎疑誤後人焚之晚矣此火㳂及會解矣。
析薪曰今將下言如來海印等者謂此三昧通乎因果如大經已下至此明菩薩海印三昧也又云譬如大海乃至此明果人海印三昧也今揀因異果
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
有三種情況是昏暗而不通達的。現在引用這份抄本，總說『統收』，卻將『同』和『別』都說成是『統收』，並且否定『別教』的百種不同之處，說『決』就是完全收攝，只作『同教』的理解，千萬不要想要完全收攝所有的教義，因為那也是『別教』。又反過來質問說：『如果這樣，完全揀擇的法門又是什麼教？』這正是要揀擇收攝，針對『同』和『別』進行對說。而你現在卻問：『統收』和『全收』在行相上有什麼不同？『分相』的『全揀』又是什麼教？現在的文句仍然是以揀擇收攝來針對『同』和『別』進行對說。這是第四種昏暗而不通達的情況。有人解釋說：『三乘』和『一乘』和合沒有差異。當中特別改正說：『這是約三一具備，所以名為同。』會解累贅地說：『共同三一。』又見引用到相會三歸一，則印許說：『如果依照這個意義，只解釋教章就可以了。』現在的記錄說：『三一合明。』也將要問：『這其中縱然沒有五句，也一定有四句，是『一』還是『異』？如果『一』，為什麼要妄加破斥？又乃特別自己改正。如果『異』，什麼意義才算恰當？』觀察其下文，又不承用『三乘』作為教，『一乘』作為義，回三入一的說法，這是第五種昏暗僻陋而不通達的情況。用『別』來涵蓋『同』，都能成就無礙，圓滿收攝諸教，一一相同圓融，所以說『統收』沒有差異，運載含融，怎能容許『三一』並明，『權』和『實』對立呢？唉！住持十餘年，不明白《行愿抄》的文句，這是第六種昏暗而不通達的情況。這種教義，和我的疏抄一樣，只是所比況的，和《地品》完全相同。至相和尚用章節來...現在承用你的意義，如攝益之處顯現。現在引用玄談，可見其荒謬。不僅昏暗于章文，而且也不曉得大疏，指鹿為馬，這是第七種昏暗而不通達的情況。又施加於人，加以行文用語，沒有不昏暗僻陋的。唉！從來不身體力行地探究，只作蠅鉆，譬如葉公看見真龍而嚇得昏倒。現在已經斑斕，更加強項，法藥不投，聞義不徙，莫非是不治之癥嗎？疑惑誤導後人，焚燒也太晚了！這火已經蔓延到會解了。
析薪說：現在將要說的如來海印等，是指這種三昧通達因果，如《大經》以下，到這裡說明菩薩海印三昧。又說譬如大海，乃至這裡說明果人海印三昧。現在揀擇因異於果。
【English Translation】 English version:
There are three instances of being obscure and not understanding. Now, quoting this commentary, it generally says 'unified collection,' yet it treats both 'sameness' and 'difference' as 'unified collection,' and denies the hundred differences of 'separate teachings,' saying that 'decisive' means completely collecting, only understanding it as 'same teaching.' It is crucial not to try to completely collect all teachings, because that is also 'separate teaching.' Furthermore, it counter-questions, saying, 'If that's the case, what teaching is the completely selective Dharma gate?' This is precisely about selectively collecting, addressing 'sameness' and 'difference' in opposition. But now you ask, 'What is the difference in appearance between 'unified collection' and 'complete collection'? What teaching is the 'complete selection' of 'differentiated appearance'?' The current sentence still uses selective collection to address 'sameness' and 'difference' in opposition. This is the fourth instance of being obscure and not understanding. Someone explains, 'The Three Vehicles and the One Vehicle are harmonized without difference.' In the middle, it is specifically corrected, saying, 'This is about the completeness of the three and one, so it is called the same.' The commentary redundantly says, 'Common three and one.' It is also seen that it quotes the convergence of three returning to one, then it is approved, saying, 'If according to this meaning, only explaining the chapter on teachings is sufficient.' The current record says, 'The three and one are clearly combined.' It will also ask, 'Even if there are not five phrases in this, there must be four phrases, is it 'one' or 'different'? If 'one,' why falsely criticize? Furthermore, it specifically corrects itself. If 'different,' what meaning is appropriate?' Observing the following text, it also does not accept the 'Three Vehicles' as teachings and the 'One Vehicle' as meaning, the saying of the three returning to one, this is the fifth instance of being obscure and unorthodox and not understanding. Using 'separate' to encompass 'same' can achieve unobstructedness, completely collecting all teachings, each being the same and harmonious, so it is said that 'unified collection' has no difference, carrying and containing, how can it allow the 'three and one' to be clearly stated together, with 'provisional' and 'real' standing in opposition? Alas! Presiding for more than ten years, not understanding the sentences of the Practice and Vow Commentary (Xingyuan Chao), this is the sixth instance of being obscure and not understanding. This kind of teaching, like my commentary, is only what is being compared, and is completely the same as the Earth Chapter. The Venerable Zixiang uses chapters to... Now accepting your meaning, as the place of benefit appears. Now quoting profound discussions, its absurdity can be seen. Not only being obscure about the chapter sentences, but also not understanding the great commentary, calling a deer a horse, this is the seventh instance of being obscure and not understanding. Furthermore, applying it to people, adding to the writing and language, there is nothing that is not obscure and unorthodox. Alas! Never personally investigating and studying, only acting like a fly drilling, like Lord Ye being frightened and fainting upon seeing a real dragon. Now it is already mottled, even more stubborn, the Dharma medicine is not effective, hearing the meaning does not change, could it be an incurable disease? Doubting and misleading future generations, burning it is too late! This fire has already spread to the commentary.
Xixin says: Now what is about to be said, such as the Tathagata Ocean Seal (Rulai Haiyin) and so on, refers to this samadhi (sanmei) being connected to cause and effect, as in the Great Sutra (Dajing) below, up to here explaining the Bodhisattva Ocean Seal Samadhi. It also says, 'For example, the great ocean,' and so on, here explaining the Fruit Person Ocean Seal Samadhi. Now, selecting the cause as different from the fruit.
特標如來也又此三昧雖是說華嚴經所依之定然大集第十四亦明此定乃菩薩得之故今揀也如彼經云善男子乃至今是十身舍那所踞方窮海印之玄妙爾又至下云佛海印三昧準知余釋名等如諸經抄問題雲華嚴一乘教義此雲海印三昧一乘教義何邪上是立題故約經名標之則使外人知是華嚴教章也今將開門演義故標海印此唯內學者所知故題合標華嚴此宜名海印也。
議曰此段有迷宗謬解者一禍及余文者三水中捉月者再無根妄談者亦有一焉原夫一乘同別依佛海印定起不同三乘依佛后得智發今標如來海印示非如來法住誰云揀因異果全失此文之意所謂迷宗謬解者一也且施設異相天下共知以揀三一二相有異彼所依異而令準此顯因異果得非謬解之禍以及彼乎禍及余文者一也清涼疏鈔揀佛菩薩證極相似何忽引來證此標宗依起有異禍及余文者二也大集經中自明菩薩得此三昧非彼大集所依之定如何援彼以揀華嚴乃曰又此三昧雖是說華嚴定等豈非謬解迷宗以及彼文哉禍及余文者三也詳此標宗正以如來妙定揀佛法住今但廣引經文多開科節言以如來揀于菩薩此非背本逐末棄形捕影者乎故曰水中捉月者一也又大集經但說菩薩得此三昧縱慾引之可於釋義之後評論之間曰然此三昧亦有因果得之有異而與前段華嚴一處書之今乃多著閑辭標結生起兩處謄寫觀彼雅
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 特標如來也，又此三昧（Samadhi，一種精神集中狀態）雖說是《華嚴經》所依據的禪定，然而《大集經》第十四品也明確說明此禪定是菩薩所能獲得的，所以現在加以揀擇。如《大集經》所說：『善男子，乃至如今是十身毗盧遮那佛（Vairocana，光明遍照）所踞之位，方能窮盡海印三昧的玄妙。』又到下文說：『佛海印三昧』，由此可知其餘的解釋名稱等，如各經的抄本。問題是：《華嚴》一乘教義，這裡說海印三昧一乘教義，這是為什麼呢？上面是立題，所以根據經名來標示，是爲了讓外人知道這是《華嚴經》的教義章節。現在將要開門演義，所以標示海印三昧，這隻有內行學者才知道，所以題目應該標示《華嚴》，這裡應該命名為海印。
議論說：這段文字有一些迷惑宗門的錯誤理解，一個錯誤牽連到其他文章的有三處，水中撈月的情況有兩次，無根據的妄談也有一處。原本一乘的相同和差別，依據佛的海印定而生起的不同。三乘是依據佛的后得智而發起的。現在標示如來海印，表明不是如來的法住，是誰說揀擇因和果的不同，完全失去了這段文字的意義，這就是所謂的迷惑宗門的錯誤理解之一。而且施設不同的相，天下人都知道，用來揀擇三一二相的不同，他們所依據的不同，卻讓他們依據這個來顯示因和果的不同，難道不是錯誤理解牽連到其他文章嗎？清涼疏鈔揀擇佛和菩薩證悟的極其相似，為什麼忽然引用來證明這個標示宗門依據生起有不同，這是錯誤理解牽連到其他文章之二。大集經中自己說明菩薩獲得此三昧，不是他們大集所依據的禪定，如何援引他們來揀擇華嚴，竟然說又此三昧雖然是說華嚴定等，難道不是錯誤理解迷惑宗門牽連到其他文章嗎？這是錯誤理解牽連到其他文章之三。詳細考察這個標示宗門，正是用如來的妙定來揀擇佛法住，現在只是廣泛引用經文，多開設科節，說用如來來揀擇菩薩，這不是背離根本追求末節，拋棄形體捕捉影子嗎？所以說是水中撈月之一。又《大集經》只是說菩薩獲得此三昧，即使想要引用它，可以在解釋意義之後評論之間說，然而此三昧也有因果獲得的不同，而與前段《華嚴》一處書寫，現在卻多寫閑散的言辭，標示總結生起兩處謄寫，觀察他們優雅
【English Translation】 English version: Specifically marking the Tathagata (Tathagata, 'Thus Gone One'). Furthermore, although this Samadhi (Samadhi, a state of mental concentration) is said to be the Samadhi upon which the Avatamsaka Sutra (Avatamsaka Sutra, Flower Garland Sutra) relies, the fourteenth chapter of the Mahasamghata Sutra (Mahasamghata Sutra, Great Collection Sutra) also clearly states that this Samadhi is attained by Bodhisattvas, hence the distinction is made now. As the sutra says, 'Good son, even now, this is the position occupied by the ten-bodied Vairocana Buddha (Vairocana, the Illuminator), only then can one exhaust the profound mysteries of the Ocean Seal Samadhi.' Furthermore, it says below, 'Buddha Ocean Seal Samadhi,' from which it can be known that the remaining explanations of names, etc., are like the transcripts of various sutras. The question is: the One Vehicle teaching of the Avatamsaka, here it speaks of the Ocean Seal Samadhi One Vehicle teaching, why is this? The above is the establishment of the topic, so it is marked according to the sutra's name, so that outsiders know that this is a chapter of the Avatamsaka teachings. Now, we are about to open the door to explain the meaning, so we mark the Ocean Seal Samadhi, which is only known to internal scholars, so the title should mark the Avatamsaka, here it should be named Ocean Seal.
It is argued that there are some misleading interpretations of the sect in this passage, one error affecting the rest of the text in three places, grasping at the moon in the water twice, and unfounded speculation in one place. Originally, the similarities and differences of the One Vehicle arise differently depending on the Buddha's Ocean Seal Samadhi. The Three Vehicles arise based on the Buddha's subsequent wisdom. Now, marking the Tathagata's Ocean Seal indicates that it is not the Dharma-abiding of the Tathagata. Who says that distinguishing the differences between cause and effect completely loses the meaning of this passage, which is one of the so-called misleading interpretations of the sect. Moreover, the establishment of different characteristics is known to all, used to distinguish the differences between the three, one, and two characteristics. Their reliance is different, yet they are allowed to rely on this to show the difference between cause and effect. Isn't this an error affecting the rest of the text? The Qingliang Commentary distinguishes the extremely similar enlightenment of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. Why suddenly cite this to prove that the establishment of the sect relies on different arising, which is the second error affecting the rest of the text. The Mahasamghata Sutra itself states that Bodhisattvas attain this Samadhi, not the Samadhi upon which their Mahasamghata relies. How can they be cited to distinguish the Avatamsaka, saying that this Samadhi is also the Samadhi of the Avatamsaka, etc.? Isn't this a misleading interpretation of the sect affecting the rest of the text? This is the third error affecting the rest of the text. A detailed examination of this marking of the sect is precisely using the Tathagata's wonderful Samadhi to distinguish the Dharma-abiding of the Buddha. Now, it is only widely citing sutra texts, opening many sections, saying that using the Tathagata to distinguish Bodhisattvas, isn't this abandoning the root and pursuing the branches, abandoning the form and capturing the shadow? Therefore, it is said to be grasping at the moon in the water. Furthermore, the Mahasamghata Sutra only says that Bodhisattvas attain this Samadhi. Even if one wants to cite it, one can say in the commentary after the explanation of the meaning that this Samadhi also has differences in the attainment of cause and effect, and it is written in the same place as the previous Avatamsaka. Now, it is writing many idle words, marking the conclusion, and copying it in two places. Observe their elegance.
意而謂眾人不知我獨博採陽陽自得不知春池瓦礫適足以發眾口之笑水中捉月者再也標宗揀教而云海印一乘弘經立題故下華嚴二字而言示外人故題書華嚴示內學者故標名海印不亦妄誕太甚乎所謂無根妄談一也於戲下俚巴人和者千萬析薪既出謄錄盈笥不急掃除必至蔓莚萬世之後忽遇識者唾罵發笑亦一時之羞復子設坐道場不免耳熱吾之鐘愛故有此勸急焚之急焚之。
析薪曰次列章門也十科不同大分為二前八門就教法以明後二門約義理以辨又前八中初五門就化法明後三門就化儀辨初中先為權宗判一乘為不了教是佛密意之說故首立一乘也乃至總上八門皆是教法而所詮義理當次明之先論五教諸義不同后辯一乘義理分齊首立一乘后明義理正順題中一乘教義分齊章之名也。
議曰此段特違祖誨者二臆說教義者一且賢首自言但以和尚章疏義豐文簡致令後人多難趣入是以具錄和尚微言妙旨勒成義記探玄二十卷一乘教分記三卷等何以妄曰為權宗等耶特違祖誨者一也此子下文稱此語本于圭峰者妄也義如下辯太一和尚曰一乘法義佛及普賢願行建立有情眾生依而住持吾家相承謹按經論發明其旨故曰初明而言首立一乘又云賢首國師立華嚴一乘得非跋扈臆說特違祖誨者二也作章之意茫然文義之間安曉建立不辯造證尤難終日數砂不見法理不亦
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 他自以為眾人都不如他，獨自廣泛採納各種學說，洋洋自得，卻不知道自己就像春池裡的瓦礫，只會引來眾人的嘲笑。這種水中撈月的行為，真是再犯了。標榜宗派，揀擇教義，卻說什麼海印一乘。弘揚經典，設立題目，卻在下面寫上『華嚴』二字，說是給外人看的；在書名上標明『海印』，說是給內部學者看的。這不是荒謬至極嗎？這就是所謂的無根妄談啊！可嘆啊，下里巴人和應者成千上萬，抄寫的稿子堆滿了箱子。如果不趕緊清除，必定會蔓延開來，遺禍萬世。以後如果遇到有識之士，必定會唾罵嘲笑，這可是一時的羞辱啊！你復子即使設立道場，也難免被人議論紛紛。我因為鍾愛你，所以才這樣勸告你，趕緊燒掉它，趕緊燒掉它。 析薪說，接下來是分列章節的門徑。十個科目各有不同，大致分為兩部分：前八個門徑就教法來闡明，后兩個門徑就義理來辨析。前八個門徑中，前五個門徑就化法來闡明，后三個門徑就化儀來辨析。最初的門徑中，先將一乘判為權宗，認為是不了義的教法，是佛的秘密心意。所以首先確立一乘。乃至總括上面的八個門徑，都是教法，而所詮釋的義理應當依次闡明。先論述五教的各種義理不同之處，然後辨析一乘的義理分齊。首先確立一乘，然後闡明義理，這正是題目中『一乘教義分齊章』的含義。 議論說，這段特別違背祖師的教誨，有兩點是臆說教義，一點是賢首（指法藏，是華嚴宗實際創始人）自己說過，只是因為和尚（指智儼，法藏的老師）的章疏義理豐富，但文字簡略，導致後人難以理解，所以才詳細記錄和尚的精微言論和妙旨，編撰成《義記》二十卷，《一乘教分記》三卷等。怎麼能妄說這是權宗等呢？這是特別違背祖師教誨的第一點。這個復子在下文說這句話出自圭峰（指宗密），這是妄言。義理如下辯駁。太一和尚說，一乘的法義，是佛和普賢（菩薩名）的願行所建立的，有情眾生依此而安住和奉持。我們家世代相傳，謹慎地按照經論來闡明它的宗旨，所以說『初明』，並且首先確立一乘。又說賢首國師（指法藏）確立華嚴一乘，這難道不是跋扈的臆說嗎？這是特別違背祖師教誨的第二點。作章的用意茫然無知，文字義理之間怎麼能明白建立的道理？不辨別造作的證據，尤其困難。終日數沙，卻看不見法理，不是很可悲嗎？
【English Translation】 English version: He thinks that everyone else is inferior to him, and he is pleased with himself for widely adopting various doctrines. He doesn't realize that he is like the tiles and pebbles in a spring pond, only inviting ridicule from others. This act of trying to catch the moon in the water is a repeated mistake. He flaunts his sect, picks and chooses doctrines, and yet speaks of 'Haiyin One Vehicle'. He promotes scriptures and sets up titles, but writes 'Huayan' (Avatamsaka) below, saying it's for outsiders to see; he marks 'Haiyin' on the title, saying it's for internal scholars to see. Isn't this extremely absurd? This is what is called baseless nonsense! Alas, countless ignorant people echo him, and the copied manuscripts fill boxes. If it is not cleared away quickly, it will surely spread and cause harm for generations. If later it encounters someone with discernment, they will surely spit and laugh, which is a temporary shame! Even if you, Fuzi, set up a Dharma assembly, you will inevitably be criticized. Because I cherish you, I advise you to burn it quickly, burn it quickly. Xixin said that the following is the path of listing the chapters. The ten subjects are different, roughly divided into two parts: the first eight paths explain the teachings, and the last two paths analyze the meaning. Among the first eight paths, the first five paths explain the method of transformation, and the last three paths analyze the ritual of transformation. In the initial path, the One Vehicle is first judged as an expedient teaching, considered to be an incomplete teaching, and is the secret intention of the Buddha. Therefore, the One Vehicle is established first. Even summarizing the above eight paths, they are all teachings, and the meaning that is explained should be clarified in order. First, discuss the differences in the various meanings of the Five Teachings, and then analyze the divisions of the meaning of the One Vehicle. First establish the One Vehicle, and then clarify the meaning, which is precisely the meaning of the title 'Chapter on the Divisions of the One Vehicle Teaching'. The discussion says that this passage particularly violates the teachings of the patriarch. Two points are speculative doctrines, and one point is that Xianshou (Fazang, the actual founder of the Huayan School) himself said that it was only because the chapters and commentaries of the monk (Zhiyan, Fazang's teacher) were rich in meaning but concise in writing, making it difficult for later generations to understand, so he recorded in detail the subtle words and profound meanings of the monk, and compiled the 'Yiji' in twenty volumes, the 'One Vehicle Teaching Division Record' in three volumes, etc. How can it be falsely said that this is an expedient teaching, etc.? This is the first point of particularly violating the teachings of the patriarch. This Fuzi said in the following that this statement originated from Guifeng (Zongmi), which is a false statement. The meaning is refuted below. Monk Taiyi said that the Dharma meaning of the One Vehicle is established by the vows and practices of the Buddha and Samantabhadra (a Bodhisattva), and sentient beings rely on it to abide and uphold it. Our family has passed it down from generation to generation, carefully clarifying its purpose according to the scriptures and treatises, so it is said 'first clarification', and the One Vehicle is established first. It is also said that National Teacher Xianshou (Fazang) established the Huayan One Vehicle, isn't this an arrogant speculation? This is the second point of particularly violating the teachings of the patriarch. The intention of making the chapter is ignorant, how can one understand the principle of establishment between the words and meanings? It is especially difficult not to distinguish the evidence of fabrication. Counting sand all day long, but not seeing the Dharma principle, isn't it sad?
可憐生臆說教義者薪曰前八教法后二義理又曰先教后義又曰顯此言教又曰正順題中教義等今試問之同教以臨門三車為教大白牛車為義若以前八為教前八應是三乘為收何典后二為義是誰所詮若以法華為教法華一部之文豈但三乘而已若以群經為教群典豈 詮白牛又復前八但群經乎哉是知教義不如是說設欲救言此中教義不同下文奈何汝下自會曰故上云然此一乘教義分齊等又若救曰法華不說則已說則權實雙彰故自有三乘為教者此義不然何者既曰權實雙彰則彼三一皆有言教豈彼三乘無所詮一乘無能詮乎亦不可言以望一乘故俱是教斯則逾遠矣便令華嚴不得與群經作一處安頓也則發千載笑口大率會解析薪止以能詮為教所詮為義而不知別有教義二大遂不識章旨嗚呼題目標章尚皆不曉別釋之文不言可諭故曰臆說教義者一也此獨辯明粗可混金之鍮余文不足道也不焚何待。
析薪曰故地論下引證此之二分本出地論今義引為證爾具足論者論經云我但說一分論云是地所攝有二種一因分二果分說者謂解釋一分者是因分以于果分為一分故探玄解云釋有二種一此十地有二分一就實十地唯佛所知佛智所行名為果分上論云此智是誰證偈言佛所行故又上云智起佛境界故又加鳥跡所依太虛空為果海等二隨相十地菩薩所行名為因分是即果分玄絕當不可說因分
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：那些可憐的人，總是憑自己的臆想來解釋教義。有人說，『前八品是教法，后二品是義理』，又有人說，『先是言教，后是義理』，還有人說，『（經題）中『教義』二字，正是順應（經文）』等等。現在我來問問這些人：如果把『教』理解為《法華經》中的『臨門三車』（比喻聲聞、緣覺、菩薩三乘），把『義』理解為『大白牛車』（比喻唯一佛乘），那麼如果說『前八品是教』，那麼這前八品應該包含三乘，依據是什麼經典？如果說『后二品是義』，那麼是誰來詮釋這『義』呢？如果把《法華經》整部經文都看作是『教』，那麼《法華經》一部經文，難道僅僅只是三乘嗎？如果把所有的經典都看作是『教』，那麼所有的經典都詮釋了『白牛車』嗎？而且，難道前八品就僅僅是群經嗎？由此可知，這樣解釋教義是不對的。假設有人想要辯解說，『這裡所說的教義和下文所說的教義不同』，那麼下文又該如何解釋呢？你（指析薪）自己會說：『所以上面說，這唯一佛乘的教義有分齊等等。』又假設有人辯解說，《法華經》如果不說（三乘），那就算了，如果說了（三乘），那就是權實雙彰，所以自然有以三乘為教的說法。這種說法是不對的。為什麼呢？既然說是權實雙彰，那麼三乘和一乘都有言教，難道三乘沒有所詮釋的內容，一乘沒有能詮釋的內容嗎？也不能說，因為是相對於一乘而言，所以三乘和一乘都是教。這樣說就更加荒謬了，這就會使得《華嚴經》不能和群經放在一起了，那就會引來千載的笑話。總的來說，析薪的理解，只是把能詮釋的當作教，把所詮釋的當作義，而不知道還有教義二大（教體和義理），因此不理解章旨。唉，題目標章尚且都不理解，其他的解釋就不用說了，所以說，臆說教義者，這是第一點。我只是辯明瞭其中粗淺的、可以和黃金混淆的黃銅，其餘的文字不值得一提，不燒掉還等待什麼呢？ 析薪說，『所以《地論》下面引用了這二分（因分和果分），本來是出自《地論》的，現在我引用它來作為證據。』具足論者（指《攝大乘論》的作者）在論經中說，『我只是說一分（因分）。』論中說，『這是地所攝，有兩種，一是因分，二是果分。』解說者說，『解釋一分的是因分，因為相對於果分來說，它只是一分。』探玄（指法藏）解釋說，『解釋有兩種，一是這十地有二分，一是就真實的十地來說，只有佛才能知道，佛的智慧才能達到，這叫做果分。上面論中說，這種智慧是誰證得的呢？偈頌說，是佛所行故。又上面說，智慧是從佛的境界產生的。』又加上鳥跡所依的太虛空作為果海等等。二是隨順相的十地，菩薩所行，叫做因分。』這就是說，果分玄妙絕倫，是不可說的，因分是可以說的。
【English Translation】 English version: Those pitiful people always interpret the teachings based on their own conjectures. Some say, 'The first eight chapters are the teachings, and the last two chapters are the principles.' Others say, 'First there is verbal teaching, then there is the principle.' Still others say, 'The words 'teaching and principle' in the title are precisely in accordance with the (scripture).' Now I ask these people: If we understand 'teaching' as the 'three carts at the gate' (a metaphor for the three vehicles of Śrāvakayāna (聲聞乘), Pratyekabuddhayāna (緣覺乘), and Bodhisattvayāna (菩薩乘)) in the Lotus Sūtra, and 'principle' as the 'great white ox cart' (a metaphor for the one Buddha vehicle), then if we say 'the first eight chapters are the teaching,' then these first eight chapters should include the three vehicles. What is the scriptural basis for this? If we say 'the last two chapters are the principle,' then who is it that explains this 'principle'? If we regard the entire Lotus Sūtra as the 'teaching,' then does the entire Lotus Sūtra only consist of the three vehicles? If we regard all the scriptures as the 'teaching,' then do all the scriptures explain the 'white ox cart'? Moreover, are the first eight chapters only the collective scriptures? From this, we can see that this way of explaining the teaching and principle is incorrect. Suppose someone wants to argue that 'the teaching and principle mentioned here are different from the teaching and principle mentioned later,' then how should the later part be explained? You (referring to Xixin (析薪)) yourself would say: 'Therefore, it is said above that this one Buddha vehicle's teaching and principle have distinctions, etc.' Furthermore, suppose someone argues that if the Lotus Sūtra does not mention (the three vehicles), then that's fine, but if it does mention (the three vehicles), then it is the dual manifestation of provisional and real, so there is naturally a saying that takes the three vehicles as the teaching. This statement is incorrect. Why? Since it is said to be the dual manifestation of provisional and real, then both the three vehicles and the one vehicle have verbal teachings. Do the three vehicles have nothing to be explained, and the one vehicle have nothing to be explained? It cannot be said that because it is in relation to the one vehicle, both the three vehicles and the one vehicle are teachings. Saying this is even more absurd, which would make it impossible for the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (華嚴經) to be placed together with the other scriptures, which would invite laughter for thousands of years. In general, Xixin's understanding is only to regard what can be explained as the teaching and what is explained as the principle, without knowing that there are two great aspects of teaching and principle (the essence of the teaching and the principle), and therefore does not understand the main point of the chapter. Alas, if even the title and chapter headings are not understood, then there is no need to talk about other explanations. Therefore, it is said that those who conjecture about the teaching and principle, this is the first point. I am only clarifying the superficial brass that can be confused with gold; the rest of the text is not worth mentioning. What are we waiting for if we don't burn it? Xixin (析薪) said, 'Therefore, the Daśabhūmika-śāstra (地論) below quotes these two divisions (the causal division and the resultant division), which originally came from the Daśabhūmika-śāstra. Now I quote it as evidence.' The one who possesses the complete treatise (referring to the author of the Mahāyānasaṃgraha (攝大乘論)) said in the treatise on the scripture, 'I only speak of one division (the causal division).' The treatise says, 'This is what the ground encompasses, and there are two kinds: one is the causal division, and the other is the resultant division.' The explainer says, 'Explaining one division is the causal division, because in relation to the resultant division, it is only one division.' Tanxuan (探玄) (referring to Fazang (法藏)) explains, 'There are two kinds of explanation: one is that these ten grounds have two divisions. One is in terms of the real ten grounds, which only the Buddha can know and the Buddha's wisdom can reach, and this is called the resultant division. The treatise above says, who is it that proves this wisdom? The verse says, it is because it is what the Buddha practices. And above it says, wisdom arises from the Buddha's realm.' And adding the great void on which bird tracks rely as the ocean of results, etc. The second is the ten grounds that accord with the characteristics, which are practiced by Bodhisattvas, and this is called the causal division.' This is to say that the resultant division is profound and cannot be spoken of, and the causal division can be spoken of.
約機是即可說此義通一部經中大意二言說十地有二分一約妙智正證如智境故離相離言故名果分即不可說二約方便寄法顯地差別故名因分此局斯品今約初義故通一部。
議曰此有四過一不事謙恭強項過二誇大甕天好異過三不達理趣衍引過四昧文妄判違宗過夫初過者教義二大判說不說探玄具顯義苑發暉諸記僉引而不遵承得非不事謙恭而強項乎第二過者義苑所引探玄第十之初析薪所書此卷之後而謂昔人不知吾獨博總特異眾說不亦過乎不然何以不用昔引而書此耶是謂醯雞夸己甕天取異鯤鵬過莫大也第三過者探玄此段正釋十地二分故曰謂此地法有其二分故有就實隨相併言說十地等非將總相因果二分各為十地也故有又加所依太虛空為果海 言此義前已明是豈特將性海果分成就實十地普賢緣因不說住行向等為隨相十地邪嗚呼不通其旨輒寫其文吞食加字亂後學之心昧聖人之意得非過乎第四過者復結判云今約初義故通一部今試問曰此通一部章邪經邪若云經者今不釋經若曰是章如何隨相就實通斯一部章文又復此通為對何局更復問曰祖謂通一部經中大意如何通邪據此記文乃將就實十地即是果海隨相十地便是因分此二十地貫通一部此說妄也且五週因果總不說住行向耶全失章疏之意得非昧彼之文妄判章旨違其宗耶妄搖筆端而曰述作不貳過之
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 約機是即可說此義通一部經中大意：二言說十地有二分，一約妙智正證，如智境故，離相離言故，名果分，即不可說；二約方便寄法顯地差別故，名因分。此局斯品，今約初義，故通一部。
議曰：此有四過：一、不事謙恭強項過；二、誇大甕天好異過；三、不達理趣衍引過；四、昧文妄判違宗過。夫初過者，教義二大判，說不說，探玄具顯，義苑發暉諸記僉引而不遵承，得非不事謙恭而強項乎？第二過者，義苑所引探玄第十之初，析薪所書此卷之後，而謂昔人不知，吾獨博總特異眾說，不亦過乎？不然，何以不用昔引而書此耶？是謂醯雞夸己甕天，取異鯤鵬過莫大也。第三過者，探玄此段正釋十地二分，故曰：『謂此地法有其二分，故有就實隨相併言說十地等』，非將總相因果二分各為十地也。故有又加所依太虛空為果海，言此義前已明是，豈特將性海果分成就實十地，普賢（菩薩名）緣因不說住行向等為隨相十地邪？嗚呼！不通其旨，輒寫其文，吞食加字，亂後學之心，昧聖人之意，得非過乎？第四過者，復結判云：『今約初義，故通一部。』今試問曰：此通一部章邪？經邪？若云經者，今不釋經；若曰是章，如何隨相就實通斯一部章文？又復此通為對何局？更復問曰：祖謂通一部經中大意，如何通邪？據此記文，乃將就實十地即是果海，隨相十地便是因分，此二十地貫通一部，此說妄也。且五週因果總不說住行向耶？全失章疏之意，得非昧彼之文，妄判章旨，違其宗耶？妄搖筆端而曰述作不貳過之？
【English Translation】 English version To interpret the opportunity is to say that this meaning pervades the main idea of a whole scripture: To speak of the ten grounds (Dashabhumi) there are two aspects. First, based on the wonderful wisdom of correct realization, like the realm of wisdom, it is beyond form and words, hence it is called the fruit aspect, which is unspeakable. Second, based on expedient means, relying on the Dharma to reveal the differences of the grounds, hence it is called the cause aspect. This is limited to this chapter. Now, based on the first meaning, it pervades the whole scripture.
It is argued that there are four faults here: First, the fault of not being humble and being stubborn; second, the fault of exaggerating like a frog in a well, fond of being different; third, the fault of not understanding the principles and making excessive inferences; fourth, the fault of being ignorant of the text and making reckless judgments against the doctrine. As for the first fault, the two major divisions of teaching and doctrine, speaking and not speaking, are fully revealed in 'Exploring the Profound' (Tanxuan). The 'Garden of Meanings' (Yiyuan) and other commentaries all cite them but do not follow them. Is this not being unhumble and stubborn? As for the second fault, the 'Garden of Meanings' cites the beginning of the tenth chapter of 'Exploring the Profound,' and the 'Analysis of Fuelwood' (Xixin) is written after this volume, yet it is said that the ancients did not know, and I alone am broad and comprehensive, different from all opinions. Is this not excessive? If not, why not use the previous citations and write this? This is like a vinegar fly boasting in its jar, trying to be different from the Kunpeng (a mythical giant bird), which is a great fault. As for the third fault, this section of 'Exploring the Profound' precisely explains the two aspects of the ten grounds, hence it says: 'It is said that this Dharma of the grounds has two aspects, hence there are the ten grounds spoken of in terms of reality and appearance together,' not taking the two aspects of general characteristics, cause, and effect each as ten grounds. Therefore, there is also adding the dependent great void as the ocean of fruit. It is said that this meaning has been clarified before. Is it not especially taking the fruit aspect of the nature-sea to accomplish the real ten grounds, while not speaking of the stages of dwelling, practice, direction, etc., of Samantabhadra (Puxian, a Bodhisattva) as the ten grounds of appearance? Alas! Without understanding its meaning, one rashly copies its text, swallowing and adding words, confusing the minds of later learners, obscuring the meaning of the sages. Is this not a fault? As for the fourth fault, it is concluded and judged: 'Now, based on the first meaning, it pervades the whole scripture.' Now, let us ask: Is this pervading the whole scripture a chapter or a sutra? If it is said to be a sutra, then we are not explaining a sutra now; if it is said to be a chapter, how can the appearance and reality pervade this chapter text of the whole scripture? Moreover, what is this pervading in contrast to what limitation? Furthermore, let us ask: The patriarch said that it pervades the main idea of a whole scripture, how does it pervade? According to this commentary, the real ten grounds are the ocean of fruit, and the ten grounds of appearance are the cause aspect. These twenty grounds pervade the whole scripture. This statement is false. Moreover, does the five periods of cause and effect not speak of the stages of dwelling, practice, and direction at all? Completely losing the meaning of the commentaries, is this not being ignorant of that text, recklessly judging the meaning of the chapter, and violating its doctrine? Recklessly waving the pen and saying that the writing is without a second fault?
意乎略書此四過實至多餘俟自省耳。
析薪釋雙融中曰以上既以果海為不可說因分當可說恐人局執故此偏收至不可偏執也並不可局執。
議曰此中雖少有文據而全失祖意當知法本融通故有雙融一義如理事之後有無障礙等豈可但恐局執而書此邪清涼亦謂因果本融不可局執但什其言不得其意如曰不然則凡說雙融之處儘是遮情非顯法理矣思之後之學者擇其善者而從之可也。
析薪就普賢下分相門則一乘別於三乘該攝門則三乘本是一乘皆屬別也若唯初門則三一迥異若唯後門則三一本同今既分為二門則先以全三之一揀于全一之三后以全一之三本是全三之一則雖分相而未始不同雖該攝而未始不異故此二門揀收自在也如此。
議曰此段謬甚又與差當敵體相違略辯八過余俟來哲云一帶靴為帽過全一之三全三之一雖分相而未始不同雖該攝而未始不異者同而必異異而必同三一具存權實雙顯斯同教也冠于別旨之端是非帶靴為帽乎二有奴無主過汝謂不一不異等義具屬同教而為別教所以今謂雖分而同不一即不異也雖該而異不異即不一也若爾者別科二門備彰不一異之所以別教之宗法便成烏有得非有奴而無主乎三的驢妨主過本章曰不一是分相不異是該攝汝今分相是乎不一而不異該攝乃不異而不一正累本章得非的驢之妨主乎四
烏江自殺過此云別教下判屬同今是昨非后固傷前得非項氏之刃游于彼之頸乎五歸咎圭山過者差當曰然圭山決以全收門只作同教意正要揀收對說同別等試問曰圭山何處明指只作同邪圭山果有是語賢首就此何忽全收是知圭山定無是語復之䟦扈歸過祖師耳六背祖自立過者若圭山決以只作同教如何輒敢自言全一之三本是全三之一揀收自在皆屬別教邪若祖有是言汝作此說得非背祖悖德而自立乎七妄解大疏過者圓覺大疏曰圓教攝於前四一一同圓差當釋曰今謂正約全收具五教一一同圓義當攝方便之同也又曰亦同教之全收也今亦問曰總相會通或總為一圭山何故獨約同而廢別又複方便茍存何曰同圓應是此子未曉同圓之義遂與此中己義矛盾也八揮戈自刺過今文自言該收一切不異一乘皆屬別教與彼差當角立不同得非自刺過乎四教一一同圓一切不異一乘理義無別而兩處釋通同別各判其義安在開眼做夢斯何人斯火之遲矣今為釋曰分相者方便無體莫不皆空究竟正乘坐斷法界該攝則三乘無已普法所成舊曰圓融元是普法色即是空空中無色三即是一一內無三故曰三乘竟必有盡若爾則余乘皆盡唯有一乘雲何是中更容他物是故二門共詮別旨。
析薪曰分相下一別於三問此三乘唯是始教邪通中間三教邪乃至今釋此義略為二門一引教正釋二問答辯明初中此一
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 烏江自殺：評論者認為，如果從別教的角度來判斷，（項羽的自殺）就如同今天否定昨天，事後後悔當初的所得。難道是項羽的劍在自己的脖子上游走嗎？五、歸咎於圭山：評論者的錯誤在於，他們認為圭山（Guishan，唐代禪師）的觀點是全部收攝（一切法門），只作同教的理解。實際上，圭山想要揀選收攝對立的同和別等概念。試問：圭山在哪裡明確指出只作同教呢？如果圭山果真有這樣的說法，賢首宗（Xianshou，華嚴宗的別稱）為何會全部收攝？由此可知，圭山必定沒有這樣的說法。這種說法是把扈（Hu，指扈珠法師）的過錯歸咎於祖師了。六、背祖自立：評論者的錯誤在於，如果圭山決意只作同教的理解，又怎麼敢自稱『全一之三』（整體一是部分三）？本來整體三是部分一，揀選收攝自在，都屬於別教的範疇。如果祖師有這樣的說法，你這樣說難道不是背叛祖師的教義，違背道德而自立門戶嗎？七、妄解《大疏》：評論者的錯誤在於，圓覺經大疏（Yuanjue Jing Da Shu，《圓覺經》的註釋）說：『圓教（Yuanjiao，圓滿的教法）攝於前四教，一一都相同于圓教。』評論者的解釋是：『現在說的是正約全部收攝，具備五教一一相同于圓教的意義，應當收攝方便之同。』又說：『也是同教的全部收攝。』現在要問：總相會通或者總歸為一，圭山為何獨獨只約同而廢棄別？又如果方便法門仍然存在，為何說是同圓？應該是這個人沒有理解同圓的意義，因此與他自己之前的觀點相矛盾。八、揮戈自刺：評論者現在的文章自稱該收攝一切，不異於一乘（Yicheng，唯一的乘，指佛乘），都屬於別教，與他們之前差當的觀點對立不同，這難道不是自相矛盾嗎？四教（Sijiao，天臺宗的四種教法）一一相同于圓教，一切不異於一乘，理和義沒有區別，卻在兩處解釋同和別，各自判斷其意義，睜著眼睛做夢，這是什麼人，火燒得太慢了！現在解釋說：從分相的角度來看，方便法門沒有實體，沒有不是空性的；究竟的正乘，截斷法界，該攝一切，那麼三乘（Sancheng，聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）就沒有窮盡，普遍的法所成就。舊的說法是圓融本來就是普遍的法，色即是空，空中無色，三即是一，一一之內沒有三，所以說三乘終究會有窮盡的時候。如果這樣，那麼其餘的乘都窮盡了，只有一乘，這其中怎麼能容納其他事物呢？因此，這兩個門共同詮釋了別教的宗旨。 析薪說：從分相以下，區別於三乘。問：這三乘只是始教（Shijiao，佛教的初始教義）嗎？還是通教（Tongjiao，通用的教義）中間的三教？乃至於現在解釋這個意義，大概分為兩個方面：一是引用教義來正確解釋，二是問答辯論來闡明。首先是這一個。
【English Translation】 English version Suicide at Wujiang: The commentator believes that if judged from the perspective of the Separate Teaching (Biejiao), (Xiang Yu's suicide) is like denying yesterday today, regretting what was gained afterward. Could it be that Xiang Yu's sword wandered on his own neck? 5. Blaming Guishan: The commentator's mistake lies in thinking that Guishan's (Guishan, a Chan master of the Tang Dynasty) view is to completely gather (all Dharma gates), only understanding it as the Same Teaching (Tongjiao). In fact, Guishan wanted to select and gather the opposing concepts of Same and Different. Question: Where did Guishan explicitly point out that he only made the Same Teaching? If Guishan really had such a statement, why would the Xianshou School (Xianshou, another name for the Huayan School) completely gather it? From this, it can be known that Guishan definitely did not have such a statement. This statement is blaming the fault of Hu (Hu, referring to Dharma Master Hu Zhu) on the patriarch. 6. Betraying the Ancestor and Establishing Oneself: The commentator's mistake lies in, if Guishan is determined to only make the Same Teaching, how dare he call himself 'The Three of the Whole One' (the whole one is part three)? Originally, the whole three is part one, selecting and gathering freely, all belong to the category of Separate Teaching. If the patriarch had such a statement, wouldn't you be betraying the patriarch's teachings, violating morality, and establishing your own sect by saying this? 7. Misinterpreting the Great Commentary: The commentator's mistake lies in, the Great Commentary on the Yuanjue Sutra (Yuanjue Jing Da Shu, commentary on the 'Surangama Sutra') says: 'The Perfect Teaching (Yuanjiao, the perfect teaching) encompasses the previous four teachings, each and every one is the same as the Perfect Teaching.' The commentator's explanation is: 'Now it is said that it is precisely about completely gathering, possessing the meaning of the five teachings each and every one being the same as the Perfect Teaching, and should gather the sameness of expedient means.' It also says: 'It is also the complete gathering of the Same Teaching.' Now I want to ask: If the overall aspects converge or all return to one, why does Guishan only focus on the Same and abandon the Different? Also, if the expedient means still exist, why is it said to be the same and perfect? It should be that this person does not understand the meaning of the same and perfect, therefore it contradicts his own previous views. 8. Waving a Spear and Stabbing Oneself: The commentator's current article claims that it should gather everything, not different from the One Vehicle (Yicheng, the only vehicle, referring to the Buddha Vehicle), all belong to the Separate Teaching, opposing and different from their previous appropriate views, isn't this self-contradictory? The Four Teachings (Sijiao, the four teachings of the Tiantai School) are each and every one the same as the Perfect Teaching, everything is not different from the One Vehicle, the principle and meaning are no different, but they explain the same and different in two places, each judging its meaning, dreaming with open eyes, what kind of person is this, the fire is too slow! Now the explanation is: From the perspective of distinguishing aspects, expedient means have no substance, there is nothing that is not emptiness; the ultimate Right Vehicle, cuts off the Dharma realm, encompasses everything, then the Three Vehicles (Sancheng, Sravaka Vehicle, Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, Bodhisattva Vehicle) have no end, universally accomplished by the Dharma. The old saying is that perfect fusion is originally the universal Dharma, form is emptiness, emptiness is not form, three is one, there is no three within each one, so it is said that the Three Vehicles will eventually have an end. If so, then the remaining vehicles are exhausted, only the One Vehicle, how can other things be accommodated in this? Therefore, these two doors jointly explain the purpose of the Separate Teaching. Splitting firewood says: From distinguishing aspects below, it is different from the Three Vehicles. Question: Are these Three Vehicles only the Initial Teaching (Shijiao, the initial teachings of Buddhism)? Or the three teachings in the middle of the Common Teaching (Tongjiao, common teachings)? As for now explaining this meaning, it is roughly divided into two aspects: one is to cite the teachings to correctly explain, and the other is to use questions and answers to argue and clarify. First is this one.
乘者是華嚴迥異之別此門外三車通中間三教故下章三處明文以深密法相為終教何者如李唐三藏解深密等三法輪中后二是始終二教故文云此三法輪但攝小乘及三乘中始終二教不攝別教一乘(此亦是將別教一乘對法相宗三乘料揀亦以三乘通於始終二教)又正立教中復指深密三法輪中后二是始終二教又抉擇其意第三門小始入終亦云后二為始終二教如深密說者是此上三說正以法相宗第三時為終教也相宗正當第三時故知三車通終教也又正立教中雲中間三者有其三義一或總為一謂一三乘教也以此皆為三人所得故如上所引說據此文正指前能引三車共般若之義亦以三車總合中間三教也此上引當文證。
議曰𦘕虎而類狗希鳳而成梟者復子是也昔與吾同在仙潭以易簡百非初成八十段者求吾斤斧以其請勤為說數段而復隨毀己義手抄吾言乃曰若爾某之所解大旨僉謬將通改之幾月而再出一本亦八十段吾又謂曰易簡略無紀綱汝之所辯亦其細其耳且如所揀三乘豈特始教哉伊遂鼓掌曰至言也某雖有此志不敢發此言是以百非俱作權始今其去之矣偶其寺為有朋所攘我輩鳥散遂不復請吾之說復抵澄江乃以是語再治百非申揀三之義洎述析薪作會解而理皆謬妄為一時之羞易簡之徒逾保舊說所以然者什吾之言不體吾意其欲成之而反害之也是謂𦘕虎而狗希鳳而梟
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 所說的『乘』，是華嚴宗與其他宗派迥然不同的區別。華嚴宗之外，有三車教法通向中間的三教。因此，下一章將在三個方面明確說明，以《解深密經》的法相宗為終教。例如，李唐三藏所解釋的《解深密經》等三法輪中，后兩個法輪是始終二教。所以經文中說：『這三法輪只攝受小乘和三乘中的始終二教，不攝受別教一乘。』（這也是將別教一乘與法相宗的三乘進行比較，也認為三乘貫通始終二教。） 又在『正立教』中，再次指出《深密經》三法輪中的后兩個法輪是始終二教。又在抉擇其意的第三門『小始入終』中也說，后二法輪是始終二教。如《深密經》所說，以上三種說法正是以法相宗的第三時教為終教。因為法相宗正當第三時教。所以知道三車教法貫通終教。又在『正立教』中說，中間三教有三種含義，一是總合為一，即一三乘教，因為這些教法都是三人所證得的。如上面所引用的說法。根據這段經文，正是指前面能夠引導三車共同趨向般若的含義，也認為三車總合了中間三教。以上引用了相關經文來證明。 評論說：畫老虎卻像狗，希望成為鳳凰卻成了貓頭鷹，說的就是復子這樣的人。過去我和他一同在仙潭，他最初完成了《易簡百非》的八十段，向我求教。因為他請求懇切，我為他說了幾段，但他又隨意毀壞自己的見解，手抄我的話，卻說：『如果這樣，那麼我的理解大旨都錯了，將要全部修改。』幾個月后又出一本，也是八十段。我又對他說：『《易簡》簡略而沒有綱紀，你所辯論的也過於細微。』例如你所揀擇的三乘，難道僅僅是始教嗎？他於是鼓掌說：『至理名言啊！我雖然有這個想法，卻不敢說出來。』因此，《百非》全部作為權宜之始教。現在他離開了，恰好他的寺廟被有朋所奪，我們這些人都像鳥獸一樣離散，於是他不再向我請教，又到了澄江，於是用這些話再次修改《百非》，申明揀擇三乘的意義，等到他撰寫《析薪作會解》時，其中的道理全部謬誤，成為一時之羞。易簡的徒弟們更加堅持舊說。之所以這樣，是因為他拾取我的話語，卻沒有體會我的意思，想要成就它，反而害了它。這就是所說的畫虎類犬，希鳳成梟。
【English Translation】 English version: The 'vehicle' mentioned here is the distinct difference that sets the Huayan school apart from other schools. Outside of the Huayan school, there are the three vehicles that lead to the intermediate three teachings. Therefore, the next chapter will clearly explain in three aspects that the Faxiang school of the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra (Explanation of the Profound Secrets Sutra) is the final teaching. For example, in the three turnings of the Dharma wheel as explained by the Tang Dynasty Tripitaka Master in the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra, the latter two wheels are the initial and final two teachings. Therefore, the sutra says: 'These three wheels of Dharma only encompass the Śrāvakayāna (Vehicle of Hearers) and the initial and final two teachings within the three vehicles, and do not encompass the unique teaching of the One Vehicle.' (This is also comparing the unique teaching of the One Vehicle with the three vehicles of the Faxiang school, also considering the three vehicles to be connected to the initial and final two teachings.) Furthermore, in the 'Establishing the Correct Teaching,' it is again pointed out that the latter two wheels in the three wheels of the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra are the initial and final two teachings. Also, in the third section of discerning the meaning, 'Entering the Final from the Small and Initial,' it is said that the latter two wheels are the initial and final two teachings. As the Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra says, the above three statements precisely regard the third period teaching of the Faxiang school as the final teaching. Because the Faxiang school is precisely in the third period teaching, it is known that the three vehicles connect to the final teaching. Also, in 'Establishing the Correct Teaching,' it is said that the intermediate three teachings have three meanings. One is to combine them into one, which is the one three-vehicle teaching, because these teachings are all attained by the three types of individuals. As the above-quoted statement says. According to this passage, it precisely refers to the meaning of being able to guide the three vehicles together towards Prajñā (Wisdom), and it is also considered that the three vehicles combine the intermediate three teachings. The above quotes relevant passages to prove this. It is commented that: 'Drawing a tiger but resembling a dog, hoping to become a phoenix but becoming an owl,' this is what describes someone like Fuzi. In the past, he and I were together in Xiantan. He initially completed the eighty sections of Yijian Baifei (Easy and Simple Refutation of a Hundred Errors) and sought my guidance. Because he requested earnestly, I explained several sections to him, but he then arbitrarily destroyed his own views, copying my words, but saying: 'If that is the case, then my understanding of the main points is all wrong, and I will have to completely revise it.' After several months, he produced another book, also with eighty sections. I then said to him: 'Yijian is simple and lacks a framework, and your arguments are also too detailed.' For example, the three vehicles that you have selected, are they only the initial teaching? He then clapped his hands and said: 'Words of ultimate truth! Although I have this idea, I dare not say it.' Therefore, all of Baifei is regarded as a provisional initial teaching. Now he has left, and it happened that his temple was seized by Youpeng, and we all scattered like birds and beasts. Therefore, he no longer sought my guidance, and went to Chengjiang, and then used these words to revise Baifei again, clarifying the meaning of selecting the three vehicles. When he wrote Xixin Zuo Huijie (Analysis of Firewood and Assembly Explanation), the reasoning in it was all erroneous, becoming a disgrace of the time. The disciples of Yijian insisted even more on the old views. The reason for this is that he picked up my words, but did not understand my meaning, wanting to achieve it, but harming it instead. This is what is called 'drawing a tiger but resembling a dog, hoping to become a phoenix but becoming an owl.'
者也今將略提其妄使之自省冀其升吾堂而入吾室亦同體大悲之一端也薪引當文中有四過何者以性為相者一前後冰炭者二三一不斷亦有一焉初者文曰三處明文以深密法相為終教等下文又曰況或固執法相為始教及乎正釋三法輪而曰由三性理通始終二教又曰若依彼三性立彼三無性以顯中道此義通終教又曰況其中攝不空真如耶立教中曰有不空理故義當終教又曰依不空義故法鼓經中以不空為終也今問曰中道之理不空真如豈法相邪以性為相者一也首言深密法相後言中道真如前後冰炭者亦有一矣薪又曰又正立教中雲中間三教有其三義一或總為一謂一三乘教也以此皆為三人所得故乃至三車總合三教也又同教中釋引般若結文云大乘既二乘有實義則大乘必具三乘也及乎正立教中釋皆為三人所得卻云然此所得自有三義始教始終俱別終教始終俱同頓教始終俱離同教差當中破續入二段曰終頓佛果為前三乘人之所趣入故言皆為今試問之此言終頓皆屬三車彼曰所趣同成佛果前後冰炭者二也又問曰終頓三車因車乎果車乎若因車者何以文曰約彼三乘所求果說若果車者應有三果何以下引終同之義證併成佛又說終頓佛果為三所趣又復問曰汝謂併成終頓佛果為是三中牛車為覆露地牛車邪若三之牛車安得三人趣入而併成佛以若併成則無三故若言迴心併成則已無二乘
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 現在我將簡略地提出其中的錯誤，希望他能由此反省，從而提升到我的境界，進入我的思想。這也是同體大悲心的一種體現。現在指出文中的四個過失：第一，以體性作為表相；第二，前後自相矛盾；第三，前後不一致；第四，斷章取義。 首先，文中說『三處明文以深密法相（Yogācāra，唯識宗）為終教』等等，下文又說『況且有人固執以法相為始教』。等到正式解釋三法輪（Dharmacakra，佛陀的三次重要教法宣講）時，又說『由三性理通始終二教』，又說『如果依據這三種自性來建立三種無自性，以此來彰顯中道』，這個意義貫通終教。又說『況且其中包含不空真如（Asunya-tathata，不空的真如）嗎？』立教中說『因為有不空的道理，所以義當終教』，又說『依據不空的意義，所以在《法鼓經》中以不空為終』。現在請問：中道的道理，不空真如，難道是法相嗎？這是以體性作為表相的第一個過失。 開頭說『深密法相』，後面又說『中道真如』，這是前後自相矛盾的過失。 薪又說：『又在正式立教中說，中間三教有三種意義：一是或者總歸為一，說是一三乘教（Triyāna，聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘），因為這些都是三人所證得的，乃至三車總合三教』。又在同教中解釋引用《般若經》的結論說：『大乘既然對二乘有真實的意義，那麼大乘必定具備三乘』。等到正式立教中解釋『都是三人所證得』，卻說『然而這所證得的自有三種意義，始教始終都不同，終教始終都相同，頓教始終都相離，同教差別在於當中』。破續入二段說：『終頓佛果為前三乘之人所趣入，所以說都是』。現在試問：這句話說終教和頓教都屬於三車嗎？他說：『所趣向的都是成就佛果』，這是前後自相矛盾的第二個過失。 又問：終教和頓教的三車，是因地的車還是果地的車？如果是因地的車，為什麼文中說『依據這三乘所求的果來說』？如果是果地的車，應該有三種果，為什麼下面引用終教相同的意義來證明都成就佛果？又說終教和頓教的佛果是三乘所趣向的。又反問：你認為都成就終教和頓教的佛果，是三乘中的牛車，還是露地上的牛車？如果是三乘的牛車，怎麼能讓三人趣入而都成就佛果？如果都成就佛果，那麼就沒有三乘了。如果說迴心后都成就佛果，那麼就已經沒有二乘了。
【English Translation】 English version Now I will briefly point out its errors, hoping that he can reflect on them and thus rise to my level and enter my thoughts. This is also a manifestation of the great compassion of oneness. Now point out the four faults in the text: First, taking essence as appearance; second, contradicting oneself; third, inconsistency; fourth, taking out of context. First, the text says 'The three explicit statements take the profound Yogācāra (唯識宗) as the final teaching,' etc., and later it says 'Moreover, some people stubbornly adhere to the Dharma characteristics as the initial teaching.' When formally explaining the three Dharmacakras (Dharmacakra, the Buddha's three important teachings), it says 'The three natures connect the initial and final two teachings,' and 'If we establish the three non-natures based on these three natures, in order to manifest the Middle Way,' this meaning runs through the final teaching. It also says 'Moreover, does it include Asunya-tathata (不空的真如, the non-empty Thusness)?' In establishing the teaching, it says 'Because there is the principle of non-emptiness, the meaning should be the final teaching,' and 'Based on the meaning of non-emptiness, the Fa Gu Jing (法鼓經) takes non-emptiness as the final teaching.' Now I ask: The principle of the Middle Way, the non-empty Thusness, is it Dharma characteristics? This is the first fault of taking essence as appearance. At the beginning, it says 'profound Dharma characteristics,' and later it says 'Middle Way Thusness,' which is the fault of contradicting oneself. Xin also said: 'Also, in the formal establishment of the teaching, it is said that the three intermediate teachings have three meanings: one is to generalize as one, saying that it is the one Triyāna (聲聞乘, 緣覺乘, 菩薩乘), because these are all attained by three people, and even the three carts combine the three teachings.' Also, in the explanation of the same teaching, the conclusion of the Prajna Sutra is quoted: 'Since the Mahayana has a real meaning for the two vehicles, then the Mahayana must have the three vehicles.' When formally establishing the teaching, it is explained that 'all are attained by three people,' but it says 'However, what is attained has three meanings, the initial teaching is different from beginning to end, the final teaching is the same from beginning to end, the sudden teaching is separated from beginning to end, and the same teaching differs in the middle.' The two paragraphs of breaking and continuing say: 'The final and sudden Buddha fruits are what the people of the previous three vehicles are interested in, so it is said that they are all.' Now try to ask: Does this sentence say that the final and sudden teachings belong to the three vehicles? He said: 'What they are interested in is the attainment of Buddhahood,' which is the second fault of contradicting oneself. Also ask: Are the three vehicles of the final and sudden teachings the vehicles of the cause or the vehicles of the effect? If it is the vehicle of the cause, why does the text say 'According to the fruit sought by these three vehicles'? If it is the vehicle of the effect, there should be three fruits, why does the following quote the same meaning of the final teaching to prove that all achieve Buddhahood? It also says that the Buddha fruits of the final and sudden teachings are what the three vehicles are interested in. Also ask: Do you think that all achieve the Buddha fruits of the final and sudden teachings, are they the ox carts in the three vehicles, or the ox carts on the open ground? If it is the ox cart of the three vehicles, how can three people be interested in it and all achieve Buddhahood? If all achieve Buddhahood, then there are no three vehicles. If it is said that after turning the mind, all achieve Buddhahood, then there are already no two vehicles.
何必廣破三果若曰三中牛之因車須廣破者則亦違所求果說此言三車彼曰併成三一不斷者一也若如汝說則易簡獨揀始教三乘義極成矣是知涉獵經書全無理水落筆成非發言誕妄也上引當文並皆解釋首尾相背明文三乘列終頓處略不引成是俱不曉也。
薪曰二引他文者大疏光宅四乘中彼以三車為權清涼辯違云若唯說法華為實則抑諸般若及大乘了義之經是知昔大亦有權實法華俱會昔權故說三皆虛指昔實不滯方便故不會之演義云以抑昔大乘了義之經皆成權故(此文不許昔大皆屬權也亦是通中間三教之意)又南中諸師第二時空第三時為雙照空有(此當臨門三車)清涼辯違云若第二時未顯常住實相般若豈無常邪涅槃亦說佛性亦名般若是知實相般若則正因佛性等(此不許于第二第三時一向是權)如上所引並以三車通中間三教非唯始教也。
議曰此有二過初三一舛謬過二引證不齊過初者且將問曰清涼昔日之實屬終頓教彼疏抄者判一乎判三乎若判三者何以彼文終頓俱入一邪圭山亦曰但光宅不顯說昔日自有一乘實教則抑諸部般若大乘之經若判一者今引何證以彼之一為今之三三一舛謬過者一也廣引彼文證今之義三一既差別證不齊過者亦有一焉折薪既失會解愈謬並焚之並焚之。
薪二問答辯明者問若如所引雖知三車通於三教何故
圭山云然此大乘與一乘異者法相宗學人多不信之故華嚴藏和尚制五教義分齊文中料揀大乘有十義差別都引二十餘部經論證之據此豈法相宗是終教頓教邪答此文乃是乘攝中文其中曾不言是始是終況復如上文引正以法相宗深密第三時為終邪況圭山乃是性相對論今文乃是別教一乘與三乘對說若以法相宗證此三車為始教何不以彼一乘證今一乘為終教邪況或固執法相為始教者此亦是吾宗大分一意但不可堅守何者若以意求昔日三車通乎二義如上引破光宅之文並破南中二三時教則昔三乘通乎權實若辯光宅等順則許昔三是權故云若依昔未顯說一切具有如來知見根敗之種今昔有異演義云昔日大乘亦說如來藏性涅槃法身真常之理未曾顯說一切眾生皆具如來知見則一乘三乘昔權今實又云昔日實體不足皆屬法華(此則許昔三唯始教此中許意非昔無實但實體不足由對法華一向實故大分以昔三是權始教義也)又南中諸師辯順中若約大分猶有理在(此亦許二三時為權始教義)故清涼破南中五時而圭山用南中五時者正取清涼辯順中大分之意皆須善得文意不可局執今文乃是通相之義故當中間三教也乃至若三車為教一乘為義則唯法華若門外三車設之為教得出為義通指余經余經即法華以前諸大乘經也此之三義亦證知唯有一乘而有二教等。
議曰此中有九
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 圭山云然認為，法相宗的學人大多不相信大乘和一乘之間存在差異，因此華嚴藏和尚撰寫了《五教義分齊文》，在文中區分了大乘的十種差異，並引用了二十多部經論來證明這一點。如果按照這種說法，難道法相宗就屬於終教或頓教嗎？回答是：這篇文章乃是乘攝中文，其中並沒有說是始教還是終教。況且如上文所引，正是以法相宗的《深密解脫經》第三時教為終教。況且圭山是性相對論者，現在的文章是別教一乘與三乘相對而說的。如果用法相宗來證明過去的三車是始教，為什麼不用一乘來證明現在的一乘是終教呢？況且如果有人固執地認為法相宗是始教，這也是我們宗門的一種大的區分和一種觀點，但不可固守。為什麼呢？如果用意去探求，昔日的三車通乎二義，如上文引用的破光宅的文字，以及破南中二三時教的文字，那麼過去的三乘就通乎權實。如果辯論光宅等人的順，就允許過去的三是權教，所以說如果依據過去未顯說的『一切眾生都具有如來知見』，根敗之種，那麼現在和過去就有所不同。《演義》說，過去的大乘也說如來藏性、涅槃法身、真常之理，但未曾顯說一切眾生都具有如來知見，那麼一乘和三乘就是過去是權教，現在是實教。又說，過去實體不足，都屬於《法華經》（這說明允許過去的三乘只是始教，這裡允許的含義並非過去沒有實，但實體不足，因為相對於《法華經》的一向實，所以大體上認為過去的三乘是權教始教的含義）。而且南中諸師辯論順中，如果按照大體來分，還是有道理的（這也允許二三時教是權教始教的含義）。所以清涼破斥南中的五時教，而圭山採用南中的五時教，正是取清涼辯論順中的大體含義，都必須善於理解文意，不可侷限於執著。現在的文章是通相的含義，所以是當中間的三教。乃至如果三車是教，一乘是義，那麼只有《法華經》；如果門外的三車被設定為教，得出為義，就通指其他的經典，其他的經典就是《法華經》以前的各大乘經典。這三種含義也證明了只有一乘，而有二教等。 議曰，此中有九。
【English Translation】 English version Guishan Yunran believed that most scholars of the Faxiang School (Dharmalaksana School, a major school of Chinese Buddhism) did not believe in the difference between Mahayana (Great Vehicle) and Ekayana (One Vehicle), so the monk Huayanzang wrote 'The Meaning and Distinction of the Five Teachings', in which he distinguished ten differences of Mahayana and cited more than twenty sutras and treatises to prove this point. According to this statement, does the Faxiang School belong to the Final Teaching or the Sudden Teaching? The answer is: This article is a text within the 'Vehicle Collection', which does not say whether it is the Initial Teaching or the Final Teaching. Moreover, as quoted above, it is precisely the Faxiang School's Third Period Teaching of the Samdhinirmocana Sutra ( 解深密經 ) as the Final Teaching. Moreover, Guishan is a proponent of the theory of relative nature, and the current article is a discussion of the Distinct Teaching of One Vehicle in contrast to the Three Vehicles. If the Faxiang School is used to prove that the Three Vehicles of the past are the Initial Teaching, why not use the One Vehicle to prove that the One Vehicle of the present is the Final Teaching? Moreover, if someone stubbornly believes that the Faxiang School is the Initial Teaching, this is also a major distinction and a viewpoint of our school, but it should not be rigidly adhered to. Why? If we try to explore with intention, the Three Vehicles of the past are connected to two meanings, as quoted above in the text refuting Guangzhai, and the text refuting the Second and Third Period Teachings of Nanzhong, then the Three Vehicles of the past are connected to the provisional and the real. If we discuss the compliance of Guangzhai and others, we allow the past Three Vehicles to be provisional teachings, so it is said that if we rely on the past unspoken 'all sentient beings possess the knowledge and vision of the Tathagata (如來)', the seeds of those whose roots are ruined, then the present and the past are different. The Commentary says that the Mahayana of the past also spoke of the Tathagatagarbha-nature (如來藏性), Nirvana-dharmakaya (涅槃法身), and the principle of true permanence, but it never explicitly stated that all sentient beings possess the knowledge and vision of the Tathagata, then the One Vehicle and the Three Vehicles are provisional teachings in the past and real teachings in the present. It also says that the substance of the past was insufficient and all belonged to the Lotus Sutra (法華經) (this shows that it is permissible for the past Three Vehicles to be only the Initial Teaching, the meaning of permission here is not that the past had no reality, but the substance was insufficient, because relative to the consistent reality of the Lotus Sutra, so it is generally considered that the past Three Vehicles are the meaning of the provisional Initial Teaching). Moreover, the masters of Nanzhong debated compliance, and if divided according to the general principle, there is still reason (this also allows the Second and Third Period Teachings to be the meaning of the provisional Initial Teaching). Therefore, Qingliang refuted the Five Periods of Teaching of Nanzhong, while Guishan adopted the Five Periods of Teaching of Nanzhong, precisely taking the general meaning of Qingliang's debate on compliance, all must be good at understanding the meaning of the text, and should not be limited to clinging. The current article is the meaning of the general appearance, so it is the Three Teachings in the middle. Even if the Three Vehicles are the teaching and the One Vehicle is the meaning, then there is only the Lotus Sutra; if the Three Vehicles outside the gate are set as the teaching, and 'to get out' is the meaning, it generally refers to other sutras, and the other sutras are the major Mahayana sutras before the Lotus Sutra. These three meanings also prove that there is only One Vehicle, but there are Two Teachings, etc. It is said that there are nine in this.
過焉何者臆說祖意者二以相兼性者一三車唯相前無空經昔實屬始終頓徒施權實不明鰕跳不出㪷者亦各有一焉初者賢首作章自言但以和尚章疏義豐文簡多難趣入故錄微言勒成教分記等今云特由相學是故作章臆說祖意者一也圭山但云由相學不信故文中引二十餘部經論證之曾不言獨揀相宗不揀終頓賢首自說述作之意圭山豈特違哉臆說祖意者二也性相二宗乖如水火此方彼土自古相排今以相通乎性云何成異以相兼性者三病也汝謂賢首探玄方改自語相違者奈何今章中下兩卷亦判相教為始此有謗祖之愆可成十病矣法華之前空有互陳古今共許汝說三車雖通三教唯是相宗古聖先賢並無此說三車唯相者四病也昔若但相應不談空不應以空還歸法相設欲言有不屬三車以離三車昔無有故昔無空經者五病也玄談之文義有縱奪縱之則昔日有實法華不會會者但權權皆屬始始中亦兼空有二教爾則三車唯屬始門若或奪之昔日未曾顯說一切具有知見縱說涅槃真常之理實體不足皆屬法華僉須破會雖有權實盡屬三車一乘三乘昔權今實若爾則權通三教總判昔經望今一乘權實差別正與今章旨相符汝今盡判昔實屬始者六病也又若昔實盡歸始者孔目教章皆以法華為一則三乘終頓宛爾徒施者七病也聞說昔權今實便謂昔皆始教則權實差別等諸權言通不能曉一乘三乘權實未決者汝
【現代漢語翻譯】 對於哪些是臆測祖師意圖的說法，有兩種觀點：一是將相宗與性宗相結合，二是認為三車（譬喻）只代表相宗，而之前的經典沒有空宗的教義。還有人認為之前的教義實際上包含了始終頓漸，而權實（方便之權和真實之實）的教義沒有被正確理解，或者認為小蝦跳不出斗（比喻見識短淺）。這些觀點各有其問題。首先，賢首（賢首國師，華嚴宗創始人之一）在自己的著作中說，他只是因為和尚的章疏義理豐富但文字簡略，難以理解，所以記錄了精微的言論，編成了教分記等。現在卻說他專門研究相宗，因此寫作章疏是臆測祖師意圖，這是第一種錯誤。圭山（圭峰宗密，華嚴宗五祖）只是說因為研究相宗而不相信其他宗派，所以在文章中引用了二十多部經論來證明，並沒有說只選擇相宗而不選擇終頓。賢首自己說明了寫作的意圖，圭山難道不是特別違背了他的意思嗎？這是第二種錯誤。性宗和相宗的觀點差異巨大，如同水火不相容，此方（指性宗）和彼土（指相宗）自古以來就相互排斥。現在卻要將相宗與性宗相通，這怎麼能成立呢？將相宗與性宗相結合是第三種錯誤。你說賢首在《探玄記》中改變了自己的說法，這與他自己之前所說的是矛盾的，這又該如何解釋呢？現在章疏中的下兩卷也判定相教為始教，這有誹謗祖師的過錯，可以算是第十種錯誤了。《法華經》之前，空有互相陳述，這是古今都認可的。你說三車雖然貫通三教，但只是相宗，古聖先賢都沒有這種說法。認為三車只代表相宗是第四種錯誤。如果過去只是相宗，不談空宗，就不應該用空宗來回歸法相宗。如果想要說有宗，又不屬於三車，因為離開了三車，過去沒有有宗的說法，所以認為之前的經典沒有空宗的教義是第五種錯誤。玄談的文義有縱奪之分，縱之則過去有實法，《法華經》不會破斥，會破斥的只是權教，權教都屬於始教，始教中也兼有空有二教。那麼三車只屬於始門。如果奪之，過去未曾明顯地說一切都具有知見，縱然說了涅槃真常的道理，實體不足，都屬於《法華經》，都需要破斥。雖然有權實，但都屬於三車，一乘和三乘，過去是權教，現在是實教。如果這樣，那麼權教貫通三教，總的來說，之前的經典與現在的《法華經》在權實差別上，正與現在章疏的主旨相符。你現在完全判定之前的實教屬於始教，這是第六種錯誤。又如果之前的實教完全歸於始教，那麼孔目的教章都以《法華經》為一，那麼三乘和終頓就完全是徒勞的，這是第七種錯誤。聽說過去是權教，現在是實教，就認為過去都是始教，那麼權實差別等同於各種權教的說法，不能理解一乘和三乘的權實未決，你...
【English Translation】 Regarding the assertions about what constitutes speculation on the ancestral intent, there are two viewpoints: one is combining the characteristics (laksana) and nature (svabhava) schools, and the other is that the Three Vehicles (a metaphor for different levels of Buddhist teachings) only represent the Laksana school, while previous sutras did not contain the teachings of the Emptiness (sunyata) school. There are also those who believe that the previous teachings actually encompassed the beginning, the end, the sudden, and the gradual, and that the doctrines of expedient means (upaya) and ultimate reality (paramartha) were not correctly understood, or that a small shrimp cannot jump out of a dipper (a metaphor for limited perspective). Each of these viewpoints has its problems. Firstly, Xianshou (National Teacher Xianshou, one of the founders of the Huayan school) stated in his own writings that he only recorded subtle words and compiled them into teachings and commentaries because the commentaries of the monks were rich in meaning but concise in writing, making them difficult to understand. Now, it is said that he specifically studied the Laksana school, and therefore writing commentaries is speculation on the ancestral intent, which is the first error. Guishan (Guifeng Zongmi, the fifth patriarch of the Huayan school) only said that because he studied the Laksana school, he did not believe in other schools, so he cited more than twenty sutras and treatises in his articles to prove it, without saying that he only chose the Laksana school and not the final and sudden teachings. Xianshou himself explained the intention of his writing, so isn't Guishan particularly violating his meaning? This is the second error. The views of the Nature and Laksana schools are vastly different, like fire and water, incompatible. This side (referring to the Nature school) and that side (referring to the Laksana school) have been mutually exclusive since ancient times. Now, to connect the Laksana school with the Nature school, how can this be established? Combining the Laksana school with the Nature school is the third error. You say that Xianshou changed his statement in the 'Tanyuan Ji', which contradicts what he said before, so how can this be explained? Now, the lower two volumes of the commentary also judge the Laksana teaching as the beginning teaching, which is a fault of slandering the patriarch, and can be considered the tenth error. Before the 'Lotus Sutra', emptiness and existence were mutually stated, which has been recognized by ancient and modern times. You say that although the Three Vehicles penetrate the three teachings, they are only the Laksana school, and the ancient sages and worthies did not have this statement. Thinking that the Three Vehicles only represent the Laksana school is the fourth error. If in the past it was only the Laksana school and did not talk about the Emptiness school, then the Emptiness school should not be used to return to the Laksana school. If you want to talk about the Existence school, it does not belong to the Three Vehicles, because it is separated from the Three Vehicles. There was no statement of the Existence school in the past, so thinking that the previous sutras did not have the teachings of the Emptiness school is the fifth error. The meaning of the profound discussion has aspects of both acceptance and rejection. Accepting it means that in the past there was real dharma, and the 'Lotus Sutra' would not refute it. What would be refuted is only the expedient teaching, and the expedient teaching all belongs to the beginning teaching, and the beginning teaching also includes both emptiness and existence. Then the Three Vehicles only belong to the beginning gate. If rejecting it, in the past it was never clearly said that everything has knowledge and vision, and even if the principle of Nirvana and true permanence was spoken, the entity was insufficient and all belonged to the 'Lotus Sutra', which all needs to be refuted. Although there are expedient means and ultimate reality, they all belong to the Three Vehicles. The One Vehicle and the Three Vehicles, in the past were expedient teachings, and now are real teachings. If so, then the expedient teachings penetrate the three teachings. In general, the difference between the previous sutras and the current 'Lotus Sutra' in terms of expedient means and ultimate reality is exactly in line with the main purpose of the current commentary. You now completely judge that the previous real teaching belongs to the beginning teaching, which is the sixth error. Also, if the previous real teaching completely belongs to the beginning teaching, then the teachings of Kongmu all take the 'Lotus Sutra' as one, then the Three Vehicles and the final and sudden teachings are completely in vain, which is the seventh error. Hearing that the past was the expedient teaching and the present is the real teaching, one thinks that the past was all the beginning teaching, then the difference between expedient means and ultimate reality is equivalent to the various expedient teachings, and one cannot understand the undecided expedient means and ultimate reality of the One Vehicle and the Three Vehicles, you...
坐矣八病也昔日有實總屬始門今章昔三縱有頓實於何非始云何汝說欲高易簡是謂鰕跳不能出㪷者九病也又亦錯判清涼縱奪通揀不曉演義會解亦可火矣。
薪曰一權下問此實是終實邪指別教邪此權是始教邪通相說邪答此實則別教一乘此權則中間三教何者如答小乘無行果則云今依大乘故無實行果此大乘則通實也若約三皆無實則望一乘故皆權也等至能引三車通大乘終教又后皆進入別教一乘等。
議曰此有五病能所不分判妙為粗者各有其一切類笑林者二自語楚夏亦有一焉何者若取下文今依大乘之句證今所揀大乘通實而俱是權者今問汝曰此句大乘牛車法體之大乘邪大乘經名之大乘邪若三中牛車所喻之法體大乘此是理行果等為體何有云言若曰大乘經者何以引成此中牛車法體通終教邪若曰此大乘經詮此法故故得引者乘是昔乘經是今經安以今日法華詮彼昔日權乘是知不曉有大乘經有大乘法今言無得乃大乘法體果行虛故是以屬權若大乘經縱使昔日所說小大之經既結集後部帙具存安得空無遊學二十年住持十餘載能所未分一病也教章孔目皆指法華為同教一乘所依之典汝謂通實之權判妙為粗二病也薪又曰若約三皆無實則望一乘故皆權者亦將問曰汝以下文大乘通實之權望彼別教一乘而無得者為望一乘法體耶為望能詮之華嚴邪若言法體
者以法華之文言對彼具德之性果辯權實乎設欲對之法華一部之文見在龍藏安曰無得若對華嚴經部而無得者又不可也何者現見法華華嚴相對安著法華無恙安謂空無汝皆臆說使人捧腹而絕倒切類笑林者三病也又令后皆進入別教一乘者應是后時七卷法華皆將散入八十卷內使華嚴添卻許多言句矣是亦切類笑林四病也前曰昔實屬始今曰通乎頓實是非自語楚夏哉五病也。
薪曰亦不下所以遮者以古來諸師立於十義乃至具書十義終註文云上皆彼文。
議曰此有無理衍引過且智者未出人多不曉異說紛紜是以文句具列具破大師出后正義已申況清涼賢首破二破三亦提大旨豈二祖師不讀文句邪要義不遵閑詞強用費謄寫之工翳名教之理南山曰文繁誰欲為之蓋為事不獲己今浪書八百餘言其不得已哉有類此者舉此可焚之。
薪曰問二下此中問意躡上文云約彼三乘所求果說乃至不約大乘果為問者以大乘出界未即是果以界外有四種變易生死故二障雙斷不獨斷煩惱故也等。
議曰此有項籍不臣過何者章曰此中三車約彼果說今云出界未即是果者是抗祖師之命釋其章而拒其命得非項羽陽尊懷王而不用其命哉不然則自位究竟得出為義通不曉也不知破彼三車何物空無慾取著述之名以誑孺子可乎哉可乎哉。
薪曰答依下云今依大乘雲
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：有人用《法華經》的文字，針對那些具有功德之人的性果，來辯論權巧和真實嗎？假設要用《法華經》整部經的文字來辯論，而經文現在就在龍藏中，怎麼能說沒有呢？如果說針對《華嚴經》整部經而說沒有，那也是不可以的。為什麼呢？因為現在明明看到《法華經》和《華嚴經》相對並存，安然無恙。竟然說《法華經》空無所有，你們都是在胡說八道，讓人笑得前仰後合，簡直就像笑林廣記一樣，這是第一種毛病。又讓後人都進入別教一乘，那應該是以後七卷的《法華經》都要分散到八十卷的《華嚴經》里，讓《華嚴經》增加許多言句了。這也是簡直就像笑林廣記一樣，這是第二種毛病。之前說過去確實屬於始教，現在又說通於頓教，這難道不是自相矛盾嗎？這是第三種毛病。
有人說：『也不用那些遮止的說法，因為自古以來各位法師立於十義，甚至詳細書寫十義，最終在註文中說以上都是他們的原文。』
我認為：這有無理引申的過錯，況且在智者大師（智顗，隋代天臺宗的實際創始人）未出世之前，很多人不瞭解，異說紛紜，因此《法華文句》詳細列出並詳細破斥。大師出世之後，正義已經闡明，況且清涼（澄觀，唐代華嚴宗四祖）和賢首（法藏，唐代華嚴宗三祖）破二破三，也提綱挈領。難道這兩位祖師不讀《法華文句》嗎？重要的意義不遵循，卻強行使用閑散的詞語，浪費謄寫的功夫，遮蔽名教的道理。南山律師（道宣，唐代律宗祖師）說：『文字繁瑣，誰願意去做呢？』這是因為事情不得已。現在隨便寫了八百多字，難道是不得已嗎？有類似情況的，舉出這個就可以燒掉了。
有人說：『問二下，這裡提問的意思是承接上文說，根據他們三乘所求的果位來說，甚至不根據大乘的果位來提問，因為大乘超出界外，還不是果位，因為界外有四種變易生死，所以二障（煩惱障和所知障）都斷，不只是斷煩惱等等。』
我認為：這有項羽不臣服的過錯。為什麼呢？章安大師（灌頂，隋代天臺宗僧人，智顗弟子）說：『這裡的三車是根據他們的果位來說的。』現在卻說超出界外還不是果位，這是抗拒祖師的命令，解釋他的章節卻拒絕他的命令，難道不是像項羽表面上尊重楚懷王卻不聽從他的命令嗎？不然的話，就是自己位究竟得出為義通不曉得，也不知道破斥他們的三車是什麼東西，空無所有，想要取得著述的名聲來欺騙小孩子嗎？可以嗎？可以嗎？
有人回答說：『根據下面所說，現在根據大乘說。』
【English Translation】 English version: Does someone use the words of the 'Lotus Sutra' (Fǎ Huá Jīng) to argue about the expedient and the real, targeting the nature-fruit of those with merits? Supposing one were to argue using the entire text of the 'Lotus Sutra' (Fǎ Huá Jīng), and the text is now in the Dragon Canon (Lóng Zàng), how can one say it is not there? If one says it is not there when referring to the entire 'Avatamsaka Sutra' (Huá Yán Jīng), that is also not permissible. Why? Because now we clearly see the 'Lotus Sutra' (Fǎ Huá Jīng) and the 'Avatamsaka Sutra' (Huá Yán Jīng) existing side by side, safe and sound. To say that the 'Lotus Sutra' (Fǎ Huá Jīng) is empty and non-existent is utter nonsense, making people laugh until they fall over, just like a joke book. This is the first fault. Furthermore, to make all future generations enter the Separate Teaching One Vehicle (Bié Jiào Yī Chéng), it would mean that the seven fascicles of the 'Lotus Sutra' (Fǎ Huá Jīng) would be scattered into the eighty fascicles of the 'Avatamsaka Sutra' (Huá Yán Jīng), adding many words to the 'Avatamsaka Sutra' (Huá Yán Jīng). This is also just like a joke book. This is the second fault. Previously, it was said that the past truly belonged to the Initial Teaching (Shǐ Jiào), but now it is said to be connected to the Sudden Teaching (Dùn Jiào). Isn't this self-contradictory? This is the third fault.
Someone says: 'There is also no need for those prohibitive statements, because since ancient times, various masters have established the Ten Meanings, even writing them out in detail, and ultimately saying in the commentary that the above are all their original words.'
I think: This has the fault of unreasonable extension. Moreover, before the Venerable Zhi Zhe (Zhì Yǐ, the de facto founder of the Tiantai school in the Sui Dynasty) appeared, many people did not understand, and differing opinions were rampant. Therefore, the 'Words and Phrases of the Lotus Sutra' (Fǎ Huá Wén Jù) listed and refuted them in detail. After the master appeared, the correct meaning has been clarified. Furthermore, Qingliang (Chéng Guān, the fourth patriarch of the Huayan school in the Tang Dynasty) and Xianshou (Fǎ Zàng, the third patriarch of the Huayan school in the Tang Dynasty) broke down two and three, and also grasped the main points. Did these two patriarchs not read the 'Words and Phrases of the Lotus Sutra' (Fǎ Huá Wén Jù)? They do not follow the important meanings, but forcibly use idle words, wasting the effort of copying, and obscuring the principles of the teachings. Vinaya Master Nanshan (Dào Xuān, the founder of the Vinaya school in the Tang Dynasty) said: 'Who would want to do it if the text is verbose?' This is because the matter is unavoidable. Now, more than eight hundred words are written casually. Is it unavoidable? For similar situations, pointing this out can be burned.
Someone says: 'Question two below, the meaning of the question here is to follow the previous text, saying that according to the fruit position sought by the Three Vehicles, even not according to the fruit position of the Mahayana to ask, because the Mahayana is beyond the realm, not yet the fruit position, because there are four kinds of variable births and deaths outside the realm, so the two obstacles (klesha-avarana and jneya-avarana) are both cut off, not just cutting off afflictions, etc.'
I think: This has the fault of Xiang Yu not submitting. Why? Master Zhang'an (Guàn Dǐng, a monk of the Tiantai school in the Sui Dynasty, a disciple of Zhiyi) said: 'The three carts here are according to their fruit position.' Now it is said that being beyond the realm is not yet the fruit position. This is resisting the master's command, explaining his chapter but rejecting his command. Isn't it like Xiang Yu superficially respecting King Huai of Chu but not following his orders? Otherwise, it is that one's own position is ultimately obtained as the meaning is not understood, and one does not know what the three carts they refuted are, empty and non-existent, wanting to obtain the name of authorship to deceive children? Is it permissible? Is it permissible?
Someone answers: 'According to what is said below, now according to the Mahayana it is said.'
昔日但有言教無實行果故者經云以佛教門出三界苦是昔但有言教也等。
議曰此中今昔不辨權實無分前後矛盾各有其一以佛教門出三界苦法華正文前文指此大乘但曰通實之三車又望一乘而俱是權若或昔權今實法華是昔權何經當彼今實此則今昔不辨一過也同教所依之經而曰通實之權權實無分二過也前文指為無體之牛車今謂是有形之言教前後矛盾者三過也。
薪曰今言下上來二段一約小依大故無小果二約自宗故各有果今約三望一故皆無果也方便相盡者正別教意以三本是一故三相盡也。
議曰此中有三病同教三乘不盡病法華不能破會病三乘不破自盡病何者且別教三本是一故得彼盡同教見有方便應不盡邪一病也法華義唯同教應不破會此經縱有別義亦對方便皆同教故相盡唯別同應不盡則法華不能破會二病也別教唯是華嚴華嚴曾不破會同教門下方便相又不盡今說三乘皆儘是自盡也三乘不破而自盡者三病也。
薪曰以至下云后皆進入則約三乘俱入也故經云今此幼童皆是吾子愛無偏黨我有如是七寶大車其數無量應當等心各各與之不宜差別此則皆進入別教一乘之意也下亦云三乘根不定故堪可進入別教一乘等亦此意也又探玄雲前共教菩薩于彼教中多時長養深解窮徹行佈教源即當得此普賢法界(此是進入別教一乘)
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：過去只有言語教導而沒有實際修行結果的情況，正如經文所說，『以佛教的教門脫離三界之苦』，這只是過去只有言語教導的情況等等。
議論說：這裡『今』和『昔』沒有區分，權宜之說和真實之說沒有區分，前後矛盾，各有各的問題。說『以佛教的教門脫離三界之苦』，《法華經》正文的前文就指出了這種大乘，只是說『通』和『實』的三車，又從一乘的角度來看，都只是權宜之說。如果說是過去是權宜之說，現在是真實之說，那麼《法華經》是過去的權宜之說，哪部經才是現在的真實之說呢？這是『今』和『昔』沒有區分的第一重過失。同樣教義所依據的經典，卻說是『通』和『實』的權宜之說，權宜之說和真實之說沒有區分，這是第二重過失。前文指為沒有實體的牛車，現在說是具有形態的言語教導，前後矛盾，這是第三重過失。
薪曰：現在說『下』和『上來』兩段，一段是從小乘依靠大乘的角度來說，所以沒有小乘的果報；一段是從自宗的角度來說，所以各有果報。現在是從三乘希望一乘的角度來說，所以都沒有果報。『方便相盡』，正是別教的意義，因為三乘的根本是一樣的，所以三乘的相狀都消失了。
議論說：這裡有三種弊病：同教的三乘沒有窮盡的弊病，《法華經》不能破除和會通的弊病，三乘不被破除而自行消失的弊病。為什麼這麼說呢？因為別教的三乘根本是一樣的，所以能夠窮盡；同教認為有方便之說，應該沒有窮盡，這是第一重弊病。《法華經》的意義只是同教，應該不能破除和會通，這部經即使有別教的意義，也是針對方便之說，都是同教的緣故，相狀消失只是別教，同教應該沒有窮盡，那麼《法華經》就不能破除和會通，這是第二重弊病。別教只是《華嚴經》，《華嚴經》從來沒有破除和會通，同教門下的方便之說也沒有窮盡，現在說三乘都窮盡了，這是自行消失。三乘不被破除而自行消失，這是第三重弊病。
薪曰：『以至』下文說『後來都進入』，就是從三乘都進入的角度來說。所以經文說：『現在這些幼童都是我的孩子，愛沒有偏袒，我有如此七寶大車，數量無量，應當平等地給他們，不應該有差別。』這就是都進入別教一乘的意義。下文也說『三乘的根基不固定，所以可以進入別教一乘』等等，也是這個意思。又《探玄記》說：『以前的共教菩薩在那教中長時間培養，深刻理解，窮盡徹悟，施行教化之源，就應當得到這普賢法界（這是進入別教一乘）。』
【English Translation】 English version: In the past, there were only verbal teachings without actual results of practice. As the scripture says, 'Using the Buddhist teachings to escape the suffering of the three realms,' this is just the situation where there were only verbal teachings in the past, and so on.
It is argued: Here, 'past' and 'present' are not distinguished, expedient teachings and true teachings are not differentiated, and there are contradictions between the beginning and the end, each with its own problems. Saying 'Using the Buddhist teachings to escape the suffering of the three realms,' the preceding text of the Lotus Sutra points out this Mahayana, only saying the 'shared' and 'true' three vehicles, and from the perspective of the One Vehicle, they are all just expedient teachings. If it is said that the past was expedient and the present is true, then the Lotus Sutra is the expedient teaching of the past, and which scripture is the true teaching of the present? This is the first fault of not distinguishing 'past' and 'present.' The scriptures on which the same teachings are based are said to be the expedient teachings of 'shared' and 'true,' without differentiating between expedient and true teachings, which is the second fault. The preceding text referred to it as a bullock cart without substance, but now it is said to be verbal teachings with form, which is the third fault of contradiction between the beginning and the end.
Xin says: Now, the two paragraphs 'below' and 'above' are, one, from the perspective of the Small Vehicle relying on the Great Vehicle, so there is no fruit of the Small Vehicle; two, from the perspective of one's own school, so each has its own fruit. Now, from the perspective of the three vehicles hoping for the One Vehicle, so none of them have fruit. 'The exhaustion of expedient appearances' is precisely the meaning of the Separate Teaching (biejiao), because the roots of the three vehicles are the same, so the appearances of the three vehicles all disappear.
It is argued: Here, there are three defects: the defect that the three vehicles of the Shared Teaching (tongjiao) are not exhausted, the defect that the Lotus Sutra cannot break through and reconcile, and the defect that the three vehicles are not broken through but disappear on their own. Why is this said? Because the roots of the three vehicles of the Separate Teaching are the same, so they can be exhausted; the Shared Teaching believes that there are expedient teachings, which should not be exhausted, which is the first defect. The meaning of the Lotus Sutra is only the Shared Teaching, which should not be able to break through and reconcile. Even if this scripture has the meaning of the Separate Teaching, it is aimed at expedient teachings, which are all of the Shared Teaching, so the disappearance of appearances is only the Separate Teaching, and the Shared Teaching should not be exhausted, then the Lotus Sutra cannot break through and reconcile, which is the second defect. The Separate Teaching is only the Avatamsaka Sutra, and the Avatamsaka Sutra has never broken through and reconciled. The expedient teachings under the Shared Teaching are also not exhausted. Now it is said that the three vehicles are all exhausted, which is self-disappearance. The three vehicles are not broken through but disappear on their own, which is the third defect.
Xin says: The text 'to the point of' below says 'later they all enter,' which is from the perspective of all three vehicles entering. Therefore, the scripture says: 'Now these young children are all my children, and my love is impartial. I have such seven-jeweled great carts, in countless numbers, and I should give them equally to each of them, and there should be no difference.' This is the meaning of all entering the One Vehicle of the Separate Teaching. The text below also says 'The roots of the three vehicles are not fixed, so they can enter the One Vehicle of the Separate Teaching,' and so on, which is also this meaning. Also, the Tantraloka says: 'The former Shared Teaching Bodhisattvas are nurtured for a long time in that teaching, deeply understand, exhaustively comprehend, and practice the source of teaching, and they should obtain this Samantabhadra Dharma Realm (this is entering the One Vehicle of the Separate Teaching).'
。
議曰此中有五種失同教機無極果失共教無人入同失同別應分權實失法華絕無所化失全同昔人謬解失何者且特引第八而揀第七第七之機應不得普賢法界若不得者便無極果一病也共教三乘皆入第八應不入彼所揀之七邪別機總不入同二病也同教之人不得普賢法界應是權邪同若屬權入別方實同別而分權實自古未有三病也法華總屬同教別機皆入華嚴法華所化之機宛若太空者四病也易簡法師每說從三入同從同入別人皆非之今同若無果不入而何全同謬說者五病也設或與彼不同而不和會是亦病也。
薪問臨門下此問乃至答中初方便者既引子出世自位究竟即是實也故經云汝速出三界當得三乘聲聞辟支佛佛乘我今為汝保任此事終不虛也次方便者引出無果即是權也言此二者實不實也言無二者唯一方便也三乘雖有實以望一乘俱是方便故唯一相也。
議曰此有二失臆說方便失不識教義失何者據析薪第二卷初乃約教義釋此二義彼曰所謂義者非約所詮乃約有實方為義也正如上由是方便引子得出非不實也即三乘義自位究竟故有實義爾若望一乘義亦稱教如上云由是方便引故非是實也今問曰此實不實約教義乎臆說方便不識教義各有一矣是知但見經論疏章之文彷彿相似便乃抄寫初不知其義理若何是亦偶然非亦偶然全不自曉前後類皆相違
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
討論：這裡面有五種錯誤：一、同教的根機無法證得究竟果位；二、共教中沒有人能進入同教；三、同教和別教應該區分權實；四、《法華經》完全沒有可以度化的對象；五、完全等同於過去人的錯誤理解。為什麼呢？且特別引用第八識來揀別第七識，第七識的根機如果不能證得普賢法界（Samantabhadra's Dharmadhatu），如果不能證得，那麼就沒有究竟果位，這是第一種錯誤。共教的三乘都進入第八識，那麼就不應該進入他們所揀別的第七識，所有別教的根機都不進入同教，這是第二種錯誤。同教的人不能證得普賢法界，那麼就應該是權教的邪見，如果屬於權教，進入別教才證得實教，同教和別教區分權實，自古以來沒有這樣的說法，這是第三種錯誤。《法華經》（Lotus Sutra）全部屬於同教，別教的根機都進入《華嚴經》（Avatamsaka Sutra），《法華經》所度化的根機宛如太空一樣空無一物，這是第四種錯誤。易簡法師（Yijian Fashi）每次都說從三乘進入同教，從同教進入別教，人們都反對他，現在同教如果沒有果位，不進入別教又如何呢？完全等同於錯誤的說法，這是第五種錯誤。假設或者與他們的觀點不同，而不和諧一致，這也是一種錯誤。
薪問臨門下：這裡的問題乃至回答中，最初的方便，既然引導孩子出世，從自身的位置究竟來說就是實，所以經中說：『你快出離三界，應當證得三乘，聲聞乘（Śrāvakayāna）、辟支佛乘（Pratyekabuddhayāna）、佛乘（Buddhayāna），我現在為你保證這件事，最終不會虛假。』其次的方便，引導出世卻沒有果位，這就是權。說這兩者，實和不實。說沒有二，就是唯一方便。三乘雖然有實，但相對於一乘來說，都是方便，所以是唯一相。
討論：這裡有兩個錯誤：一是隨意臆測方便，二是不認識教義。為什麼呢？根據析薪第二卷的開頭，是根據教義來解釋這兩種意義，他說：『所謂的意義，不是根據所詮釋的內容，而是根據有實才成為意義。』正如上面所說，由此方便引導孩子得出，並非不實。即三乘的意義，從自身的位置究竟來說，所以有實義。如果相對於一乘的意義來說，也稱為教，如上面所說，由此方便引導，所以不是實。現在問：這實和不實是根據教義嗎？隨意臆測方便，不認識教義，各自都有一種錯誤。由此可知，只是看到經論疏章的文字彷彿相似，就抄寫下來，最初不知道其中的義理是什麼，這也是偶然，不是偶然，完全不明白，前後類似的情況都互相違背。
【English Translation】 English version:
Discussion: There are five errors here: 1. The faculties of the common teaching (Tongjiao) cannot attain the ultimate fruit; 2. No one in the shared teaching (Gongjiao) can enter the common teaching; 3. The common and distinct teachings (Tongjiao and Biejiao) should distinguish between provisional and real; 4. The Lotus Sutra (法華經 - Fǎ Huā Jīng) has absolutely no objects to be converted; 5. Completely identical to the erroneous interpretations of past people. Why is that? Moreover, specifically citing the eighth consciousness to differentiate the seventh consciousness, if the faculties of the seventh consciousness cannot attain Samantabhadra's Dharmadhatu (普賢法界 - Pǔxián Fǎjiè), if they cannot attain it, then there is no ultimate fruit, this is the first error. The three vehicles of the shared teaching all enter the eighth consciousness, then they should not enter the seventh consciousness that they have distinguished, all the faculties of the distinct teaching do not enter the common teaching, this is the second error. People of the common teaching cannot attain Samantabhadra's Dharmadhatu, then it should be the provisional teaching's (Quan Jiao) wrong view, if it belongs to the provisional teaching, only by entering the distinct teaching can one attain the real teaching, distinguishing between provisional and real in the common and distinct teachings, there has never been such a saying since ancient times, this is the third error. The Lotus Sutra entirely belongs to the common teaching, the faculties of the distinct teaching all enter the Avatamsaka Sutra (華嚴經 - Huáyán Jīng), the faculties converted by the Lotus Sutra are as empty as space, this is the fourth error. Master Yijian (易簡法師 - Yìjiǎn Fǎshī) always said that from the three vehicles one enters the common teaching, from the common teaching one enters the distinct teaching, people all oppose him, now if the common teaching has no fruit, how can one enter the distinct teaching if one does not enter it? Completely identical to the erroneous saying, this is the fifth error. Suppose or if it differs from their views, and is not harmonious and consistent, this is also an error.
'Xin asks Linmen': Here the question and even in the answer, the initial expedient means, since it guides the child to be born into the world, from the ultimate perspective of one's own position, it is real, therefore the sutra says: 'You quickly leave the three realms, you should attain the three vehicles, Śrāvakayāna (聲聞乘 - Shēngwén Chéng), Pratyekabuddhayāna (辟支佛乘 - Pìzhīfó Chéng), Buddhayāna (佛乘 - Fó Chéng), I now guarantee this matter for you, it will ultimately not be false.' The next expedient means, guiding to be born into the world but without fruit, this is provisional. Saying these two, real and unreal. Saying there is no two, is the only expedient means. Although the three vehicles have reality, but relative to the one vehicle, they are all expedient means, therefore it is the only characteristic.
Discussion: There are two errors here: one is arbitrarily speculating about expedient means, and the other is not recognizing the teachings. Why is that? According to the beginning of the second volume of 'Xixin', it is based on the teachings to explain these two meanings, he said: 'The so-called meaning is not based on what is being explained, but based on having reality to become meaning.' Just as mentioned above, from this expedient means guiding the child to be born, it is not unreal. That is, the meaning of the three vehicles, from the ultimate perspective of one's own position, therefore it has real meaning. If relative to the meaning of the one vehicle, it is also called teaching, as mentioned above, from this expedient means guiding, therefore it is not real. Now ask: Is this real and unreal based on the teachings? Arbitrarily speculating about expedient means, not recognizing the teachings, each has an error. From this it can be known that, only seeing the words of the sutras, treatises, commentaries, and chapters as if they are similar, then copying them down, initially not knowing what the meaning is, this is also accidental, not accidental, completely not understanding, similar situations before and after all contradict each other.
如德量中釋無量寶車記文也從之學者當加選擇可也。
析薪教義差別中曰二教義下至二乘同得大車也。
議曰章文止有七十有二字引經兩句又復前文此義已如鏡明是以章家為門略指今析薪以四百有餘字解釋又且不幹大義繁文翳理此亦衍引無用過也。
析薪德量中曰德量下乃至此等下此唯明太白牛車體具德等即平等一乘之義對下無量寶車故屬同教問曰上云同教三一合說今既唯明一乘體用揀于大乘既不合三何名同教邪答由上三科差別但云一乘不出義相今既明體用等義由詮此義故屬於同雖以具德不具德揀于別然此具德一乘必回三入一亦是三一同義也若爾下說三乘根不定進入別教一乘應可例難云次德量差別雖以主伴具不具揀別然此具主伴一乘必回三入一若爾應亦是三一合說是同教邪答若別教一向揀之而不收也雖云三乘進入別教然知此三乘本來悉是彼別教一乘更無異事則全三是一不同同教雖揀義別必有三可回入故知今雖揀別亦不出三一合說之意又彼言下乃至問言彼宗者豈非始教相宗邪答上明言此章以法相宗第三時為終教等又至如是之言指上具德之車而有無量正明一一德中具無量德即德相十玄之義也又至云非適一者此均適之適非之適之適也即和同之義意云此無量不同一也此義下今此法華正唯同教但于體具德中略
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如德量中解釋《無量寶車記》的文字一樣，跟隨學習的人應當加以選擇，是可以的。
《析薪教義差別》中說，二教義（指聲聞乘和緣覺乘的教義）下至二乘（指聲聞和緣覺）同樣可以得到大車（指涅槃）。
評論說：這一章的文字只有七十二字，引用了兩句經文，又重複了前面的意思。這個道理已經像鏡子一樣清楚了，所以章家（指章安大師）只是作為入門略微指點。現在《析薪》（指湛然大師的《法華玄義釋簽》）用四百多字來解釋，而且沒有抓住大義，用繁瑣的文字遮蔽了道理，這也是多餘的引用，沒有用處。
《析薪德量》中說：『德量』下乃至『此等』下，這裡只是說明太白牛車（指權教）的本體具備功德等，就是平等一乘（指圓教）的意義，對應下面的無量寶車（指實教），所以屬於同教。問：上面說同教是三一合說（指藏、通、別三教歸於圓教），現在既然只是說明一乘的體用，揀擇于大乘，既然不符合三一合說，為什麼還叫同教呢？答：由於上面三科（指體、宗、用）的差別，只是說一乘，沒有超出義相。現在既然說明體用等義，由於詮釋這個意義，所以屬於同教。雖然用具備功德和不具備功德來揀擇于別教，但是這個具備功德的一乘必定會回三入一，也是三一同義。如果這樣，下面說三乘根性不定，進入別教一乘，應該可以同樣提問說，其次德量的差別，雖然用主伴具備不具備來揀擇區別，但是這個具備主伴的一乘必定會回三入一，如果這樣，應該也是三一合說，是同教嗎？答：如果別教一向揀擇而不收攝，雖然說三乘進入別教，但是知道這三乘本來都是那個別教的一乘，更沒有其他事情，那麼全部的三乘就是一，不同於同教。同教雖然揀擇義理有區別，必定有三乘可以迴歸進入，所以知道現在雖然揀擇區別，也沒有超出三一合說的意思。而且他說『下乃至』，問說『彼宗』，難道不是始教（指藏教）的相宗（指唯識宗）嗎？答：上面明確說這一章以法相宗第三時（指唯識宗的第三時教）作為終教等。又到『如是』之言，指上面的具備功德的車，而有無量，正是說明每一個功德中具備無量功德，就是德相十玄（指華嚴十玄門）的意義。又到說『非適一者』，這個『適』是均適的『適』，不是非之適的『適』，就是和同的意義，意思是說這個無量不同於一。這個意義下，現在這個《法華經》正是唯有同教，只是在體具備功德中略微（說明）。
【English Translation】 English version: As the text in 'De Liang Zhong' explains the 'Infinite Treasure Vehicle Record', those who follow and study should make careful selections, which is permissible.
In 'Xi Xin Jiao Yi Cha Bie', it says that the meaning of the two teachings (referring to the teachings of the Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna) down to the two vehicles (referring to Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas) can equally attain the great vehicle (referring to Nirvana).
Commentary: This chapter has only seventy-two characters, quoting two lines from the sutra, and repeating the previous meaning. This principle is already as clear as a mirror, so Master Zhang'an (referring to Zhiyi) only briefly pointed it out as an introduction. Now 'Xi Xin' (referring to Zhanran's 'Annotations on the Profound Meaning of the Lotus Sutra') uses more than four hundred characters to explain, and does not grasp the main meaning, obscuring the principle with verbose text. This is also redundant citation and useless.
In 'Xi Xin De Liang', it says: 'De Liang' down to 'Ci Deng' down, here it only explains that the essence of the Taibai ox cart (referring to provisional teachings) possesses merits, which is the meaning of the equal One Vehicle (referring to the perfect teaching), corresponding to the infinite treasure vehicle (referring to the true teaching) below, so it belongs to the same teaching. Question: Above it says that the same teaching is the combination of three into one (referring to the three teachings of Tripitaka, Common, and Distinct merging into the Perfect teaching), now since it only explains the essence and function of the One Vehicle, distinguishing it from the Mahayana, since it does not conform to the combination of three into one, why is it still called the same teaching? Answer: Due to the difference in the above three categories (referring to essence, principle, and function), it only speaks of the One Vehicle, without exceeding the meaning aspect. Now since it explains the meaning of essence and function, etc., because it explains this meaning, it belongs to the same teaching. Although it distinguishes the Distinct teaching by possessing merits and not possessing merits, this One Vehicle possessing merits will surely return the three into one, which is also the meaning of the combination of three into one. If so, the following says that the roots of the three vehicles are uncertain, entering the Distinct teaching One Vehicle, it should be possible to ask the same question, secondly, the difference in virtue and capacity, although it distinguishes by possessing or not possessing the main and accompanying, this One Vehicle possessing the main and accompanying will surely return the three into one, if so, should it also be the combination of three into one, is it the same teaching? Answer: If the Distinct teaching always distinguishes without including, although it says that the three vehicles enter the Distinct teaching, it is known that these three vehicles are originally that One Vehicle of the Distinct teaching, there is nothing else, then all three vehicles are one, different from the same teaching. Although the same teaching distinguishes the meaning differently, there must be three vehicles that can return and enter, so it is known that although it distinguishes now, it does not exceed the meaning of the combination of three into one. Moreover, he says 'down to', asking 'that school', isn't it the initial teaching (referring to the Tripitaka teaching) of the aspect school (referring to the Yogācāra school)? Answer: Above it clearly says that this chapter takes the third time of the Dharma Characteristic school (referring to the third period teaching of the Yogācāra school) as the final teaching, etc. And to the words 'such as', referring to the above vehicle possessing merits, and having infinity, it is precisely explaining that each merit possesses infinite merits, which is the meaning of the ten profound gates of virtue and appearance (referring to the ten profound gates of the Avatamsaka Sutra). And to say 'not suitable for one', this 'suitable' is the 'suitable' of equal suitability, not the 'suitable' of non-suitability, which is the meaning of harmony, meaning that this infinity is not different from one. Under this meaning, now this 'Lotus Sutra' is precisely only the same teaching, only slightly (explaining) in the essence possessing merits.
指一德具一切德爾唯華嚴宗方廣說也。
議曰此有十妄菽麥不辨慶弔相隨不識一多各有二種悖德謗祖食空華果禍及玄談曲說適字各有一焉何者如雲此等異相約同教一乘雲唯明大白牛車具德等即平等一乘之義今論曰平等一乘乃是終教今汝所揀是終能揀是終恬以為當何哉能所不分菽麥不辨一妄也薪又問曰上云同教三一合說今既唯明一乘乃至此具德一乘必回三入一亦是三一同義也試論之曰文引清涼起信相大又指佛性平等一乘而云回三入一亦是三一合說差當釋總相會通中同教云于共教中分出故知非圓中之同即上來之義皆非圓中是終頓之同也又說必回三入一如何差當注會三歸一曰用釋余義意勢全別邪會三回三其義是一此引清涼與彼清涼亦未有異如何作此說邪發言前卻慶弔相隨二妄也薪又曰由詮此義故屬於同今復論曰今以白牛所況一乘揀彼三乘果車無體故云無得不上車等卻云由詮此義故屬於同上言此子能所不分今顯然也是亦能所不分菽麥不辨三妄也薪又曰若爾下說三乘根不定進入別教一乘乃至亦不出三一合說之意今又論曰若言別教一向揀而不收者汝何前云故此二門揀收自在也如此數紙之間便成冰炭是亦前後慶弔相隨四妄也又問汝謂第八門三入別者同教邪別教邪能詮之經法華乎華嚴乎若言同教今何言別若是別者何以文曰同教說
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 指一德具備一切功德，只有華嚴宗的方廣才能這樣說。
議論說：這裡有十種虛妄，分不清豆子和麥子，慶賀和弔唁混淆，不認識一和多，每種情況都有兩種，違背功德，誹謗祖師，吃空花果，災禍涉及玄妙的談論，曲解適合的字，每種情況都各有一個。什麼情況呢？比如，說這些不同的表象，按照相同的教義，一乘，說只說明大白牛車具備功德等等，就是平等一乘的意義。現在評論說，平等一乘乃是終教，現在你所選擇的是終教，能選擇的是終教，卻以為是恰當的，這是為什麼呢？能所不分，豆子和麥子不辨，這是第一種虛妄。薪又問：上面說相同的教義，三一合說，現在既然只說明一乘，乃至這個具備功德的一乘，必定迴歸三入一，也是三一同義。試著評論說：文引用清涼的《起信相大》，又指佛性平等一乘，卻說迴歸三入一也是三一合說，錯誤地把釋總相會通中的同教說成是從共教中分出來的，所以知道不是圓教中的相同，即上面來的意義，都不是圓教中的，是終教頓教的相同。又說必定迴歸三入一，怎麼會錯呢？註釋會三歸一說：用來說明其餘的意義，意思和氣勢完全不同，邪會三，回三，它們的意義是一樣的。這裡引用清涼，和那個清涼也沒有什麼不同，怎麼能這樣說呢？發言前後矛盾，慶賀和弔唁混淆，這是第二種虛妄。薪又說：因為詮釋這個意義，所以屬於相同。現在又評論說：現在用白牛所比喻的一乘，選擇那個三乘果車沒有實體，所以說沒有得到就不上車等等，卻說因為詮釋這個意義，所以屬於相同。上面說這個人能所不分，現在顯然也是能所不分，豆子和麥子不辨，這是第三種虛妄。薪又說：如果這樣，下面說三乘根器不定，進入別教一乘，乃至也逃不出三一合說的意思。現在又評論說：如果說別教一向選擇而不收納，你為什麼前面說所以這兩個門選擇收納自在呢？這樣幾頁紙之間，就變成了冰炭，這也是前後慶賀和弔唁混淆，這是第四種虛妄。又問：你認為第八門三入別教，是同教呢還是別教呢？能詮釋的經典是《法華經》呢還是《華嚴經》呢？如果說是同教，現在為什麼說別教？如果是別教，為什麼經文說同教說？
【English Translation】 English version: To say that one virtue possesses all virtues, only the Fang Guang (方廣, a specific teaching) of the Huayan School (華嚴宗) can say that.
It is argued: Here are ten delusions: not distinguishing between beans and wheat, confusing celebrations and condolences, not recognizing one and many, each with two types, violating virtue, slandering the patriarchs, eating empty flower fruits, disasters involving profound discussions, and misinterpreting the appropriate characters, each with one instance. What are they? For example, saying that these different appearances, according to the same teaching, the One Vehicle (一乘, Ekayana), say only to clarify the Great White Ox Cart (大白牛車, a metaphor in the Lotus Sutra) possessing virtues, etc., which is the meaning of the Equal One Vehicle. Now, it is commented that the Equal One Vehicle is the Teaching of the End (終教, the final teaching). Now, what you have chosen is the Teaching of the End, and what can choose is the Teaching of the End, but you think it is appropriate. Why is that? Not distinguishing between the able and the object, not distinguishing between beans and wheat, this is the first delusion. Xin (薪, a name) also asks: Above it says the same teaching, the three-in-one synthesis. Now that it only clarifies the One Vehicle, even this One Vehicle possessing virtues, it must return to the three entering into one, which is also the meaning of the three-in-one. Try to comment: The text quotes Qingliang's (清涼, a Buddhist master) 'Awakening of Faith's Appearance of Greatness,' and also points to the Buddha-nature Equal One Vehicle, but says that returning to the three entering into one is also the three-in-one synthesis, mistakenly saying that the same teaching in the explanation of the general appearance of convergence is divided from the common teaching, so it is known that it is not the same in the perfect teaching, that is, the meaning from above, none of which is in the perfect teaching, but is the same in the Teaching of the End and Sudden (終頓, the final and sudden teaching). Also, saying that it must return to the three entering into one, how can it be wrong? The commentary on the convergence of the three returning to one says: It is used to explain the remaining meanings, the meaning and momentum are completely different, the evil convergence of the three, the return of the three, their meanings are the same. Here, Qingliang is quoted, and there is no difference from that Qingliang, how can you say this? Speaking is contradictory, celebrations and condolences are confused, this is the second delusion. Xin also says: Because of interpreting this meaning, it belongs to the same. Now it is commented again: Now the One Vehicle, which is likened to the white ox, chooses that the three vehicles' fruit cart has no substance, so it says that if you don't get it, you don't get on the cart, etc., but says that because of interpreting this meaning, it belongs to the same. Above it says that this person does not distinguish between the able and the object, now it is obvious that he also does not distinguish between the able and the object, and does not distinguish between beans and wheat, this is the third delusion. Xin also says: If so, below it says that the roots of the three vehicles are uncertain, entering the Separate Teaching One Vehicle, and even cannot escape the meaning of the three-in-one synthesis. Now it is commented again: If you say that the Separate Teaching always chooses and does not accept, why did you say earlier that these two doors choose to accept freely? Between these few pages, it becomes ice and charcoal, which is also the confusion of celebrations and condolences before and after, this is the fourth delusion. Also ask: Do you think that the eighth door, the three entering the Separate Teaching, is the same teaching or the Separate Teaching? Is the scripture that can interpret it the 'Lotus Sutra' (法華經, the Lotus Sutra) or the 'Huayan Sutra' (華嚴經, the Avatamsaka Sutra)? If it is said to be the same teaching, why does it now say the Separate Teaching? If it is the Separate Teaching, why does the scripture say the same teaching says?
者是章文錯乎立義已妄從而又此妄說空華復結空果五妄也薪又問曰言彼宗者豈非始教法相宗耶今論曰孔目曰及三乘終教寂照照寂乃至無為等宗又下云三宗各別又云此三乘宗等豈皆法相宗邪又汝下文云一祖自語相違後來方改且賢首作書特寄文字過海東便不知自言胡越而修改令相順將去悖德謗祖六妄也薪又曰如是之言指上具德之車而有無量正明一一德中具無量德即德相十玄之義也論曰文曰我有如是七寶大車其數無量釋云無量寶車非適一也何嘗言車所具德一一德中具無量德以多車揀一車也此尚不曉其他可知一多不辯七妄也又引玄文證成此義則見會解亦妄說也二祖之意兩俱不得則禍及玄談八妄也薪又曰非適一者此均適之適非之適之適也即和同之義今論曰此言今無量車非適所謂之一牛車也適者往也何必太曲哉曲說適字九妄也薪又曰法華正唯同教但于體具德中略指一德具一切德爾唯華嚴宗方廣說也論曰華嚴謂之無盡佛法一成一切成故普見眾產生正覺等正用此也法華何嘗言所具德中一德具多德乎至理不入於心遂此妄誕是亦一多不辯十妄也此段章文但九行許汝書一千五百餘言加以除寫經論疏記等語下筆判釋句句謬妄悲夫。
薪五寄位差別。
議曰夫斯章者教網之綱也茍欲指示學者但當振舉大旨使之正耳今無理衍引扶疏技葉
繁文翳理臆說亂心徒欲彰己撿閱之功不覺累學人傳寫之費且永叔介甫讀書何啻五車茍有述作豈當於一書中盡寫之乎何其小哉何其小哉寄位差別文旨明白雖初心稚子讀之無不通曉今書將千言而多無用加以謬妄略件如后。
薪曰且如梁攝論本論云如佛廣說所安立法相於菩薩十地釋論云十地即華嚴經中十地品所顯文句此文句中如來廣說隨所安立(上論文)由此義故天臺謂無著攝大乘論釋華嚴十地也今約寄位門中故與諸經論同耳。
議曰此段于章何用觀彼之意特欲言天臺不合指攝論釋華嚴又謂彼不知但行布同諸經論而圓融有異奈何吾家祖師累有此語豈亦不合而不知乎妄非先賢一妄也若是則智者二罪復子俱坐矣又欲彰己博覽益見寡聞得不火其書乎無理衍引二妄也。
薪曰八地已上是一乘故不言寄今云八地已上寄一乘法者以大疏唯取地論意故以三乘寄顯一乘所以一乘不言寄也今通約諸經論故並云寄爾。
議曰清涼言故不言寄釋彼文也今章無用而連書之又復由此展轉枝葉五千余言而又卒不能言寄不寄意是皆揀擇之慧不明述作之體無師不學妄作過三妄也。
薪又問曰此別地行相既通余經論何故獨言華嚴十地甚深甚深言所不至若不寄位何以顯深不包三乘。
菩薩法豈不見梁攝善成立中或曰三乘或曰
大乘是大中三俱大乘也三不知此中所揀小乘是愚法而謂三中二乘以將對余深大乘為三乘故又謂智論三中二故噫大乘之外別有小乘故成三宗章蒙明若執炬數指而此謬妄所引所釋俱失其旨是未讀斯章也何忽作記若是之匇匇邪諺所謂船未覆而躍水中矣火之火之次科之過亦猶是也承前十妄矣。
七根緣中薪曰以望下云若望自宗亦真實也者既此菩薩義當三賢探玄因問曰若地前過彼劫數必信受者即知地上二宗不別豈彼所信無十地邪答于彼教中具有行布十地漸次乃至佛果長養彼根器務令成熟自注即自宗真實義又曰極遲之者至彼劫數定當信入如其疾者即是不定又上引清涼亦云若教道三祇亦未入玄(注曰)亦自真實義也等。
議曰若如復言以十地為真實者應是彼宗亦將三賢為假名邪茍或如是則無以揀二宗差別何者三賢菩薩望一乘假名也望自宗亦假色也根緣受者差別安在當知只此菩薩在此假名在彼真實二宗異也嗟乎雖有撿閱抄寫之功誠未曉大疏探玄之意徒益繁文惑亂後學耳謬說假名過十一妄也。
九約機顯中薪曰解云下言一相一寂等法者下文更云一味故云等也此通三教所趣若始教則三獸不同河水一也法華云我等同入法性等清涼云終頓二教雖說一性一相無二無三不辨圓融具德正揀此也等。
議曰此段妄說亦三種一者
薪曰下文更云一味故云等也者且祖師以等法言替一味字其意安在況下文一味之下復有等字當知等於初教染凈即空小乘苦諦有為無為等宗皆一相孤門非無窮實德故云等也不曉等字過十二妄也二者薪又曰此通三乘所趣若始教則三獸不同河水一也等者若爾密跡大品及諸般若了義大乘所為之機同一所觀妙清凈道而彼三乘各證自果通實教否始終說三通益三機于中亦有權實不同此中之實是終頓之實否頓實二教共二乘否又況汝記上下之文具引大品通為三乘同觀得益證彼三車通乎頓實茍通頓實彼所為器喻三獸否所觀諦理河水一否是知不曉皆通三乘趣入之語熟觀彼意但欲取別易簡以和于吾說所揀三通乎諸教理實見解與彼無別於斯見矣有言無實過莫大焉十三妄也三者薪曰清涼云終頓二教雖說一性一相無二無三不辨圓融具德等者議曰無二無三若是所揀權實差別一科誰為能揀彼疏同教一乘今證所揀三乘恬然引之不發一語豈有將作一乘復為三乘不辨所因是知一乘三乘僉未通曉以一為三過十四妄也固欲引之但可摘句引耳如前七八兩科例皆如此旋抄旋撿略不特擇是不學為文之病也嗚呼不學妄作過十五妄也。
薪十本末下言大乘同性經者亦名一切佛行入智毗盧遮那藏說經此經有四十地初說佛十地一名甚深難知廣明智德地二名清凈身份威嚴不思議明
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 薪曰：下文又說『一味』，所以說『等也』。而且祖師用『等法』來代替『一味』這個詞，他的意思在哪裡呢？況且下文『一味』之下又有『等』字，應當知道『等』字是指初教的染凈即空、小乘的苦諦、有為無為等宗派，都是一相孤立的法門，不是無窮的真實功德，所以說『等也』。不明白『等』字的含義，這是第十二個妄語。 二者，薪又說：『這通於三乘所趣，如果是始教，那麼三獸不同河水一也』。如果是這樣，那麼《密跡經》、《大品般若經》以及諸了義大乘所為的根機，同一所觀的妙清凈道，而那三乘各自證得自己的果位，這通於實教嗎？始終說三乘都能受益於三種根機，其中也有權巧和真實的不同，這其中的『實』是終教和頓教的『實』嗎？頓教和實教共同接引二乘嗎？況且你筆記上下的文字，都引用《大品般若經》通於三乘共同觀照而得益，證得那三車，這通於頓教和實教嗎？如果通於頓教和實教，那麼他們所為的根器能比喻為三獸嗎？所觀的諦理能像河水一樣嗎？由此可知，不明白『皆通三乘趣入』這句話的含義。仔細觀察他的意思，只不過是想選取容易理解的說法來附和我的觀點，所揀擇的三乘通於諸教的道理，實際上見解與他們沒有區別，從這裡就可以看出來了。有言無實，過錯沒有比這更大的了，這是第十三個妄語。 三者，薪曰：『清涼澄觀大師說，終教和頓教雖然說一性一相，無二無三，但不辨別圓融具德等』。議曰：無二無三，如果是所揀擇的權實差別一科，誰來能揀擇？他的疏鈔和教義相同，都是一乘，現在證明所揀擇的三乘，卻恬然引用而不發一語，難道有將要作為一乘，又作為三乘，不辨別所因的道理嗎？由此可知，一乘和三乘都未通曉，以一為三，這是第十四個妄語。本來想引用，但只能摘取句子來引用，像前面第七科和第八科的例子都是這樣，旋抄旋撿，略不特別選擇，這是不學無術而寫作的毛病啊！嗚呼，不學無術而妄作，這是第十五個妄語。 薪在《十本末》下說：《大乘同性經》，也叫《一切佛行入智毗盧遮那藏說經》，這部經有四十地，最初說佛的十地，一名甚深難知廣明智德地，二名清凈身份威嚴不思議明。
【English Translation】 English version: Xin said: 'The following text also mentions 'one flavor,' hence the term 'etc.' Moreover, the patriarch uses 'equal dharma' to replace the word 'one flavor,' what is his intention? Furthermore, below 'one flavor' there is also the word 'etc.,' it should be known that 'etc.' refers to the initial teaching of defilement and purity being emptiness, the Hinayana's suffering truth, conditioned and unconditioned dharmas, etc., all of which are isolated and singular approaches, not infinite and real virtues, hence the term 'etc.' Not understanding the meaning of 'etc.' is the twelfth falsehood. Secondly, Xin also said: 'This is common to the three vehicles, if it is the initial teaching, then the three beasts are different, the river water is one.' If that is the case, then the root faculties addressed by the Guhyasamaja Sutra, the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra, and all definitive Mahayana teachings, share the same wonderful pure path of contemplation, and the three vehicles each attain their own fruit, does this extend to the true teaching? It is consistently said that the three vehicles can benefit from the three types of faculties, among which there are also skillful means and reality, is the 'reality' here the 'reality' of the final and sudden teachings? Do the sudden and real teachings jointly guide the two vehicles? Moreover, you cite the texts above and below in your notes, all quoting the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra as being common to the three vehicles, jointly contemplating and benefiting, attaining those three vehicles, does this extend to the sudden and real teachings? If it extends to the sudden and real teachings, then can their root faculties be compared to the three beasts? Can the contemplated truth be like river water? From this it can be known that he does not understand the meaning of the phrase 'all enter through the three vehicles.' Carefully observe his intention, he merely wants to select easily understood statements to agree with my views, the three vehicles he selects are common to the principles of all teachings, in reality, his understanding is no different from theirs, this can be seen from here. Having words without substance, there is no greater fault than this, this is the thirteenth falsehood. Thirdly, Xin said: 'Master Qingliang (Cheng Guan) said, although the final and sudden teachings speak of one nature and one form, without two or three, they do not distinguish the perfect and complete virtues, etc.' It is argued: Without two or three, if it is the category of skillful means and reality that is being selected, who can select? His commentary and teachings are the same, both being the One Vehicle, now proving that the three vehicles being selected, yet he calmly quotes without saying a word, is there a principle of intending to be the One Vehicle, yet also being the Three Vehicles, without distinguishing the cause? From this it can be known that he does not understand either the One Vehicle or the Three Vehicles, taking one as three, this is the fourteenth falsehood. Originally wanting to quote, but can only extract sentences to quote, like the examples of the seventh and eighth sections before, copying and checking, slightly not specially selecting, this is the disease of writing without learning! Alas, writing recklessly without learning is the fifteenth falsehood. Xin said in the Ten Roots and Branches: The Mahayana Homogeneity Sutra, also known as the All Buddha Practices Entering Wisdom Vairochana Treasury Sutra, this sutra has forty grounds, initially speaking of the ten grounds of the Buddha, the first is named the Ground of Profound and Difficult to Know, Broadly Illuminating Wisdom Virtue, the second is named the Clear Body Division Majestic Inconceivable Brightness.
德地三名善明月幢寶相海藏地四名精妙金光明功德神通智德地五名大輪威藏明德地六名虛空內清凈無垢焰光開相地七名廣勝法界藏明戒地八名窮凈普覺智藏能凈無垢迅無礙智通地九名無邊億莊嚴迴向能照地十名毗盧遮那智海藏地次明三乘各有十地聲聞十地者一受三歸地二信地三信法地四內凡地五學信戒地六八人地七須陀洹地八斯陀含地九阿那含地十阿羅漢地緣覺十地者一昔行具足地二自覺甚深十二因緣地三覺了四聖諦地四甚深利智地五八聖道地六覺了法界虛空界眾生界地七證寂滅地八六通地九徹秘密地十習氣漸薄地其菩薩十地即歡喜地等是也海妙甚深菩薩問云一切自地從何處生佛言從佛地生又問解脫解脫彼此何如佛言河水海水彼此異否菩薩答曰廣狹有異佛言聲聞等法如彼河水如來解脫如大海水又問諸大小河流入海否佛言所有聲聞法等如今文引此文下初約本末分異即三乘法為末佛法為本仍會末歸本即四法皆入智藏大海既此經亦名一切佛行入智毗盧遮藏說又佛第十地與今名同但海字前卻若三一對說即佛法為本既是對論未為絕待若對待兼亡則佛法亦為末也即以智藏大海為本此例清涼釋依處中染凈融通四句內若染凈對說即華嚴為本剎種所持世界為末若理事相望則前三句皆末(注)或唯染或唯凈或俱華藏內娑婆故此三句皆末又曰
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 德地（功德之地）三名：善明月幢寶相海藏地（善於照亮，如明月般清澈，以寶幢為裝飾，具有如海般深廣的寶相的地）。 德地（功德之地）四名：精妙金光明功德神通智德地（精妙無比，散發金色光芒，具有功德、神通和智慧的地）。 德地（功德之地）五名：大輪威藏明德地（如巨大的輪子般具有威嚴，蘊藏光明和功德的地）。 德地（功德之地）六名：虛空內清凈無垢焰光開相地（在虛空之中，清凈無染，以火焰般的光芒開啟各種相的地）。 德地（功德之地）七名：廣勝法界藏明戒地（廣闊而殊勝，蘊藏法界，以光明之戒律為特徵的地）。 德地（功德之地）八名：窮凈普覺智藏能凈無垢迅無礙智通地（徹底清凈，普遍覺悟，蘊藏智慧，能夠凈化無垢，迅速而無礙地通達智慧的地）。 德地（功德之地）九名：無邊億莊嚴迴向能照地（以無邊億的莊嚴功德迴向，能夠照亮一切的地）。 德地（功德之地）十名：毗盧遮那（Vairocana，光明遍照）智海藏地（毗盧遮那佛的智慧如海般深廣，蘊藏於此的地）。 其次說明三乘（三種乘載，指聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）各有十地。聲聞十地者：一、受三歸地（接受三歸依的地）；二、信地（具有信心的地）；三、信法地（相信佛法的地）；四、內凡地（內在凡夫的地）；五、學信戒地（學習並相信戒律的地）；六、八人地（預流果，八種人之地）；七、須陀洹（Srotapanna，入流）地（入流果之地）；八、斯陀含（Sakrdagamin，一來）地（一來果之地）；九、阿那含（Anagamin，不還）地（不還果之地）；十、阿羅漢（Arhat，無學）地（阿羅漢果之地）。 緣覺十地者：一、昔行具足地（過去的行為已經圓滿的地）；二、自覺甚深十二因緣地（自己覺悟甚深的十二因緣的地）；三、覺了四聖諦地（覺悟並瞭解四聖諦的地）；四、甚深利智地（具有甚深而銳利的智慧的地）；五、八聖道地（修習八聖道的地）；六、覺了法界虛空界眾生界地（覺悟並了解法界、虛空界和眾生界的地）；七、證寂滅地（證得寂滅涅槃的地）；八、六通地（獲得六神通的地）；九、徹秘密地（徹底瞭解秘密的地）；十、習氣漸薄地（習氣逐漸減少的地）。 其菩薩十地即歡喜地等是也（菩薩的十地就是歡喜地等等）。 海妙甚深菩薩問云：『一切自地從何處生？』 佛言：『從佛地生。』 又問：『解脫解脫，彼此何如？』 佛言：『河水海水，彼此異否？』 菩薩答曰：『廣狹有異。』 佛言：『聲聞等法，如彼河水；如來解脫，如大海水。』 又問：『諸大小河流入海否？』 佛言：『所有聲聞法等，如今文引。』 此文下初約本末分異，即三乘法為末，佛法為本，仍會末歸本，即四法皆入智藏大海。既此經亦名一切佛行入智毗盧遮藏說，又佛第十地與今名同，但海字前卻。若三一對說，即佛法為本，既是對論，未為絕待。若對待兼亡，則佛法亦為末也。即以智藏大海為本。此例清涼釋依處中染凈融通四句內，若染凈對說，即華嚴為本，剎種所持世界為末。若理事相望，則前三句皆末（注）：或唯染，或唯凈，或俱，華藏內娑婆，故此三句皆末。又曰
【English Translation】 English version The third of the Virtuous Grounds is named: Good Bright Moon Banner Treasure Appearance Sea Treasury Ground (Good at illuminating, as clear as the bright moon, decorated with treasure banners, possessing treasure appearances as deep and vast as the sea). The fourth of the Virtuous Grounds is named: Exquisite Golden Light Brightness Merit Supernatural Power Wisdom Virtue Ground (Exquisitely wonderful, emitting golden light, possessing merit, supernatural powers, and wisdom). The fifth of the Virtuous Grounds is named: Great Wheel Majestic Treasury Bright Virtue Ground (Possessing majesty like a great wheel, containing brightness and virtue). The sixth of the Virtuous Grounds is named: Space Within Pure Immaculate Flame Light Opening Appearance Ground (Within space, pure and without defilement, opening various appearances with flame-like light). The seventh of the Virtuous Grounds is named: Vastly Victorious Dharma Realm Treasury Bright Precept Ground (Vast and supremely victorious, containing the Dharma realm, characterized by bright precepts). The eighth of the Virtuous Grounds is named: Exhaustively Pure Universal Awakening Wisdom Treasury Able to Purify Immaculate Swift Unobstructed Wisdom Penetration Ground (Thoroughly pure, universally awakened, containing wisdom, able to purify immaculateness, swiftly and unobstructed penetrating wisdom). The ninth of the Virtuous Grounds is named: Boundless Billions of Adornments Dedication Able to Illuminate Ground (Dedicating boundless billions of adornment merits, able to illuminate everything). The tenth of the Virtuous Grounds is named: Vairocana (Vairocana, the light that shines everywhere) Wisdom Sea Treasury Ground (Vairocana Buddha's wisdom is as deep and vast as the sea, contained within this ground). Next, it explains that the Three Vehicles (three vehicles, referring to the Sravaka Vehicle, Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, and Bodhisattva Vehicle) each have ten grounds. The ten grounds of the Sravakas are: 1. Ground of Receiving the Three Refuges; 2. Ground of Faith; 3. Ground of Faith in the Dharma; 4. Ground of Inner Worldling; 5. Ground of Learning and Believing in the Precepts; 6. Ground of the Eighth Person (Sotapanna, the ground of the eight types of people); 7. Srotapanna (Srotapanna, Stream-enterer) Ground; 8. Sakrdagamin (Sakrdagamin, Once-returner) Ground; 9. Anagamin (Anagamin, Non-returner) Ground; 10. Arhat (Arhat, No-more-learning) Ground. The ten grounds of the Pratyekabuddhas are: 1. Ground of Complete Past Actions; 2. Ground of Self-Awareness of the Profound Twelve Links of Dependent Origination; 3. Ground of Awakening to the Four Noble Truths; 4. Ground of Profound Sharp Wisdom; 5. Ground of the Eightfold Noble Path; 6. Ground of Awakening to the Dharma Realm, Space Realm, and Sentient Being Realm; 7. Ground of Attaining Nirvana; 8. Ground of the Six Supernatural Powers; 9. Ground of Thoroughly Understanding Secrets; 10. Ground of Gradually Thinning Habitual Tendencies. The ten grounds of the Bodhisattvas are the Joyful Ground, etc. (The ten grounds of the Bodhisattvas are the Joyful Ground and so on). The Sea Wonderful Profound Bodhisattva asked: 'From where do all the self-grounds arise?' The Buddha said: 'They arise from the Buddha Ground.' He further asked: 'Liberation and liberation, how are they different?' The Buddha said: 'Are river water and sea water different from each other?' The Bodhisattva replied: 'They differ in breadth and depth.' The Buddha said: 'The Dharma of the Sravakas is like river water; the liberation of the Tathagata is like sea water.' He further asked: 'Do all the large and small rivers flow into the sea?' The Buddha said: 'All the Sravaka Dharma, etc., as the text now cites.' This text initially distinguishes between the root and the branch, that is, the Dharma of the Three Vehicles is the branch, and the Buddha Dharma is the root, and still unites the branch to return to the root, that is, the four Dharmas all enter the Wisdom Treasury Sea. Since this sutra is also named 'All Buddha Practices Enter the Wisdom Vairocana Treasury Explanation', and the tenth ground of the Buddha has the same name as this, but the word 'sea' is placed before it. If the three are discussed as a pair, then the Buddha Dharma is the root, since it is a discussion, it is not absolute. If both the relative and the absolute are lost, then the Buddha Dharma is also the branch. That is, the Wisdom Treasury Sea is the root. This example is like Qingliang's explanation of the four sentences of the interpenetration of purity and defilement in the place of reliance, if purity and defilement are discussed in contrast, then the Avatamsaka is the root, and the world held by the Buddha-land seed is the branch. If principle and phenomena are viewed in relation to each other, then the first three sentences are all branches (note): either only defilement, or only purity, or both, the Saha within the Flower Treasury, therefore these three sentences are all branches. It is also said
第四句復為其本(注)或泯染凈相盡同一法界今此義勢例同此也故經中釋佛第十地云爲諸菩薩說一切法無所有故復告令知一切諸法本來寂滅大涅槃故據此則知毗盧遮那智藏中本來寂滅方為絕待也。
議曰此說本末承易簡之緒餘也然且深非章旨而有五過謂本末混濫失差別難辯失以一為三失一開權實失廣抄無用失何者若作此釋會末歸本門中一乘通本末非三乘則本末混濫失章家自斷本末分異會末歸本明三一差別豈容一門本末混濫若此混濫何成差別則差別難辯失也又一乘既通為末末是三乘以一為三失設欲說彼一乘自有深淺如德量中同別二門俱為能揀又如攝益抉擇等中一乘雖具淺深多門亦俱能揀未始有濫觀彼之意是將經文連讀語句遂有此說全類古人讀勝鬘經以方便言連歸下文曲解法華以順己意也況今約本末以分三一權實汝應一乘自開權實四病矣夫今章釋彼經意者初段本末分異從如是下會末歸本一切諸法三乘末也毗盧遮那智藏大海諸佛法一乘本也既為二段義自不同固欲會彼第十地者即曰舉后攝初義則無害何須穿鑿或作彼經之疏尚可從容今解此章全成妄誕又復全抄諸地之名於斯何用是則亦有廣抄無用失五病承前二十妄矣火之晚矣。
焚薪卷第一 卍新續藏第 58 冊 No. 0996 華嚴一乘教義分齊章焚薪
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：第四句又恢復到它的本源（注），或者泯滅染污和清凈的相，完全同一於法界。現在這個意義和情況也與此相同。所以經中解釋佛的第十地時說，爲了諸菩薩宣說一切法都是無所有的緣故，又告訴他們要知道一切諸法本來就是寂滅的大涅槃。根據這個，就可以知道毗盧遮那（Vairocana，光明遍照）的智慧藏中本來就是寂滅，才是絕對的對待。
議論說：這種說法是承接了易簡的緒餘。然而卻深深地違背了本章的宗旨，並且有五個過失。一是本末混濫，失去差別；二是難以分辨；三是以一為三；四是失去了一乘開顯權實；五是廣泛抄錄而無用。為什麼這樣說呢？如果作這樣的解釋，在會末歸本的門中，一乘貫通本末，不是三乘，那麼就是本末混濫，失去了章家自己斷定的本末分異，會末歸本，闡明三一差別。怎麼能容許一乘的本末混濫呢？如果這樣混濫，又怎麼能成就差別呢？那麼差別就難以分辨了。又一乘既然貫通為末，末就是三乘，這就是以一為三。假設想要說那一乘自有深淺，如德量中同別二門都能夠簡別，又如攝益抉擇等中，一乘雖然具有淺深多門，也都能夠簡別，未曾有混濫。觀看他的意思，是將經文連讀語句，於是就有了這種說法，完全類似古人讀《勝鬘經》以方便言連歸下文，曲解《法華經》以順從自己的意思。況且現在是約本末來區分三一權實，你應該一乘自開權實四病了。現在本章解釋那部經的用意是，初段本末分異，從『如是』以下會末歸本，一切諸法是三乘的末，毗盧遮那智藏大海是諸佛法一乘的本。既然分為兩段，意義自然不同。如果想要會合那第十地，就說舉后攝初，意義就沒有妨礙，何須穿鑿？或者作那部經的疏，尚可從容，現在解釋此章，完全成了虛妄誕生的說法。又全部抄錄諸地的名稱，在這裡有什麼用呢？這就是也有廣泛抄錄而無用的過失。五種弊病承接前面的二十種虛妄啊！火已經晚了。
焚薪卷第一 卍新續藏第 58 冊 No. 0996 華嚴一乘教義分齊章焚薪
【English Translation】 English version: The fourth phrase reverts to its origin (note), or obliterates the defiled and pure aspects, completely becoming one with the Dharmadhatu (法界, realm of reality). The meaning and situation here are analogous. Therefore, the sutra explains the tenth Bhumi (地, stage) of the Buddha, saying that for the sake of explaining to all Bodhisattvas (菩薩, enlightenment being) that all Dharmas (法, phenomena) are without inherent existence, it further informs them that all Dharmas are originally the quiescent Great Nirvana (大涅槃, great liberation). Based on this, it can be known that the wisdom treasury of Vairocana (毗盧遮那, the Illuminator) is originally quiescent, and only then is it absolute.
It is argued that this explanation continues the thread of simplification. However, it deeply contradicts the purpose of this chapter and has five faults. First, the confusion of origin and end loses the distinction. Second, it is difficult to differentiate. Third, it takes one as three. Fourth, it loses the expedient and real teachings of the One Vehicle (一乘, Ekayana). Fifth, it widely copies useless material. Why is this so? If this explanation is made, in the gate of converging the end to the origin, the One Vehicle penetrates the origin and end, not the Three Vehicles (三乘, Triyana). Then, the origin and end are confused, losing the chapter's own determination of the distinction between origin and end, converging the end to the origin, clarifying the difference between the three and the one. How can the confusion of the origin and end of the One Vehicle be allowed? If there is such confusion, how can distinction be achieved? Then, the distinction is difficult to differentiate. Moreover, since the One Vehicle penetrates as the end, the end is the Three Vehicles, which is taking one as three. Suppose one wants to say that the One Vehicle itself has depths and shallows, like the two gates of similarity and difference in the 'Qualities and Measures' section, both can distinguish. Also, like in the 'Gathering Benefits and Deciding' section, although the One Vehicle has shallow and deep aspects and many gates, they can all distinguish, and there has never been confusion. Looking at his intention, it is to read the sutra sentences continuously, and thus this explanation arises, completely similar to the ancients reading the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra (勝鬘經) by connecting the expedient words to the following text, and distorting the Lotus Sutra (法華經) to conform to their own ideas. Moreover, now it is about distinguishing the three, one, expedient, and real based on the origin and end, you should have the four faults of the One Vehicle opening up the expedient and real itself. The intention of this chapter in explaining that sutra is that the initial section distinguishes the origin and end, and from 'Thus' onwards, it converges the end to the origin. All Dharmas are the end of the Three Vehicles, and the ocean of the wisdom treasury of Vairocana is the origin of the One Vehicle of the Buddhas' Dharma. Since it is divided into two sections, the meaning is naturally different. If one wants to converge that tenth Bhumi, then say that taking the latter includes the former, and the meaning is not hindered, why need to force an interpretation? Or, if one were writing a commentary on that sutra, one could still be lenient, but now explaining this chapter, it completely becomes a false and absurd explanation. Also, completely copying the names of the various Bhumis, what is the use here? This is also the fault of widely copying useless material. The five faults continue the previous twenty falsehoods! The fire is already late.
Burning Fuel, Volume 1 Continuation of the Tripitaka, Volume 58, No. 0996, Chapter on Distinguishing the Teachings of the Huayan One Vehicle, Burning Fuel
焚薪卷第二(婺州張明刊)
可堂 師會 錄
薪二該攝下一切三乘等本來悉是彼一乘法乃至云先舉即一之三也。
議曰昔人有言曰文章最忌隨人後文章且爾況吾道也哉昔在仙潭予以該攝大旨語復而復固執易簡之說而拒予曰只此一義與吾老不同可乎予笑曰汝試思之第恐不能不與我同耳後至澄江果不能堅其壘矣然但略得科節語句而釋義之間草氣宛在具件如后。
薪曰故下抉擇其意中三依一起會三歸一即是同教若知彼三乘等法本是一乘即是別教此約法以明也故云一切三乘等本來悉是一乘也。
議曰今試問曰彼第八門是會方便說邪直就正乘說邪華嚴所顯邪法華所顯邪約法本然邪約機今見邪若是詰之全無所守引彼釋此殊非正當以同爲別一謬也。
薪曰下徴釋中但以義出今別教之所以爾義當同教意故下指如同教中辨也此例如由事理無礙故方得事事無礙故次以三一不一不異之因成今三乘本是一乘之宗也。
議曰此有二過一縱火自焚過二逢蒙射羿過所以爾者汝謂分相門雖分而同不一即不異也該攝門雖同而異不異即不一也今言若此得非縱李三之火哉祖曰不一是分相門不異是該攝門總二門而為別教汝謂屬同是彎羿之弓而殺羿也又況謬判下文邪三謬也。
薪曰二已下隱顯四句反上
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本
焚薪卷第二 (婺州張明刊)
可堂 師會 錄
薪二：該攝下一切三乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）等，本來悉是彼一乘法（唯一佛乘），乃至云先舉即一之三也。
議曰：昔人有言曰：『文章最忌隨人後。』文章且爾，況吾道也哉！昔在仙潭，予以該攝大旨語復而復，固執易簡之說，而拒予曰：『只此一義，與吾老不同可乎？』予笑曰：『汝試思之，第恐不能不與我同耳。』后至澄江，果不能堅其壘矣。然但略得科節語句，而釋義之間，草氣宛在，具件如后。
薪曰：故下抉擇其意，中三依一起，會三歸一，即是同教（共通的教義）；若知彼三乘等法，本是一乘，即是別教（獨特的教義）。此約法以明也。故云一切三乘等，本來悉是一乘也。
議曰：今試問曰：『彼第八門是會方便說邪？直就正乘說邪？華嚴（《華嚴經》）所顯邪？法華（《法華經》）所顯邪？約法本然邪？約機今見邪？』若是詰之，全無所守，引彼釋此，殊非正當，以同爲別，一謬也。
薪曰：下徴釋中，但以義出今別教之所以爾，義當同教意。故下指如同教中辨也。此例如由事理無礙，故方得事事無礙。故次以三一不一不異之因，成今三乘本是一乘之宗也。
議曰：此有二過：一縱火自焚過，二逢蒙射羿過。所以爾者，汝謂分相門雖分而同，不一即不異也；該攝門雖同而異，不異即不一也。今言若此，得非縱李三之火哉？祖曰：『不一是分相門，不異是該攝門。』總二門而為別教，汝謂屬同，是彎羿之弓而殺羿也。又況謬判下文邪？三謬也。
薪曰：二已下隱顯四句，反上
【English Translation】 English version
Volume 2 of Burning Fuel (Engraved by Zhang Ming of Wuzhou)
Recorded by Ketang Shihui
Fuel 2: Comprehensively includes all the Three Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, Bodhisattvayāna), which are originally all the One Vehicle Dharma (Ekayāna), even saying that the first mentioned is the 'one' within the 'three'.
Commentary: A person of old once said, 'In writing, the most taboo thing is to follow others.' If that's the case for writing, how much more so for our path! Once in Xiantan, I repeatedly used the principle of comprehensive inclusion, but he stubbornly clung to the idea of simplicity and rejected me, saying, 'Is it acceptable that this one meaning differs from what you, old man, say?' I smiled and said, 'Try to think about it; I fear you cannot help but agree with me.' Later, when he arrived at Chengjiang, he indeed could not maintain his position. However, he only grasped the outline of the sections and sentences, and in his interpretation, the crudeness was still evident. The details are as follows.
Fuel: Therefore, the following clarifies its meaning. The 'three' rely on 'one' together, converging the 'three' into 'one', which is the Common Teaching (shared doctrine). If one knows that the Three Vehicle Dharmas are originally the One Vehicle, that is the Distinct Teaching (unique doctrine). This explains it from the perspective of the Dharma. Therefore, it is said that all the Three Vehicles are originally the One Vehicle.
Commentary: Now, let's ask: 'Is that eighth gate a provisional explanation, or does it directly address the True Vehicle? Is it revealed by the Avataṃsaka (Avataṃsaka Sūtra), or is it revealed by the Lotus (Lotus Sūtra)? Is it based on the inherent nature of the Dharma, or is it based on the capacity of beings now?' If one were to question him, he would have nothing to defend, using one thing to explain another, which is not proper. Taking the same as different is one mistake.
Fuel: The following explanation clarifies that the reason for the Distinct Teaching is that its meaning corresponds to the intention of the Common Teaching. Therefore, the following points out the distinction within the Common Teaching. This is like how, because there is no obstruction between principle and phenomena, one can attain unobstructedness between phenomena. Therefore, it uses the cause of 'three-one, not one, not different' to establish the principle that the Three Vehicles are originally the One Vehicle.
Commentary: This has two faults: one is the fault of setting oneself on fire, and the other is the fault of Feng Meng shooting Yi. The reason for this is that you say the division aspect gate, though divided, is the same; not one means not different. The comprehensive inclusion gate, though the same, is different; not different means not one. If you say this now, aren't you setting the fire of Li San? The Patriarch said, 'Not one is the division aspect gate; not different is the comprehensive inclusion gate.' Combining the two gates is the Distinct Teaching. You say it belongs to the same, which is like drawing Yi's bow and killing Yi. Moreover, how about the erroneous judgment of the following text? Three mistakes.
Fuel: The following four sentences, hidden and manifest, reverse the above.
等者但轉前問答中三字為一字一字為三字存字為顯字壞字為隱字讀之義則明矣。
議曰今試問若但轉問答中字者問中應云若顯如何唯三若隱彼一乘機更依何法而得進修如汝釋前問曰此問三乘自宗既不知一又壞三乘如何進趣今一乘機亦若是否茍如是者此等菩薩是普機否具普眼否自他見聞而具得否問若不成答亦不是是知復子未聞普機普眼之說況能履踐而效修乎此有四失誣謗普機失未聞普眼失不讀本經失不學普法失七謬也。
薪曰上文云由后二義三乘機得入一乘今若反上應云由后二義一乘機得入三乘唯此一句難見何者豈有一乘機入三乘法邪今謂所以一乘機入三乘法者以三乘本是一乘更無異事故入三乘即是入一乘也何以故此是不異門故若約不一門則義門異故權實恒存則一乘機不入三乘今約不異門理遍通故全體無二故得作此反說也故結云唯有三乘更無一也。
議曰今亦問汝若一乘機入三即是入一者彼三乘人得入一乘為復即入三否若不即是入三為例不齊若即入三此人為得何果若得三果如何入一若得一果亦復為例不齊何者一機入三不得三乘果故又復問曰還可由初二義作得入句由后二義作所依句否若不可者云何說言約不異門彼此全同略不有異又復問曰得有所依句中為亦得此即是得彼否此若不可彼云何然又復若如汝解
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
將『等者但轉前問答中三字為一字一字為三字存字為顯字壞字為隱字讀之義則明矣』這句話的意思是，只要將前面問答中的三個字轉換成一個字，一個字轉換成三個字，把『存』字理解為『顯』字，把『壞』字理解為『隱』字，那麼閱讀理解其含義就清楚了。
議論說：現在試著問一下，如果只是轉換問答中的字，那麼問題中應該說『如果顯現如何』，只有三個字；『如果隱藏，憑藉哪一乘的根機，又依據什麼法才能進修』。就像你解釋前面的問題說，這個問題是針對三乘自宗的，既然不知道一乘，又否定三乘，如何進趣？現在一乘的根機也像是這樣嗎？如果真是這樣，那麼這些菩薩是普遍的根機嗎？具備普遍的眼光嗎？自己和他人所見所聞都能具備嗎？如果問題不能成立，那麼回答也不能成立。由此可知，你沒有聽說過普遍的根機和普遍的眼光的說法，更何況能夠實踐修行呢？這裡有四個過失：誣衊普遍的根機，不曾聽聞普遍的眼光，不讀本經，不學普遍的佛法。這是第七個謬誤。
薪的觀點是：上文說，由於后兩個意義，三乘的根機得以進入一乘。現在如果反過來說，應該說由於后兩個意義，一乘的根機得以進入三乘。只有這一句話難以理解。為什麼呢？難道有一乘的根機進入三乘的法嗎？現在我認為，一乘的根機之所以能進入三乘的法，是因為三乘本來就是一乘，沒有其他差異，所以進入三乘就是進入一乘。為什麼這樣說呢？這是因為不異門的緣故。如果按照不一門來說，那麼意義的門徑就不同了，權宜和真實始終存在，那麼一乘的根機就不能進入三乘。現在按照不異門的道理，普遍貫通，全體沒有差異，所以可以這樣反過來說。所以結論說，只有三乘，沒有一乘。
議論說：現在我也問你，如果一乘的根機進入三乘就是進入一乘，那麼三乘的人得以進入一乘，是立即進入三乘呢，還是不立即進入三乘呢？如果不立即進入三乘，那麼這個例子就不一致。如果立即進入三乘，那麼這個人會得到什麼果位呢？如果得到三乘的果位，如何進入一乘？如果得到一乘的果位，也同樣是例子不一致。為什麼呢？一乘的根機進入三乘，不能得到三乘的果位。我又問，還可以由最初的兩個意義構成『得以進入』的句子，由後面的兩個意義構成『所依據』的句子嗎？如果不行，為什麼說按照不異門，彼此完全相同，略微沒有差異？我又問，在『得到所依據』的句子中，也可以說『這就是得到那個』嗎？如果這個不行，那麼那個又如何成立呢？如果像你這樣解釋……
【English Translation】 English version:
The meaning of '等者但轉前問答中三字為一字一字為三字存字為顯字壞字為隱字讀之義則明矣' is that if you just transform the three characters in the previous question and answer into one character, and one character into three characters, understand '存 (cun)' [to exist] as '顯 (xian)' [to manifest], and understand '壞 (huai)' [to decay] as '隱 (yin)' [to conceal], then the meaning will be clear when reading.
The discussion says: Now let's try asking, if you only transform the characters in the question and answer, then the question should say 'If it manifests, how?', only three characters; 'If it is concealed, by what 機 (ji) [faculty, potential] of which vehicle, and according to what Dharma can one further cultivate?' Just like you explained the previous question, this question is aimed at the 三乘 (San Cheng) [Three Vehicles] 自宗 (zi zong) [own school]. Since they don't know the 一 (Yi) [One Vehicle] and deny the Three Vehicles, how can they progress? Is the 機 (ji) [faculty, potential] of the One Vehicle also like this? If this is really the case, then are these Bodhisattvas universal 機 (ji) [faculty, potential]? Do they possess universal vision? Can they possess what they see and hear themselves and others? If the question cannot be established, then the answer cannot be established either. From this, it can be known that you have not heard of the saying of universal 機 (ji) [faculty, potential] and universal vision, let alone be able to practice and cultivate? There are four faults here: slandering universal 機 (ji) [faculty, potential], not having heard of universal vision, not reading the original scripture, and not learning the universal Dharma. This is the seventh fallacy.
Xin's point of view is: The previous text said that due to the latter two meanings, the 機 (ji) [faculty, potential] of the Three Vehicles can enter the One Vehicle. Now, if we reverse it, we should say that due to the latter two meanings, the 機 (ji) [faculty, potential] of the One Vehicle can enter the Three Vehicles. Only this sentence is difficult to understand. Why? Could it be that there is a 機 (ji) [faculty, potential] of the One Vehicle entering the Dharma of the Three Vehicles? Now I think that the reason why the 機 (ji) [faculty, potential] of the One Vehicle can enter the Dharma of the Three Vehicles is because the Three Vehicles are originally the One Vehicle, and there is no other difference, so entering the Three Vehicles is entering the One Vehicle. Why is this so? This is because of the non-difference gate. If according to the non-one gate, then the paths of meaning are different, expediency and reality always exist, then the 機 (ji) [faculty, potential] of the One Vehicle cannot enter the Three Vehicles. Now, according to the principle of the non-difference gate, it is universally connected, and the whole is without difference, so it can be said in reverse. Therefore, the conclusion says that there are only the Three Vehicles, not the One Vehicle.
The discussion says: Now I also ask you, if the 機 (ji) [faculty, potential] of the One Vehicle entering the Three Vehicles is entering the One Vehicle, then can the people of the Three Vehicles enter the One Vehicle, is it immediately entering the Three Vehicles, or is it not immediately entering the Three Vehicles? If it is not immediately entering the Three Vehicles, then this example is inconsistent. If it is immediately entering the Three Vehicles, then what fruit will this person obtain? If one obtains the fruit of the Three Vehicles, how does one enter the One Vehicle? If one obtains the fruit of the One Vehicle, it is also an inconsistent example. Why? The 機 (ji) [faculty, potential] of the One Vehicle entering the Three Vehicles cannot obtain the fruit of the Three Vehicles. I also ask, can the initial two meanings be used to form the sentence 'can enter', and the latter two meanings be used to form the sentence 'what is relied upon'? If not, why say that according to the non-difference gate, they are completely the same, slightly without difference? I also ask, in the sentence 'obtaining what is relied upon', can it also be said 'this is obtaining that'? If this is not possible, then how can that be established? If you explain it like this...
如何說彼存壞隱顯二種四句得入所依二二義門是知所解義旨全乖此有三失為例不齊失權實雜亂失立義不成失十謬也。
薪曰此如下同教辯者即同教融本末中也故彼文云是故三乘即一雖具存壞竟必有盡一乘即三雖具隱顯竟恒無盡釋曰存壞隱顯之言正繳釋今文也前指下文下繳前義方顯文義一揆余如下會釋。
議曰攬實成權故唯有三以不知一故無有也正是下文镕融四句中三乘句也獨判即三之門于理甚顯易簡等記俱作此說強項不從破句謬說且三即於一三乘盡而唯有一圓融普法卓然獨存是同教乎該攝門中作四句乎況汝下文又揀與此不同彼說縱奪明義門異故權實恒存若據汝說義門異屬不一門則下說不一今唯不異如何會同此亦三失以別為同失破句節文失自語齊楚失十三謬也。
薪曰問若據一乘即三雖具隱顯竟恒無盡者何得前反上一乘機得入三乘邪答上約不異即全體無二故也下約義異則權實恒存故也。
議曰不異門中權實存否又不異中三一互即唯有一乘唯有三乘義門異否融本末中唯不一否又復細觀彼意應以不異門中一亦有盡故故彼普機得入三也故前科特自判曰故結句云唯有三乘更無一也試問曰汝謂盡者隱時盡邪顯時盡邪隱顯俱時盡邪若謂體無二故所以得說盡者又復可笑下文會釋謬中復謬以此觀之徒然皓首故紙
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：如何理解『存』（存在）、『壞』（壞滅）、『隱』（隱藏）、『顯』（顯現）這兩種四句，才能契入所依據的二二義門？如果理解錯誤，那麼所理解的義理就完全背離了。這有三個過失：例如，以不齊等的事物為例證，這是『例證不齊』的過失；將權巧方便之說與真實之理混淆，這是『權實雜亂』的過失；所立的義理不能成立，這是『立義不成』的過失。總共有十種謬誤。
薪曰：以下與同教之人辯論，即在同教中融合本末。所以那段文字說：『因此，三乘即是一乘，雖然具備存在和壞滅，最終必定有窮盡之時；一乘即是三乘，雖然具備隱藏和顯現，最終恒常沒有窮盡之時。』釋曰：『存在、壞滅、隱藏、顯現』這些話，正是爲了解釋現在的經文。前面指代下文，下文呼應前文，這樣才能顯現經文的意義一致，其餘的如下文會解釋。
議曰：執取真實之理而成就權巧方便之說，所以只有三乘，因為不知道一乘的緣故。這正是下文融合四句中三乘的句子。單獨判立『即三』之門，在理上非常明顯。易簡等人的記錄都這樣說，只有你強項不從，破句謬說。而且，三乘即是一乘，三乘窮盡而唯有一乘圓融普法卓然獨存，這是同教嗎？是在該攝門中作四句嗎？況且你下文又揀擇與此不同，那段文字縱奪，說明義門不同，所以權實恒常存在。如果按照你所說，義門不同，不屬於同一門，那麼下文說不一，現在唯說不異，如何會同？這也是三個過失：以不同為相同，這是『以別為同』的過失；斷章取義，這是『破句節文』的過失；自相矛盾，這是『自語齊楚』的過失。總共有十三種謬誤。
薪曰：問：如果按照『一乘即是三乘，雖然具備隱藏和顯現，最終恒常沒有窮盡之時』的說法，為什麼前面反而說一乘的根機可以進入三乘呢？答：上面是從不異的角度來說，即全體沒有二，所以說一乘；下面是從義理不同的角度來說，則權巧方便之說與真實之理恒常存在，所以說三乘。
議曰：不異門中權實存在嗎？又不異中三一互相即，唯有一乘，唯有三乘，義門不同嗎？融合本末中唯說不一嗎？又仔細觀察他的意思，應該是認為不異門中一乘也有窮盡的時候，所以那些普遍的根機可以進入三乘。所以前面特別判別說：所以結論說『唯有三乘，更無一乘』。試問：你所說的『窮盡』，是隱藏的時候窮盡呢？還是顯現的時候窮盡呢？還是隱藏和顯現同時窮盡呢？如果說因為體無二，所以才說窮盡，又很可笑。下文會解釋，謬中復謬。以此來看，只是徒然耗費精力在故紙堆里。
【English Translation】 English version: How can one understand the two sets of four phrases – 'existence' (存), 'destruction' (壞), 'concealment' (隱), and 'manifestation' (顯) – to properly enter the two-by-two gates of meaning upon which they rely? If the understanding is incorrect, then the meaning understood is completely contrary to the intended meaning. This involves three errors: for example, using unequal things as analogies, which is the error of 'unequal analogies'; confusing expedient teachings with ultimate truth, which is the error of 'mixing expedient and real'; and the established meaning cannot be established, which is the error of 'unestablished meaning'. There are a total of ten errors.
Xin said: The following discussion with those of the same teaching is to integrate the fundamental and the derivative within the same teaching. Therefore, that text says: 'Therefore, the Three Vehicles are identical to the One Vehicle, although they possess existence and destruction, they will ultimately have an end; the One Vehicle is identical to the Three Vehicles, although they possess concealment and manifestation, they will ultimately never have an end.' Explanation: The words 'existence, destruction, concealment, manifestation' are precisely to explain the current text. The former refers to the following text, and the following text echoes the preceding meaning, so that the meaning of the text is consistent. The rest will be explained below.
Discussion: Grasping the real to accomplish the expedient, therefore there are only the Three Vehicles, because one does not know the One Vehicle. This is precisely the phrase of the Three Vehicles in the following integration of the four phrases. Singly establishing the gate of 'identical to three' is very clear in principle. The records of Yijian and others all say this, but you stubbornly disagree, making erroneous statements by breaking up sentences. Moreover, the Three Vehicles are identical to the One Vehicle, the Three Vehicles are exhausted, and only the One Vehicle, with its perfect and universal Dharma, stands alone. Is this the same teaching? Is it making four phrases in the all-encompassing gate? Moreover, you select something different from this in the following text. That text uses seizing and releasing to explain that the gates of meaning are different, so the expedient and the real always exist. If according to what you say, the gates of meaning are different and do not belong to the same gate, then the following text says they are not identical, but now only says they are not different, how can they be reconciled? This is also three errors: taking different things as the same, which is the error of 'taking difference as sameness'; taking phrases out of context, which is the error of 'breaking up sentences and extracting phrases'; contradicting oneself, which is the error of 'speaking inconsistently'. There are a total of thirteen errors.
Xin said: Question: If according to the statement 'the One Vehicle is identical to the Three Vehicles, although it possesses concealment and manifestation, it will ultimately never have an end,' then why did the previous statement say that the capacity for the One Vehicle can enter the Three Vehicles? Answer: The above is from the perspective of non-difference, that is, the whole is not two, so it is called the One Vehicle; the following is from the perspective of different meanings, then the expedient teachings and the ultimate truth always exist, so it is called the Three Vehicles.
Discussion: Do the expedient and the real exist in the gate of non-difference? And in non-difference, the three and the one are mutually identical, there is only the One Vehicle, there are only the Three Vehicles, are the gates of meaning different? In the integration of the fundamental and the derivative, does it only say non-difference? Also, carefully observe his meaning, it should be that he thinks that the One Vehicle also has an end in the gate of non-difference, so those universal capacities can enter the Three Vehicles. Therefore, the previous section specifically judged and said: Therefore, the concluding sentence says 'there are only the Three Vehicles, there is no One Vehicle.' Let me ask: The 'end' that you speak of, is it exhausted when it is concealed? Or is it exhausted when it is manifested? Or are concealment and manifestation exhausted at the same time? If you say that because the substance is not two, therefore it can be said to be exhausted, then it is also laughable. The following text will explain, error upon error. From this point of view, it is just a waste of effort on old papers.
堆中耳此有四失不異門無三一失義異全歸不一失無盡一乘有盡失融本末唯不一失十七妄也。
薪曰二不一下言此即一之三者是三即於一也與上即三之一等者一即於三也自近指遠故先舉即一之三也。
議曰韓愈子曰制人制於人制人者己能制人己為主也制於人則己受制於人人為主也又如寂寥于萬化之域者用而常寂用為門也動用於一虛之中者寂而常用寂為門也今謂三即於一應是一為門一即於三三為主也而謂自近指遠先舉即一之三可乎不識文字失十八謬也。
昔者復子注吾同教答卷而遺予書曰(某)遊學二十年住持十餘載讀一宗玄籍非不多矣至於深義未嘗不挹流討源而詳究之故析薪會解差目前后注辯同教一義五萬余言其文非不廣也獲譽孺子復之自務靡不由此然而文辭蕪薉義旨舛謬略無可觀具件如后。
薪曰二同教下初分諸乘者從一乘分至於無量而每段中皆三一合說故為同教如一乘七義皆合三為一二乘三義初二亦合三一第三義合於大小乃至無量乘皆然。
議曰觀夫複意雖語濫於三一和合實不承用何者且如二乘第三義中伊言合大小者蓋以文曰此通愚法及迴心也則羊鹿中皆有大小若合三一則大白牛車羊鹿牛等一一車中皆有三一矣若用三一和合之意何者為教何者為義又如二乘第二義中合三一者應以一乘
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 堆砌中聽到這些有四種錯誤：不異門（指認為『不異』之門）沒有三種『一』的錯誤；意義不同卻完全歸於『一』的錯誤；無盡和一乘（Ekayana，唯一佛乘）卻說成有盡的錯誤；融合本末卻只說成『不一』的錯誤，這是十七種妄見。
薪曰：『二不一』下面說，『此即一之三』，意思是三即在於一，與上面說的『即三之一』相等，意思是『一』即在於『三』。因為從近處指向遠處，所以先舉出『即一之三』。
議曰：韓愈說，『制人者制於人，制人者己能制人，己為主也；制於人則己受制於人，人為之主也。』又如『寂寥于萬化之域者，用而常寂，用為門也；動用於一虛之中者，寂而常用，寂為門也。』現在說『三即於一』，應該是一為門，『一即於三』，三為主。卻說從近處指向遠處，先舉出『即一之三』，可以嗎？不識文字，這是十八種謬誤。
過去復子註釋我的同教答卷，並給我寫信說：（某）遊學二十年，住持十餘載，讀一宗玄籍並非不多，至於深義，未嘗不追溯源頭而詳細研究。所以分析薪柴，會理解答，尚能前後註釋，辯論同教一義，五萬余言，其文並非不廣。獲得『孺子復』的讚譽，自認為沒有不由此而來的。然而文辭蕪雜，義旨錯謬，略無可觀，具體情況如下。
薪曰：『二同教』下面，最初區分諸乘（指聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘等）是從一乘（Ekayana，唯一佛乘）分到無量乘，而每段中都是三一合說，所以稱為同教。如一乘七義都符合三為一，二乘三義，最初二義也符合三一，第三義符合于大小，乃至無量乘都是這樣。
議曰：觀察復子的意思，雖然言語上濫用三一和合，實際上並不承用。為什麼呢？比如二乘第三義中，他說符合大小，是因為文中說『此通愚法及迴心』，那麼羊鹿車中都有大小。如果符合三一，那麼大白牛車、羊鹿牛等，每一輛車中都有三一了。如果用三一和合的意思，那麼什麼為教，什麼為義呢？又如二乘第二義中，符合三一，應該以一乘（Ekayana，唯一佛乘）...
【English Translation】 English version: Hearing these in a heap involves four errors: the 'non-difference gate' (thinking of 'non-difference' as a gate) lacks the error of the three 'ones'; the error of differing meanings being completely attributed to 'one'; the error of describing the endless and the Ekayana (One Vehicle) as finite; the error of merging the fundamental and the derivative while only speaking of 'non-one,' which are seventeen delusions.
Xin said: Below 'two not one,' it says, 'This is the three of one,' meaning the three are in one, which is equal to the above saying 'the one of three,' meaning 'one' is in 'three.' Because it points from near to far, it first mentions 'the three of one.'
YI said: Han Yu said, 'To control others is to be controlled by others; to control others is to be able to control others, and oneself is the master; to be controlled by others is to be subject to others, and others are the masters.' Also, like 'being solitary in the realm of myriad transformations, using it is always solitary, and use is the gate; moving and using it in a void, being solitary is always used, and solitude is the gate.' Now saying 'three are in one' should mean one is the gate, and 'one is in three,' three are the masters. Yet saying it points from near to far, first mentioning 'the three of one,' is that acceptable? Not understanding the text is eighteen fallacies.
In the past, Fu Zi annotated my answer sheet on the same teachings and wrote me a letter saying: (So-and-so) has traveled and studied for twenty years, resided as abbot for more than ten years, and read no small amount of profound texts of one school. As for the profound meaning, I have always traced the source and studied it in detail. Therefore, analyzing firewood and understanding answers, I can annotate before and after, debating the meaning of the same teachings in more than fifty thousand words, and the writing is not unextensive. I have received the praise of 'young Fu,' and I believe that everything I have achieved comes from this. However, the writing is messy, the meaning is erroneous, and there is little to see. The details are as follows.
Xin said: Below 'two same teachings,' the initial distinction of the various vehicles (Shravakayana, Pratyekabuddhayana, Bodhisattvayana, etc.) is from the Ekayana (One Vehicle) to immeasurable vehicles, and each section combines the three and one, so it is called the same teaching. For example, the seven meanings of the One Vehicle all conform to three as one, the three meanings of the Two Vehicles, the first two meanings also conform to three and one, and the third meaning conforms to the large and small, and so on to immeasurable vehicles.
YI said: Observing Fu Zi's meaning, although the language abuses the combination of three and one, it does not actually accept it. Why? For example, in the third meaning of the Two Vehicles, he says it conforms to the large and small because the text says, 'This is common to foolish dharma and turning the mind,' then there are large and small in the sheep and deer carts. If it conforms to three and one, then the great white ox cart, sheep, deer, ox, etc., each cart has three and one. If using the meaning of the combination of three and one, then what is the teaching, and what is the meaning? Also, in the second meaning of the Two Vehicles, conforming to three and one, it should be with the Ekayana (One Vehicle)...
為教三乘為義邪以此門中約三乘故又如初義中若合三一應一乘中亦有三一三乘中亦有三一邪不爾義應不同合大小邪又況下文釋二乘處三義皆云對分對分合說義相順否此有二謬臆說無稽謬前後相違謬二妄也。
薪曰言融本末者既同一法界有其二門所以得分諸乘中明一乘必泯權為一明三乘等必攬實為三隻由此義方得分諸乘中雖分三一之義皆合三一為之此吾祖立門之大意不可不審。
議曰若爾者且法相交參攝方便等所辨一乘為是唯一非三邪為是方便正乘俱存邪泯權邪攬實邪二乘第三義中泯愚法邪泯迴心邪初義中泯三邪攬實邪三一開邪三一合邪是知俱非祖意如來書雲實有超祖之見而與祖意碩異者復子坐之矣是亦臆說無稽三妄也。
薪曰一明下法相交參以明一乘若唯明三中有一乘法相非今一乘若唯明一乘中有三乘法相亦非今一乘要互相交參方是此一乘義也。
議曰今且問曰此教收於何典被於何器吾佛於何處說今龍藏中有此教否不可謂收華嚴及諸餘典以無人敢判華嚴為同教故華嚴唯被普機之利器故又問此中一乘泯權邪方便正乘俱存邪此中三乘望一乘邪攬實而唯三邪各合三一而為之邪是知下筆舛謬此有三失無機無教失但有虛名失落筆乖理失六妄也。
薪曰既三中有因陀羅等又十眼中有五眼等此應是別
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：問：爲了教導三乘（Śrāvakayāna，獨覺乘，菩薩乘）而設立三乘之說是正確的嗎？如果按照這個宗門中關於三乘的說法，又如最初的意義中，如果將三乘合為一，那麼一乘（Ekāyana）中也應該有三一，三乘中也應該有三一嗎？如果不是這樣，那麼意義應該不同，是合大小乘（Mahāyāna，Hīnayāna）嗎？而且下文解釋二乘（聲聞乘，緣覺乘）的地方，三種意義都說是『對分』，『對分合說』，意義相順嗎？這有兩點謬誤：臆測之說沒有根據，謬誤一；前後說法互相違背，謬誤二。這都是虛妄的。
薪曰：所說的『融本末』，既然同一法界（Dharmadhātu），有其二門，所以才能區分諸乘。如果闡明一乘，必定泯除權巧方便而歸於一；如果闡明三乘等，必定總攬真實而歸於三。只有通過這個意義，才能區分諸乘。諸乘中雖然區分三一的意義，但都將三一合為一體。這是我們祖師立宗門的大意，不可不審察。
議曰：如果這樣，那麼且說法相交參，攝方便等所辨別的一乘，是唯一而非三嗎？還是方便正乘都存在？是泯除權巧方便嗎？是總攬真實嗎？二乘第三義中，是泯除愚法嗎？是泯除迴心嗎？最初的意義中，是泯除三乘嗎？是總攬真實嗎？是三一分開嗎？是三一合一嗎？由此可知，這些都並非祖師的本意。《如來書》說：『確實有超越祖師的見解，但與祖師的意旨大相逕庭。』這又是臆測之說，沒有根據，謬誤三。
薪曰：闡明下法相交參，是爲了闡明一乘。如果只闡明三乘中有一乘的法相，就不是現在的一乘；如果只闡明一乘中有三乘的法相，也不是現在的一乘。一定要互相交參，才是這一乘的意義。
議曰：現在且問：這個教義收錄于哪部經典？被哪種根器的眾生接受？我們的佛陀在何處宣說？現在的龍藏（佛教經書彙編）中有這個教義嗎？不能說收錄于《華嚴經》（Avataṃsaka Sūtra）及其他經典，因為沒有人敢判定《華嚴經》是同教。而且《華嚴經》只被普遍根器的眾生接受。又問：這個宗門中的一乘是泯除權巧方便嗎？是方便正乘都存在嗎？這個宗門中的三乘是望向一乘嗎？是總攬真實而只有三乘嗎？是各自合三一而為之嗎？由此可知，下筆舛誤。這有三點缺失：沒有根器，沒有教義，缺失一；只有虛名，缺失二；落筆乖離道理，缺失三。這都是虛妄的。
薪曰：既然三乘中有因陀羅（Indra）等，又十眼中有五眼等，這應該是別教。
【English Translation】 English version: Question: Is it correct to establish the doctrine of the Three Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, Bodhisattvayāna) for the purpose of teaching the Three Vehicles? If, according to the teachings of this school regarding the Three Vehicles, and as in the initial meaning, if the Three Vehicles are combined into One Vehicle (Ekāyana), then should there also be three-in-one in the One Vehicle, and three-in-one in the Three Vehicles? If not, then the meaning should be different, is it combining the Great Vehicle (Mahāyāna) and the Small Vehicle (Hīnayāna)? Moreover, in the passages below explaining the Two Vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna), all three meanings are said to be 'division', 'division and combined explanation', are the meanings consistent? There are two errors here: speculative statements without basis, error one; contradictory statements before and after, error two. These are all false.
Comment: The so-called 'integrating the root and branch', since they are in the same Dharmadhātu (法界), have two doors, so they can be distinguished into various vehicles. If elucidating the One Vehicle, it must eliminate expedient means and return to one; if elucidating the Three Vehicles, it must encompass the real and return to three. Only through this meaning can the various vehicles be distinguished. Although the meaning of three-in-one is distinguished in the various vehicles, they all combine the three-in-one into one. This is the general idea of our patriarch's establishment of the school, which must be carefully examined.
Argument: If so, then let's say that the One Vehicle distinguished by the interpenetration of Dharmas, encompassing expedient means, etc., is it unique and not three? Or do both expedient and true vehicles exist? Is it eliminating expedient means? Is it encompassing the real? In the third meaning of the Two Vehicles, is it eliminating ignorant Dharmas? Is it eliminating turning back the mind? In the initial meaning, is it eliminating the Three Vehicles? Is it encompassing the real? Is the three-in-one separated? Is the three-in-one combined? From this, it can be known that these are not the patriarch's original intentions. The 'Tathāgata Book' says: 'There are indeed views that surpass the patriarch, but they are vastly different from the patriarch's intentions.' This is also speculative statement without basis, error three.
Comment: Elucidating the interpenetration of Dharmas below is to elucidate the One Vehicle. If only elucidating that there is the Dharma characteristic of the One Vehicle in the Three Vehicles, then it is not the current One Vehicle; if only elucidating that there are the Dharma characteristics of the Three Vehicles in the One Vehicle, then it is also not the current One Vehicle. It must be interpenetrating each other to be the meaning of this One Vehicle.
Argument: Now let's ask: in which scripture is this teaching collected? By which capacity of beings is it received? Where did our Buddha speak of it? Is this teaching in the current Dragon Canon (Buddhist scripture collection)? It cannot be said that it is collected in the Avataṃsaka Sūtra (華嚴經) and other scriptures, because no one dares to judge the Avataṃsaka Sūtra as the same teaching. Moreover, the Avataṃsaka Sūtra is only received by beings of universal capacity. Also ask: does the One Vehicle in this school eliminate expedient means? Do both expedient and true vehicles exist? Do the Three Vehicles in this school look towards the One Vehicle? Is it encompassing the real and only having the Three Vehicles? Is it combining the three-in-one respectively? From this, it can be known that the writing is flawed. There are three shortcomings here: no capacity, no teaching, shortcoming one; only empty name, shortcoming two; the writing deviates from reason, shortcoming three. These are all false.
Comment: Since there are Indra (因陀羅) etc. in the Three Vehicles, and there are five eyes etc. in the ten eyes, this should be a separate teaching.
教垂入三中而云同教者以三一合說故若自別教唯明一乘今既三一法相互參故屬同教不得此意但見因陀羅等名便謂別教致令有謂此但是所镕之本不是同教者宜自審之。
議曰此段之意蓋由昔人有問曰今能垂一乘為是別教為是同教故有是說觀今復子之意特謂同教垂非別教垂彼謂此中一乘必泯權合三一為則此能垂大白牛車已有三一故曰不得此意便謂別教今亦問曰泯權歸實唯有一乘別教邪同教邪若言別者如何汝謂之同若是同者云何唯一又豈一乘帶已合之三乘入彼之三乘哉又況昔人自辨能垂不問己參如何作此說邪此有三失不明昔問失指別作同失立義狂妄失九妄也。
薪曰依上下上來七義皆即三乘等為一乘未曾獨說三說一故今結也言皆隨本宗定故者是同也主伴不具者非別也所謂本宗定者如法相交參中雖有因陀羅等由宗定故不具主伴一乘宗中雖有五眼六通等由三乘定故與一乘義理皆別攝方便中雖三乘為一乘方便以三乘宗定不具主伴由攝方便故屬同教也余義例知然皆點三為一非三乘便是一乘何以故三乘宗定故所以云是同若三乘便是一乘者自屬別教故云非別教也。
議曰此中有二故字者昔有二解古人皆節于句末作二所以易簡節于句首言故主伴不具等今析薪初判似從古人釋義似從易簡初判易見釋義曰雖有因陀羅等由宗定
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：有人認為，佛陀垂示的一乘教法與三乘教法相同，是因為三者合一而說。如果認為是別教，則只闡明一乘。現在既然三一之法相互參照，就屬於同教。不應該因為看到因陀羅（Indra，帝釋天）等名稱，就認為是別教，以至於有人說這只是所融攝的根本，不是同教，應該自我審視。
評論說：這段話的意思大概是，過去有人問：現在能垂示的一乘教法，是別教還是同教？所以才有這種說法。看現在複述的意思，特別強調是同教垂示，不是別教垂示。他們認為，這裡的一乘必定泯滅權巧，融合三一為法則。這能垂示的大白牛車已經有三一的含義，所以說『不得此意便謂別教』。現在我也要問：泯滅權巧，歸於真實，只有一乘，是別教呢，還是同教呢？如果說是別教，為什麼你又說是同教？如果是同教，為什麼又是唯一？又怎麼能讓一乘帶著已經融合的三乘，進入那邊的三乘呢？而且過去的人自己辨別能垂示的教法，不問自己是否參與，怎麼能這樣說呢？這有三重錯誤：不明白過去的提問，錯誤地把別教當作同教，立論狂妄，錯謬百出。
薪曰：依據上下七義，都是以三乘等同於一乘，未曾單獨說三，說一，所以現在總結說，『言皆隨本宗定故者是同也』，主伴不具足的，不是別教。所謂『本宗定者』，如法相交參中，即使有因陀羅（Indra，帝釋天）等，由於宗派的規定，不具備主伴關係。一乘宗中，即使有五眼六通等，由於三乘的規定，與一乘的義理都分別攝入方便之中。即使三乘為一乘，方便以三乘宗派的規定，不具備主伴關係，由於攝方便的緣故，屬於同教。其餘的意義可以類推得知。然而都是點三為一，不是三乘便是一乘。為什麼呢？因為三乘宗派的規定。所以說是同教。如果三乘便是一乘，自然屬於別教，所以說不是別教。
評論說：這裡有兩個『故』字，過去有兩種解釋，古人都在句末斷開，作為兩個字，所以簡易。現在分析薪的最初判斷，似乎是按照古人的解釋，釋義似乎是按照簡易的說法。最初的判斷容易看出來，釋義說：即使有因陀羅（Indra，帝釋天）等，由於宗派的規定
【English Translation】 English version: Some argue that the Trikaya (three bodies of Buddha) teaching, which the Buddha imparts, is the same as the three vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, Bodhisattvayāna), because the three are spoken of as a unity. If it were a separate teaching (別教), it would only elucidate the One Vehicle (Ekayana). Now that the principles of the three and the one mutually refer to each other, it belongs to the common teaching (同教). One should not, upon seeing names like Indra (因陀羅，帝釋天), immediately assume it is a separate teaching, leading some to say that this is merely the fundamental principle being assimilated, not a common teaching. One should examine oneself.
Commentary: The meaning of this passage is probably due to someone in the past asking: Is the One Vehicle teaching that is now being imparted a separate teaching or a common teaching? Hence this statement. Looking at the intention of the current reiteration, it specifically emphasizes that it is the common teaching being imparted, not the separate teaching. They believe that the One Vehicle here must obliterate expedient means and integrate the three and the one as the principle. This great white ox cart that can impart already has the meaning of the three and the one, hence the statement 'One should not, upon seeing names like Indra (因陀羅，帝釋天), immediately assume it is a separate teaching'. Now I also ask: Obliterating expedient means and returning to reality, there is only the One Vehicle, is it a separate teaching or a common teaching? If it is said to be a separate teaching, how can you say it is a common teaching? If it is a common teaching, why is it the only one? And how can the One Vehicle, carrying the already integrated three vehicles, enter into the three vehicles over there? Moreover, the people of the past themselves distinguished the teachings that could be imparted, without asking whether they themselves participated, how can they say this? There are three mistakes here: not understanding the question of the past, mistakenly taking the separate teaching as the common teaching, establishing arguments wildly, and making numerous errors.
Xin says: According to the seven meanings above and below, all are taking the three vehicles as equal to the One Vehicle, never separately speaking of the three or speaking of the one. Therefore, it is now concluded that 'The statement that all follow the determination of the original school is the common teaching', and that which does not have the characteristics of principal and subordinate is not a separate teaching. The so-called 'determination of the original school' is like in the mutual interpenetration of dharmas, even if there are Indra (因陀羅，帝釋天) and others, due to the regulations of the school, it does not have the relationship of principal and subordinate. In the One Vehicle school, even if there are the five eyes and six superknowledges, due to the regulations of the three vehicles, the meanings and principles of the One Vehicle are all separately included in expedient means. Even if the three vehicles are the One Vehicle, the expedient means, according to the regulations of the three vehicle schools, do not have the relationship of principal and subordinate. Due to the inclusion of expedient means, it belongs to the common teaching. The remaining meanings can be inferred by analogy. However, all are pointing to the three as one, not that the three vehicles are simply the One Vehicle. Why? Because of the regulations of the three vehicle schools. Therefore, it is said to be the common teaching. If the three vehicles were simply the One Vehicle, it would naturally belong to the separate teaching, hence the statement that it is not a separate teaching.
Commentary: There are two 'therefore' characters here. In the past, there were two interpretations. The ancients would break them off at the end of the sentence, treating them as two characters, so it was simple. Now, analyzing Xin's initial judgment, it seems to be according to the ancient interpretation, and the explanation seems to be according to the simple statement. The initial judgment is easy to see, and the explanation says: Even if there are Indra (因陀羅，帝釋天) and others, due to the regulations of the school
故不具主伴又曰以三乘宗定不具主伴此是三乘宗定為因不具主伴為宗也則全同易簡由此見其不能自斷而摸楞一妄也又曰一乘中雖有五眼六通由三乘定故與一乘義理皆別者應三乘中華藏因陀羅等由一乘定故與三乘皆別而具足主伴邪祖師云名字雖同意皆別異義如是否二妄也又前言隨宗定故是同后復增由攝方便故名同是皆枝詞不知義之所主三妄也又曰然皆點三為一非三乘便是一乘等者且還丹一粒點鐵成金鐵即金也點化之術理數然矣而云點三為一又言非便是一又況自徴釋云三乘定故且三乘既定已點化邪未投丹邪四妄也三乘望一乘為彼所目更無異事華嚴別教邪法華同教邪三乘定邪五妄也是知雖能撿閱抄錄不曉一義何者且同教一義復吐五萬余言析薪五卷十三萬數千言理皆妄謬又不可與靜法宛公釋離世間品同日而語何則彼雖大旨全乖摘句消文隨句引證猶有理在此有五失不斷模楞失謬判宗定失立義無歸失不曉點化失以同作別失十四妄也。
薪曰二明二乘此中三義初三一對分故合愚法在能引三車中也二大小對分故開愚法唯小以迴心通大故也三聲聞緣覺對分以愚法迴心同是名故也。
議曰上記曰初二義合三一第三義合大小今云對分前後之言何者為是又前云必泯權必攬實此合愚法於三車應是泯權為權邪約三乘中開出愚法應是攬權
【現代漢語翻譯】 因此說不具備主伴關係，又說以三乘（Sravakayana，Pratyekabuddhayana，Bodhisattvayana）的宗義來確定，不具備主伴關係，這是以三乘的宗義來確定，以不具備主伴關係作為論點。那麼完全相同于簡易之說，由此可見其不能自己判斷而模糊妄說。又說一乘（Ekayana）中雖有五眼（肉眼、天眼、慧眼、法眼、佛眼）六通（天眼通、天耳通、他心通、宿命通、神足通、漏盡通），由於三乘的禪定，所以與一乘的義理都不同，那麼三乘中的華藏世界、因陀羅網等，由於一乘的禪定，所以與三乘都不同，而且具備主伴關係嗎？祖師說名字雖然相同，但意義都不同，像這樣是否是第二次妄說？又前面說隨宗義而定，所以是相同，後面又增加由於攝受方便的緣故，名稱相同，這些都是枝節之詞，不知道義理的主旨，這是第三次妄說。又說然而都是點化三乘為一乘，並非三乘便是一乘等等，且像還丹一粒點鐵成金，鐵就是金了，點化之術，理數當然如此。而說點化三乘為一乘，又說並非便是，又況且自己徵引解釋說由於三乘的禪定，且三乘既然已經確定，已經點化了嗎？已經投入丹藥了嗎？這是第四次妄說。三乘相對於一乘，被他們所指責，更沒有其他事情，華嚴是別教嗎？法華是同教嗎？三乘是禪定嗎？這是第五次妄說。由此可知雖然能夠檢查閱讀抄錄，但不明白一個義理。什麼呢？且同教的一個義理又吐出五萬多字，分析柴薪五卷十三萬多字，道理都是虛妄謬誤。又不可以與靜法、宛公解釋《離世間品》相提並論，為什麼呢？他們雖然大旨完全違背，摘取句子消解文字，隨句子引證，還有道理存在，這裡有五種過失：不斷除模糊，判斷宗義失誤，立義沒有歸宿，不明白點化，以相同作為不同，這是第十四次妄說。
《薪》說：二，明二乘（Sravakayana，Pratyekabuddhayana），這其中有三種意義：最初，三和一對分，所以把愚法包含在能引導三車的譬喻中。第二，大小對分，所以開出愚法，只有小乘可以通過迴心通向大乘。第三，聲聞（Sravaka）緣覺（Pratyekabuddha）對分，因為愚法迴心都是相同的名稱。
《議》說：上面記載說，最初兩個意義合併爲三和一，第三個意義合併爲大小，現在說對分，前後的話哪個是對的？又前面說必定泯除權巧，必定包攬真實，這合併愚法於三車，應該是泯除權巧作為權巧嗎？從三乘中開出愚法，應該是包攬權巧嗎？
【English Translation】 Therefore, it is said that it does not possess the relationship of principal and subordinate. It is also said that based on the tenets of the Three Vehicles (Sravakayana [Vehicle of Hearers], Pratyekabuddhayana [Vehicle of Solitary Buddhas], Bodhisattvayana [Vehicle of Bodhisattvas]), it is determined that it does not possess the relationship of principal and subordinate. This is based on the tenets of the Three Vehicles, using the absence of the principal-subordinate relationship as the argument. Then it is completely the same as the simplistic view, from which it can be seen that it cannot judge for itself and speaks vaguely and falsely. Furthermore, it is said that although the One Vehicle (Ekayana) has the Five Eyes (flesh eye, heavenly eye, wisdom eye, Dharma eye, Buddha eye) and Six Superknowledges (divine eye, divine ear, knowledge of others' minds, knowledge of past lives, supernatural powers, extinction of outflows), because of the samadhi of the Three Vehicles, it is different from the meaning and principles of the One Vehicle. Then, are the worlds of Huazang and the net of Indra, etc., in the Three Vehicles, due to the samadhi of the One Vehicle, different from the Three Vehicles and possess the relationship of principal and subordinate? The Patriarch said that although the names are the same, the meanings are different. Is this the second false statement? Also, it was previously said that it is determined according to the tenets, so it is the same. Later, it was added that the names are the same due to the expedient of embracing, these are all branch words, not knowing the main point of the meaning, this is the third false statement. Furthermore, it is said that they are all transforming the Three Vehicles into the One Vehicle, not that the Three Vehicles are the One Vehicle, etc. It is like a pill of elixir that turns iron into gold, the iron is gold. The art of transformation, the principles and numbers are naturally so. But it is said to transform the Three Vehicles into the One Vehicle, and also said that it is not. Moreover, it is cited and explained that due to the samadhi of the Three Vehicles, since the Three Vehicles have been determined, have they been transformed? Has the elixir been put in? This is the fourth false statement. The Three Vehicles are relative to the One Vehicle, and they are criticized, there is nothing else. Is the Avatamsaka Sutra a separate teaching? Is the Lotus Sutra a common teaching? Is the Three Vehicles samadhi? This is the fifth false statement. From this, it can be known that although one can examine, read, and copy, one does not understand a single meaning. What is it? Moreover, the one meaning of the common teaching spews out more than 50,000 words, analyzing firewood in five volumes and more than 130,000 words, the principles are all false and erroneous. Also, it cannot be compared with Jingfa and Wan Gong's explanation of the 'Leaving the World' chapter, why? Although their main points are completely contrary, extracting sentences to dissolve the text, and citing evidence according to the sentences, there is still reason in it. Here there are five faults: not cutting off vagueness, mistaken judgment of tenets, establishing meaning without a destination, not understanding transformation, taking the same as different, this is the fourteenth false statement.
《Xin》 says: Second, clarifying the Two Vehicles (Sravakayana [Vehicle of Hearers], Pratyekabuddhayana [Vehicle of Solitary Buddhas]), there are three meanings in this: First, the three and one are divided, so the ignorant Dharma is included in the metaphor of being able to guide the three carts. Second, the large and small are divided, so the ignorant Dharma is opened up, only the Small Vehicle can reach the Great Vehicle through turning the mind. Third, the Hearers (Sravaka) and Solitary Buddhas (Pratyekabuddha) are divided, because the ignorant Dharma turning the mind is the same name.
《Yi》 says: The above record says that the first two meanings are merged into three and one, and the third meaning is merged into large and small. Now it says division, which of the previous and subsequent words is correct? Also, it was previously said that it must eliminate the expedient and must embrace the truth. This merging of the ignorant Dharma into the three carts, should it be eliminating the expedient as an expedient? Opening up the ignorant Dharma from the Three Vehicles, should it be embracing the expedient?
為權邪是知由泯權攬實故得三一合說非理也汝謂賢首自語相違今直如此十五妄也。
薪曰三明下初標有三釋唯二者應脫一段。
議曰多聞闕疑聖人之明誡也何得妄誕以惑後人汝謂吾家宗教離此更有何等三乘慎言其餘可也未至蓋人失十六妄也。
薪曰一者下言為顯法本末者上開一乘為本下開小乘為末中間三乘應望上望下通於本末故下揀共教三乘雲此中通大之小非愚法通小之大非一乘反顯具于本末也。
議曰今試問曰汝謂小乘從一出邪從三流邪三乘之法有自體邪亦無體邪茍或無體如何能成彼小為彼之本有說從大出者大即一乘也或融彼大同一乘耳是故諸文字教唯是一乘有自體故為教本故於一佛乘分別說三故無得妄說以亂孺子下文自言通小之大非一乘安從為本以末為本十七妄也。
薪曰約大乘終教已去者以始教許斷證出三界故問若終教方許愚法不出界者未知始教通大二乘還許出界否若不許者今何獨揀愚法若言許者今何云終教已去邪答此有二意一者若約始教為引愚法未深說故且許究竟今此就實故一向言未出世此則小始二教之二乘並不許究竟也二者若三乘中聲聞已如實修故許彼究竟愚法未如實故則未究竟今約后義故以三乘終教唯引愚法然此二意下章終教斷惑文中自明具如下說。
議曰此中臆
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：你認為權教、邪教是由於泯滅權巧而執取實法，所以才會有三一合說的說法，這是不合道理的。你說賢首（賢首國師，即法藏）自己說的話前後矛盾，現在直接這樣說，這是第十五種妄語。
薪曰：『三明下初標有三釋唯二者應脫一段』的意思是說，在『三明』之下，最初標出三種解釋，但只有兩種是正確的，應該刪去一段。
議曰：多聞而闕于疑問，是聖人的明確告誡。怎麼可以胡說八道來迷惑後人呢？你說我們家的宗教離開了這些，還有什麼三乘？謹慎地說其他的還可以，沒有達到那個程度。大概是人迷失了，這是第十六種妄語。
薪曰：『一者下言為顯法本末者』的意思是說，上面開示一乘為根本，下面開示小乘為末端，中間的三乘應該向上看、向下看，貫通於根本和末端，所以下面揀擇共教的三乘說，『此中通大之小，非愚法通小之大，非一乘』，反過來顯示了具備于根本和末端。
議曰：現在試著問一下：你認為小乘是從一乘流出呢，還是從三乘流出呢？三乘的法有自體嗎？還是沒有自體呢？如果真的沒有自體，怎麼能夠成就那個小乘作為那個小乘的根本呢？有說法是從大乘流出的，大乘就是一乘啊。或者融合那個大乘，同一於一乘罷了。所以各種文字的教義都只是唯一的一乘，因為有自體，所以作為教義的根本，所以在唯一佛乘中分別說三乘，所以不能胡說八道來擾亂孺子。下文自己說『通小之大，非一乘』，哪裡能以一乘為根本，而以末端為根本呢？這是第十七種妄語。
薪曰：『約大乘終教已去者』的意思是說，以始教允許斷證而出三界，所以問：如果終教才允許愚法不出三界，那麼不知道始教通大二乘是否還允許出三界？如果不允許，那麼現在為什麼唯獨揀擇愚法？如果說允許，那麼現在為什麼說終教已去呢？回答說：這裡有兩種意思，一是如果以始教為引導，愚法沒有深入地說，所以且允許究竟，現在這裡就實際情況來說，一向說沒有出世，那麼小始二教的二乘都不允許究竟。二是如果三乘中聲聞已經如實修行，所以允許他們究竟，愚法沒有如實修行，所以沒有究竟，現在以後面的意思來說，所以三乘終教只引導愚法，然而這兩種意思在下章終教斷惑的文中會自己說明，具體如下所說。
議曰：這裡是臆測。
【English Translation】 English version: You believe that provisional and heretical teachings arise from obliterating skillful means and clinging to the real, hence the saying of the unity of the three is unreasonable. You say that the words of Xianshou (National Master Xianshou, i.e., Fazang) contradict themselves, and now you directly say this, which is the fifteenth falsehood.
Xin said: 'Below 'Three Understandings', the initial mark has three explanations, but only two are correct, and one section should be deleted.' This means that under 'Three Understandings', three explanations are initially marked, but only two are correct, and one section should be deleted.
Yi said: Hearing much but lacking in questioning is the clear admonition of the sages. How can you fabricate falsehoods to confuse later generations? You say that our school of thought, apart from these, what other three vehicles are there? Be cautious in speaking of others, for you have not reached that level. It is probably that people are lost, which is the sixteenth falsehood.
Xin said: 'The following statement, 'to reveal the root and branch of the Dharma', means that the opening of the One Vehicle is the root, and the opening of the Small Vehicle is the branch. The three vehicles in the middle should look up and look down, connecting to the root and branch. Therefore, the following selection of the three vehicles of the shared teaching says, 'Here, it connects the small of the great, not the foolish Dharma connecting the great of the small, not the One Vehicle', which conversely shows that it possesses both the root and the branch.
Yi said: Now let me ask: Do you think the Small Vehicle flows out from the One Vehicle, or from the Three Vehicles? Does the Dharma of the Three Vehicles have its own substance, or does it have no substance? If it truly has no substance, how can it accomplish that the Small Vehicle is the root of that Small Vehicle? There is a saying that it flows out from the Great Vehicle, and the Great Vehicle is the One Vehicle. Or it merges that Great Vehicle, becoming the same as the One Vehicle. Therefore, the teachings of various texts are only the One Vehicle, because it has its own substance, so it serves as the root of the teachings. Therefore, in the One Buddha Vehicle, the Three Vehicles are separately spoken of, so one must not fabricate falsehoods to disturb the children. The following text itself says 'connecting the great of the small, not the One Vehicle', how can one take the One Vehicle as the root, and take the branch as the root? This is the seventeenth falsehood.
Xin said: 'Regarding those who have gone beyond the Final Teaching of the Great Vehicle', it means that the Initial Teaching allows for cutting off proof and exiting the Three Realms, so it asks: If the Final Teaching only allows foolish Dharma not to exit the Three Realms, then I don't know if the Initial Teaching, which connects the Great and Small Vehicles, still allows exiting the Three Realms? If it does not allow it, then why do you only select foolish Dharma now? If you say it allows it, then why do you say that the Final Teaching has already passed? The answer is: There are two meanings here. First, if the Initial Teaching is used as a guide, the foolish Dharma has not been deeply spoken of, so it is allowed to be ultimate for the time being. Now, based on the actual situation here, it is always said that it has not left the world, so the two vehicles of the Small and Initial Teachings are not allowed to be ultimate. Second, if the Shravakas in the Three Vehicles have already cultivated truthfully, so they are allowed to be ultimate, but the foolish Dharma has not cultivated truthfully, so it is not ultimate. Now, based on the latter meaning, the Final Teaching of the Three Vehicles only guides the foolish Dharma. However, these two meanings will be explained in the text of the chapter on cutting off delusions in the Final Teaching, as described below.
Yi said: This is speculation.
說有九種一白晝做夢一妄也不言終教二乘方出作此難故二以通大難愚法二妄也始教許出終不許者則二乘是一教有了不了也若此問者應有二羅漢邪若言斷惑后義許二類者愚法則始亦不許通大則終亦許出作此問者妄也三混亂本義三妄也以今說三宗故以大揀小若始大亦屬所揀則三外復有三矣大小難顯以三中俱大故四廣添二乘四妄也以汝說終教二乘出界小始二教之二乘並不許出則六羊鹿矣更加頓教便成八羊鹿車故五指通大為愚法五妄也前問通大答以不出以不出者是愚法故六終教唯引愚法六妄也此義文理俱絕七去取不當七妄也文云終教已去不許則始教許出前義也而云后義故八不解此文八妄也欲說三乘汝說七乘良由以三揀三故也九全迷斷惑之文九妄也以彼二義俱無所曉故承前同教之中已二十六妄也。
薪曰又問以始教正引愚法故所設教門多似於小今愚法既在所引中始教何得不為能引邪又終教所引二乘是純熟高勝之機非引愚法今何言引愚法邪進退有妨此云何通答今約終教已去以揀愚法無實義在所引中非約終教引愚法也以揀引二義別故若爾何故上云三車引諸子邪答此通約三乘為能引此通中間三教何者若唯始教則愚法不在所引中若唯終教已去則不得為能引由通約三乘教故愚法既未出世三車又既為能引是故上約能引故通約三乘教今約
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：有人提出九種錯誤觀點：1. 白晝做夢，虛妄不實，說終教（最終的教義）允許二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）修行者出來，這是自相矛盾的。2. 以通教（貫通三乘的教義）來為難愚法（針對根器較差的人的教法），這是虛妄的。始教（最初的教義）允許二乘修行者出來，而終教不允許，那麼二乘就成了一個獨立的教派，有了了義和不了義之分。如果這樣問，那麼應該有兩類阿羅漢嗎？如果說斷惑之後，義理上允許這兩類人出來，那麼愚法教義從一開始就不允許，而通教則最終允許出來。提出這個問題是虛妄的。3. 混淆了根本的教義，這是虛妄的。現在說三宗（始教、終教、頓教），用大乘來揀擇小乘。如果始教的大乘也屬於被揀擇的對象，那麼三宗之外又有了三宗了，大小乘的區分就難以顯現了，因為三宗都屬於大乘。4. 隨意增加二乘，這是虛妄的。按照你所說，終教的二乘可以出離三界，而始教和頓教的二乘都不允許出離，那麼就成了六輛羊車和鹿車了。再加上頓教，就變成了八輛羊車和鹿車了。5. 指責通教的大乘為愚法，這是虛妄的。前面問通教，回答卻說不能出離，因為不能出離就是愚法。6. 說終教只引導愚法，這是虛妄的。這個說法在文理上都說不通。7. 取捨不當，這是虛妄的。經文說終教已經捨棄了不允許出離的說法，那麼始教就允許出離了，這是之前的義理。而你卻說是之後的義理。8. 不理解這段經文，這是虛妄的。想要說三乘，你卻說了七乘，這是因為用三宗來揀擇三宗的緣故。9. 完全迷惑于斷惑的經文，這是虛妄的。因為他們對這兩種義理都一無所知。承接前面的說法，同教之中已經有二十六種虛妄的觀點了。 薪曰：又有人問，因為始教主要引導愚法，所以所設立的教門大多類似於小乘。現在愚法既然在所引導的對象之中，始教怎麼能不是能引導者呢？而且終教所引導的二乘是純熟高勝的根機，不是引導愚法，現在為什麼說引導愚法呢？進退兩難，這該如何解釋？回答：現在是根據終教已經捨棄的教義來揀擇愚法，實際上並沒有愚法在所引導的對象之中，不是說終教引導愚法。因為揀擇和引導是兩種不同的含義。如果這樣，為什麼上面說三車引導諸子呢？回答：這是通約三乘作為能引導者，這裡貫通了中間的三教。如果只有始教，那麼愚法不在所引導的對象之中；如果只有終教已經捨棄的教義，那麼就不能作為能引導者。由於貫通了三乘教義，愚法還沒有出世，三車又已經是能引導者，所以上面是根據能引導者來通約三乘教義，現在是根據...
【English Translation】 English version: Someone raises nine kinds of erroneous views: 1. Daydreaming, false and unreal, saying that the Final Teaching (the ultimate doctrine) allows Śrāvakas and Pratyekabuddhas (the Two Vehicles) to emerge, which is self-contradictory. 2. Using the Common Teaching (doctrine that connects the Three Vehicles) to make things difficult for the Teaching for the Foolish (teachings aimed at those with lesser faculties) is false. The Initial Teaching (the initial doctrine) allows practitioners of the Two Vehicles to emerge, while the Final Teaching does not, then the Two Vehicles become an independent school, with definitive and non-definitive meanings. If asked in this way, should there be two types of Arhats? If it is said that after severing delusions, it is doctrinally permissible for these two types of people to emerge, then the Teaching for the Foolish does not allow it from the beginning, while the Common Teaching ultimately allows it. Raising this question is false. 3. Confusing the fundamental doctrine is false. Now speaking of the Three Schools (Initial Teaching, Final Teaching, Sudden Teaching), using the Mahāyāna to select the Śrāvakayāna. If the Mahāyāna of the Initial Teaching also belongs to the object being selected, then there are three more schools outside the Three Schools, and the distinction between Mahāyāna and Śrāvakayāna becomes difficult to manifest, because the Three Schools all belong to the Mahāyāna. 4. Arbitrarily adding the Two Vehicles is false. According to what you say, the Two Vehicles of the Final Teaching can leave the Three Realms, while the Two Vehicles of the Initial Teaching and the Sudden Teaching are not allowed to leave, then there become six goat carts and deer carts. Adding the Sudden Teaching, it becomes eight goat carts and deer carts. 5. Accusing the Mahāyāna of the Common Teaching as the Teaching for the Foolish is false. The previous question was about the Common Teaching, but the answer said that it cannot leave, because not being able to leave is the Teaching for the Foolish. 6. Saying that the Final Teaching only guides the Teaching for the Foolish is false. This statement is illogical in both text and reasoning. 7. Inappropriate taking and discarding is false. The scripture says that the Final Teaching has already abandoned the statement that it does not allow leaving, then the Initial Teaching allows leaving, which is the previous doctrine. But you say it is the later doctrine. 8. Not understanding this passage of scripture is false. Wanting to speak of the Three Vehicles, you speak of seven vehicles, which is because of using the Three Schools to select the Three Schools. 9. Completely confused about the scripture on severing delusions is false. Because they know nothing about these two doctrines. Continuing the previous statement, there are already twenty-six false views within the Common Teaching. Xin said: Someone also asks, because the Initial Teaching mainly guides the Teaching for the Foolish, the established teachings mostly resemble the Śrāvakayāna. Now that the Teaching for the Foolish is among the objects being guided, how can the Initial Teaching not be the guide? Moreover, the Two Vehicles guided by the Final Teaching are of pure and superior faculties, not guiding the Teaching for the Foolish, so why say it guides the Teaching for the Foolish? It's a dilemma, how should this be explained? Answer: Now it is based on the doctrine that the Final Teaching has abandoned to select the Teaching for the Foolish, in reality there is no Teaching for the Foolish among the objects being guided, it is not saying that the Final Teaching guides the Teaching for the Foolish. Because selection and guidance are two different meanings. If so, why does the above say that the three carts guide the sons? Answer: This is generally speaking of the Three Vehicles as the guide, here it connects the three teachings in the middle. If there is only the Initial Teaching, then the Teaching for the Foolish is not among the objects being guided; if there is only the doctrine that the Final Teaching has abandoned, then it cannot be the guide. Because it connects the Three Vehicle teachings, the Teaching for the Foolish has not yet appeared in the world, and the three carts are already the guide, so the above is based on the guide to generally speak of the Three Vehicle teachings, now it is based on...
揀異故唯約終教已去也。
議曰此段總是臆說微一字略有苗裔恐其迷甚略引幾處使之自省知述作之難祖師之可重云耳薪曰又問以始教正引愚法故所設教門多似於小今愚法既在所引中始教何得不為能引者今問曰汝前答中曰今約后義此中何故就前義設難答中亦不以後義釋通是不曉后義一妄也若后義雖始教而愚法亦在所引中妄說不在二妄也謬言始教三車不引界內二乘應三車共引菩薩三妄也薪又曰又終教所引二乘是純熟高勝之機非引愚法今何言引愚法等者今論曰彼行位中者自言大乘引羊鹿今三車引諸子則羊鹿引二乘引彼難此四妄也謬稱終教三車不引界內二乘五妄也薪又曰今約終教已去以揀愚法無實義故在所引中非約終教引愚法也以揀引二義別故等者議曰汝前問中文云故以三乘終教唯引愚法才相去兩行許便爾相違六妄也前云唯引愚法此云純熟高勝之機七妄也又如汝所解始教不知未出故不引終教既知未出棄置不引是成何心八妄也章云在所引中而言揀引義別若不是此三乘所引安知三乘外別有小乘九妄也薪曰若爾何故上云三車引諸子邪今問曰此語當文有之何忽問上文應是汝意要說卷首通此間局欲成己義不敢引當文也將如它人何掩耳偷鈴十妄也薪又曰答此通約三乘為能引此通中間三教何者若唯始教則愚法不在所引中若唯終教已去則
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
這是在挑剔不同之處，所以只針對終教之後的內容。
評論說：這段話總的來說都是主觀臆斷，只有一兩個字略微沾邊，恐怕會讓人更加迷惑。我稍微引用幾處，讓他自己反省，明白寫作的艱難，祖師的教誨值得重視。有人說：又問到始教，正是引用愚法，所以設立的教門大多類似於小乘。現在愚法既然在所引用的內容中，始教怎麼能不是能引用者呢？現在問：你前面回答中說，現在按照後來的意義。這裡為什麼按照之前的意義來設定難題？回答中也不以後來的意義來解釋，是不明白後來的意義，這是第一重錯誤。如果後來的意義即使是始教，愚法也在所引用的內容中，妄說就不存在，這是第二重錯誤。錯誤地說始教的三車不引導界內的二乘，應該是三車共同引導菩薩，這是第三重錯誤。又有人說：終教所引導的二乘是純熟高勝的根機，不是引導愚法。現在為什麼說引導愚法等等？現在評論說：那些在行位中的人，自己說大乘引導羊鹿，現在三車引導諸子，那麼羊鹿引導二乘，用引導他們來為難我們，這是第四重錯誤。錯誤地說終教的三車不引導界內的二乘，這是第五重錯誤。又有人說：現在針對終教之後的內容來挑剔愚法，因為沒有實際意義，所以在所引用的內容中，不是針對終教來引導愚法。因為挑剔和引導的意義不同等等。評論說：你前面問題中說，所以用三乘終教只引導愚法，才相隔兩行，就這麼快地自相矛盾，這是第六重錯誤。前面說只引導愚法，這裡說純熟高勝的根機，這是第七重錯誤。又比如你所理解的始教，不知道（終教）還沒有出現，所以不引導；終教既然知道（始教）還沒有出現，就拋棄不引導，這是成了什麼心？這是第八重錯誤。文章說在所引用的內容中，卻說挑剔和引導的意義不同，如果不是這三乘所引導的，怎麼知道三乘之外還有小乘？這是第九重錯誤。有人說：如果這樣，為什麼上面說三車引導諸子呢？現在問：這句話在文章里明明有，為什麼忽然問上面的話？應該是你的意思想要說卷首貫通這裡區域性，想要成就自己的觀點，不敢引用文章里的內容，將要像其他人一樣掩耳盜鈴，這是第十重錯誤。又有人說：回答說這是普遍地以三乘作為能引導者，這個普遍指的是中間的三教中的哪一個？如果只是始教，那麼愚法不在所引用的內容中；如果只是終教之後的內容，那麼……
【English Translation】 English version:
This is picking out differences, so it only targets the content from the Final Teaching onwards.
Commentary: This passage is generally speculative and subjective, with only a word or two slightly relevant, which may cause further confusion. I will cite a few places to let him reflect on himself, understand the difficulty of writing, and the importance of the Patriarch's teachings. Someone said: Also asked about the Initial Teaching, which is precisely quoting the foolish Dharma, so the established teachings mostly resemble the Hinayana. Now that the foolish Dharma is in the quoted content, how can the Initial Teaching not be the one who can quote? Now ask: You said in your previous answer, 'Now according to the later meaning.' Why set a difficult problem here according to the previous meaning? The answer does not explain it with the later meaning, which is not understanding the later meaning, this is the first mistake. If the later meaning is even the Initial Teaching, the foolish Dharma is also in the quoted content, the false statement does not exist, this is the second mistake. It is wrong to say that the three vehicles of the Initial Teaching do not guide the two vehicles within the boundary, it should be the three vehicles jointly guiding the Bodhisattvas, this is the third mistake. Someone also said: The two vehicles guided by the Final Teaching are pure, mature, and superior faculties, not guiding the foolish Dharma. Why do you say guiding the foolish Dharma, etc.? Now the commentary says: Those who are in the stages of practice themselves say that the Mahayana guides the sheep and deer, now the three vehicles guide the sons, then the sheep and deer guide the two vehicles, using guiding them to make it difficult for us, this is the fourth mistake. It is wrong to say that the three vehicles of the Final Teaching do not guide the two vehicles within the boundary, this is the fifth mistake. Someone also said: Now targeting the content after the Final Teaching to pick out the foolish Dharma, because it has no practical meaning, so it is in the quoted content, not targeting the Final Teaching to guide the foolish Dharma. Because the meanings of picking out and guiding are different, etc. Commentary: You said in your previous question, 'So the three vehicles of the Final Teaching only guide the foolish Dharma,' only two lines apart, and you contradict yourself so quickly, this is the sixth mistake. Earlier it was said that only the foolish Dharma is guided, here it is said that the faculties are pure, mature, and superior, this is the seventh mistake. Also, like the Initial Teaching you understand, you don't know that (the Final Teaching) has not yet appeared, so you don't guide it; since the Final Teaching knows that (the Initial Teaching) has not yet appeared, you abandon it and don't guide it, what kind of mind is this? This is the eighth mistake. The article says that it is in the quoted content, but says that the meanings of picking out and guiding are different, if it is not guided by these three vehicles, how do you know that there is Hinayana outside the three vehicles? This is the ninth mistake. Someone said: If so, why does the above say that the three vehicles guide the sons? Now ask: This sentence is clearly in the article, why suddenly ask the above sentence? It should be your intention to say that the beginning of the volume connects the local part, wanting to achieve your own point of view, not daring to quote the content in the article, and will be like others covering your ears to steal the bell, this is the tenth mistake. Someone also said: The answer says that this is universally taking the three vehicles as the one who can guide, which of the three teachings in the middle does this universally refer to? If it is only the Initial Teaching, then the foolish Dharma is not in the quoted content; if it is only the content after the Final Teaching, then...
不得為能引由通約三乘教故愚法既未出世三車又為能引故通約三乘今約揀異故唯約終教已去也議曰未審如汝所謂別則否通則引有何依據始教不知二乘未出終教不引設以三車其意何在縱通諸教亦安能引若如汝說終教三車不引愚法始教三車不揀共之方引應有六車更加頓教便有九車兼大牛車界內二乘十二車邪但可撫掌大笑大率不曉行惑中文強與易簡不同過吾門而不入吾室遂至下筆紕謬十一妄也。
薪曰又始教但引不定性人以定性許出世趣寂故故今不取等。
議曰今亦問汝此不定人愚法邪三中羊鹿人邪若三中羊鹿何獨不許出世而定性獨出今三車引諸子何故不引定性令得二乘果若總不引還依何乘出世趣寂應自然出世趣寂邪十二妄也是知通不曉三乘二乘之旨此兩重門答無一字可取承前三十八妄也。
薪曰云不與聲聞共說者即二乘在座如聾盲者是由此義故清涼後加一向不共之言非唯不共于小亦不共三乘也。
議曰同教百非中言清涼但以三乘是權后三教皆實約一乘何曾有實三乘之說乎又曰應改曰權實諸乘皆不共又曰此不合以教章三乘以會清涼今此汝卻以清涼會教章一謬也但妄加破斥不覺自毀二妄也更說不與一乘共三妄也四十一妄也。
薪曰吾宗立別教本出於此。
議曰汝謂別教本出於此者誠是也
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因為『不得為能引』是通過通約三乘的教義來解釋的，而『愚法』（指權教，為實施方便而設立的教法）尚未出現時，三車（羊車、鹿車、牛車，比喻聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）才能夠引導眾生，所以通約三乘。現在因為要進行揀擇和區分，所以只針對終教（法華經所代表的教義）以後的教法。有人議論說：不知道你所說的『別』（區別）則否定，『通』（共通）則引導，有什麼依據？始教（華嚴時教）不知道二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）尚未出現，終教不引導（二乘），如果用三車來比喻，它的意義在哪裡？即使通用於各種教法，又怎麼能夠引導（二乘）？如果像你所說，終教的三車不引導『愚法』，始教的三車不揀擇，只有共通才能引導，那麼應該有六車，如果加上頓教（禪宗的教義），便有九車，再加上大牛車（比喻一佛乘），界內的二乘就有十二車了，這真是可笑至極！大概是不瞭解行惑（修行中的迷惑）中的文字，強行與易簡（容易和簡要）不同，過我的門而不入我的室（比喻不理解我的教義），以至於下筆出現紕漏，這是第十一個妄語。
有人說：始教只引導不定性的人，因為定性的人（已經決定證果的人）被允許出世趣向寂滅（涅槃），所以現在不取（引導定性的人）等等。
有人議論說：現在我也要問你，這個不定性的人是『愚法』嗎？還是三乘中的羊車、鹿車之人？如果是三乘中的羊車、鹿車之人，為什麼唯獨不允許他們出世，而只允許定性的人出世？現在三車引導諸子（比喻引導眾生），為什麼不引導定性的人，讓他們得到二乘的果位？如果總是不引導，那麼他們又依靠什麼乘出世趣向寂滅？難道是自然出世趣向寂滅嗎？這是第十二個妄語。由此可知，你既不瞭解三乘，也不瞭解二乘的宗旨，這兩重門（指對三乘和二乘的理解）的回答沒有一個字是可以採納的，承接前面的三十八個妄語。
有人說：『不與聲聞共說』，就是說二乘在座如同聾盲之人，正是因為這個意思，所以清涼（澄觀大師）後來加上『一向不共』的說法，不僅不與小乘（聲聞乘）共通，也不與三乘共通。
有人議論說：同教百非中說，清涼只是認為三乘是權宜之計，后三教（終教、頓教、圓教）都是真實的，從一乘的角度來說，哪裡有真實的三乘之說呢？又說：應該改為『權實諸乘皆不共』。又說：這不應該用教章的三乘來會合清涼的觀點，現在你卻用清涼的觀點來會合教章，這是一個謬誤。只是妄加破斥，不自覺地自我詆譭，這是第二個謬誤。更說不與一乘共通，這是第三個謬誤。總共四十一個妄語。
有人說：我們宗派（指華嚴宗）建立別教（區別于其他教派的獨特教義），本源就在於此。
有人議論說：你認為別教的本源在於此，這確實是這樣。
【English Translation】 English version '不得為能引' (Bu de wei neng yin) is explained through the teaching of the 'three vehicles in common' (通約三乘, Tong yue san cheng). When '愚法' (Yu fa, expedient teachings established for convenience) had not yet appeared, the three carts (三車, San che, representing the Sravaka Vehicle, Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, and Bodhisattva Vehicle) could guide sentient beings, so they were 'three vehicles in common'. Now, because we want to select and differentiate, we only focus on the teachings after the 'Final Teaching' (終教, Zhong jiao, the teachings represented by the Lotus Sutra). Someone argues: I don't know what basis you have for saying that 'differentiation' (別, Bie) denies, and 'commonality' (通, Tong) guides. The Initial Teaching (始教, Shi jiao, the Avatamsaka period) didn't know that the Two Vehicles (二乘, Er cheng, Sravaka Vehicle and Pratyekabuddha Vehicle) had not yet appeared, and the Final Teaching doesn't guide (the Two Vehicles). If the three carts are used as a metaphor, what is its meaning? Even if it applies to all teachings, how can it guide (the Two Vehicles)? If, as you say, the three carts of the Final Teaching don't guide '愚法', and the three carts of the Initial Teaching don't select, only commonality can guide, then there should be six carts. If we add the Sudden Teaching (頓教, Dun jiao, the teachings of Zen), there would be nine carts. Adding the Great Ox Cart (大牛車, Da niu che, metaphor for the One Buddha Vehicle), the Two Vehicles within the realm would have twelve carts. This is truly laughable! It's probably because you don't understand the words in 'delusions in practice' (行惑, Xing huo), and forcibly make it different from 'easy and simple' (易簡, Yi jian). You pass my door without entering my room (metaphor for not understanding my teachings), leading to errors in writing. This is the eleventh falsehood.
Someone says: The Initial Teaching only guides people of '不定性' (bu ding xing, undetermined nature), because people of '定性' (ding xing, determined nature, those who have already decided to attain enlightenment) are allowed to leave the world and go towards '寂滅' (ji mie, Nirvana), so we don't take (guide people of determined nature) now, etc.
Someone argues: Now I also want to ask you, is this person of undetermined nature '愚法'? Or is it a person of the sheep cart or deer cart among the Three Vehicles? If it's a person of the sheep cart or deer cart among the Three Vehicles, why are they uniquely not allowed to leave the world, while only people of determined nature are allowed to leave the world? Now that the three carts guide the children (比喻引導眾生, metaphor for guiding sentient beings), why don't they guide people of determined nature, allowing them to attain the fruits of the Two Vehicles? If they are not guided at all, then what vehicle do they rely on to leave the world and go towards '寂滅'? Do they naturally leave the world and go towards '寂滅'? This is the twelfth falsehood. From this, it can be known that you neither understand the Three Vehicles nor the principles of the Two Vehicles. Not a single word of the answers to these two gates (指對三乘和二乘的理解, referring to the understanding of the Three Vehicles and the Two Vehicles) can be adopted, continuing the previous thirty-eight falsehoods.
Someone says: 'Not speaking together with the Sravakas' means that the Two Vehicles are in the assembly like deaf and blind people. It is because of this meaning that Qingliang (澄觀大師, Chengguan Dashi) later added the statement 'always not in common', not only not in common with the Small Vehicle (Sravaka Vehicle), but also not in common with the Three Vehicles.
Someone argues: It is said in 'One Hundred Negations of the Same Teaching' that Qingliang only considers the Three Vehicles to be expedient, and the latter three teachings (Final Teaching, Sudden Teaching, Perfect Teaching) are all real. From the perspective of the One Vehicle, where is there a real Three Vehicles? It also says: It should be changed to 'expedient and real vehicles are all not in common'. It also says: This should not use the Three Vehicles of the teaching chapter to reconcile with Qingliang's views. Now you are using Qingliang's views to reconcile with the teaching chapter, which is one error. You are just recklessly criticizing and unknowingly slandering yourself, which is the second error. Furthermore, you say it's not in common with the One Vehicle, which is the third error. A total of forty-one falsehoods.
Someone says: Our sect (指華嚴宗, referring to the Huayan sect) establishes the Distinct Teaching (區別于其他教派的獨特教義, unique teachings that distinguish it from other sects) based on this.
Someone argues: You think that the origin of the Distinct Teaching is based on this, which is indeed the case.
今試問汝汝謂吾宗諸祖共用於此所立別教還但不共還亦有共邪若或其下亦有共者云何對共而立不共不可謂共但是三乘祖師亦有共教一乘故若但不共云何汝書言不共下同剛道三四自受同稱是則不共之下亦有共矣若爾應有但不共之別教有共不共之別教邪若此細論謬不可道不共為同謬四十二妄也。
薪曰若言下此牒救說華嚴下質破謂由上大品共集三乘眾通說三乘法具獲三乘益而說者謂非是通說三法但是一音機聞有異故有三兩既不是通說三法故非三乘外別有小乘也故今牒而破之言何不者謂何不聞華嚴而得小果聞增一等而得大果是知通說三法謂一乘三乘小乘有異等故。
議曰此釋若言說大品等時至何不異解得大果邪且大品等通說三法即一乘三乘小乘乎哉試謂之結語又次文自作一科不應相濫況次科文旨甚明是知復子所見紕謬爾不識三乘失四十三妄也。
薪曰二者下云融一同大者俱是菩薩所乘故合愚法同小乘者同迴心二乘以俱是小乘故上列中以中乘為緣覺以小乘為聲聞今以迴心二乘通為小乘也等。
議曰若如汝說迴心二乘俱小合二愚法同彼又復俱小則中乘乃虛位也虛立中乘失一妄也小乘四類中乘無人可乎抑二緣覺失二妄也不曉文旨一至如此嗟乎不曉文旨失三妄也四十六妄矣又此中后之二義如何是三一合說不
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：現在我嘗試問你，你認為我們宗門的諸位祖師，共同使用於此所建立的別教，是完全不共同的，還是也有共同之處？如果其中也有共同之處，又該如何解釋針對共同之處而建立不共同之處呢？不能說完全共同，但是三乘（Sravakayana，Pratyekabuddhayana，Bodhisattvayana，聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）的祖師也有共同的教義，因為有一乘（Ekayana，唯一佛乘）的緣故。如果說完全不共同，為何你的書中說，在不共同之下，同樣剛強地認為三乘、四果（Sotapanna, Sakadagami, Anagami, Arhat，須陀洹、斯陀含、阿那含、阿羅漢）自己接受同樣的稱謂，這樣看來，不共同之下也有共同之處了。如果這樣，應該有完全不共同的別教，也有既共同又不共同的別教嗎？如果這樣細緻地討論，謬誤就說不清了，把不共同說成相同，這是第四十二個妄語。
薪曰：如果說『下此牒救說』，『華嚴下質破』，是因為上面《大品般若經》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）共同聚集了三乘的聽眾，普遍宣說了三乘的法，都獲得了三乘的利益，而說的人認為這不是普遍宣說三法，只是因為一種聲音，聽者的根機不同，所以有了三乘的差別。既然不是普遍宣說三法，所以三乘之外沒有另外的小乘（Hinayana，聲聞乘）。所以現在引用並駁斥它，說『何不』，是說為什麼聽聞《華嚴經》（Avatamsaka Sutra）而得到小乘的果位，聽聞《增一阿含經》（Ekottara Agama Sutra）等而得到大乘的果位，由此可知普遍宣說三法，是指一乘、三乘、小乘有差別等等。
議曰：這種解釋如果說宣講《大品般若經》等的時候，為什麼沒有不同的理解而得到大乘的果位呢？而且《大品般若經》等是普遍宣說三法，即一乘、三乘、小乘嗎？試著把它作為結論。而且下文自己作為一科，不應該混淆。況且下科的文意非常明顯，由此可知復子的見解是錯誤的，你不認識三乘，這是第四十三個妄語。
薪曰：『二者下云融一同大者』，都是菩薩所乘坐的，所以把愚法和同于小乘的人，同於迴心二乘（緣覺乘和聲聞乘），因為都是小乘。上面列舉時，把中乘作為緣覺乘，把小乘作為聲聞乘，現在把迴心二乘都歸為小乘等等。
議曰：如果像你所說，迴心二乘都屬於小乘，那麼把二愚法和他們歸為一類，又都屬於小乘，那麼中乘就成了虛設的位置了。虛設中乘，這是第一個妄語。小乘有四類，中乘沒有人可以嗎？壓低二緣覺，這是第二個妄語。不理解文意竟然到了這種程度，唉！不理解文意，這是第三個妄語。這是第四十六個妄語了。而且這其中的前後兩個意義，如何是三一合說呢？
【English Translation】 English version: Now I will try to ask you, do you think that the specific teachings established by our sect's ancestors, which are commonly used here, are completely non-common, or are there also commonalities? If there are commonalities among them, how can we explain establishing non-commonalities in response to commonalities? It cannot be said that they are completely common, but the ancestors of the Three Vehicles (Sravakayana, Pratyekabuddhayana, Bodhisattvayana) also have common teachings, because there is the One Vehicle (Ekayana). If it is said that they are completely non-common, why does your book say that under the non-common, they still stubbornly believe that the Three Vehicles and Four Fruits (Sotapanna, Sakadagami, Anagami, Arhat) themselves accept the same designation? In this way, there are commonalities under the non-common. If so, should there be specific teachings that are completely non-common, and specific teachings that are both common and non-common? If we discuss this in such detail, the errors will be countless. To say that the non-common is the same is the forty-second falsehood.
Xin said: If it is said 'below this refers to saving speech', 'Hua Yan (Avatamsaka Sutra) below criticizes and breaks', it is because the above Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra commonly gathered the audience of the Three Vehicles, universally expounded the Dharma of the Three Vehicles, and all obtained the benefits of the Three Vehicles, and the speaker believed that this was not a universal exposition of the three dharmas, but only because of one sound, the listeners' faculties were different, so there were differences in the Three Vehicles. Since it is not a universal exposition of the three dharmas, there is no other Hinayana (Small Vehicle) outside the Three Vehicles. So now quote and refute it, saying 'Why not', is to say why hearing the Avatamsaka Sutra and obtaining the fruit of the Hinayana, hearing the Ekottara Agama Sutra and obtaining the fruit of the Mahayana, from this it can be known that the universal exposition of the three dharmas refers to the One Vehicle, Three Vehicles, Hinayana having differences, and so on.
Yi said: This explanation, if it is said that when expounding the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra and so on, why is there no different understanding and obtaining the fruit of the Mahayana? Moreover, is the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra and so on a universal exposition of the three dharmas, namely the One Vehicle, Three Vehicles, and Hinayana? Try to take it as a conclusion. Moreover, the following text itself is a subject, and should not be confused. Moreover, the meaning of the following subject is very clear, from this it can be known that Fu Zi's view is wrong, you do not recognize the Three Vehicles, this is the forty-third falsehood.
Xin said: 'The second below says to merge and unify the great ones', all are ridden by Bodhisattvas, so those who are foolish in the Dharma are the same as those in the Hinayana, the same as the Two Vehicles of Returning Mind (Pratyekabuddhayana and Sravakayana), because they are all Hinayana. When listing above, the Middle Vehicle was taken as the Pratyekabuddhayana, and the Hinayana was taken as the Sravakayana, and now the Two Vehicles of Returning Mind are all classified as Hinayana, and so on.
Yi said: If it is as you say, the Two Vehicles of Returning Mind all belong to the Hinayana, then classifying the two foolish dharmas as the same as them, and they all belong to the Hinayana, then the Middle Vehicle becomes a vacant position. Establishing a vacant Middle Vehicle is the first falsehood. The Hinayana has four categories, can the Middle Vehicle have no one? Suppressing the Two Pratyekabuddhas is the second falsehood. Not understanding the meaning of the text to such an extent, alas! Not understanding the meaning of the text is the third falsehood. This is the forty-sixth falsehood. Moreover, how are the two meanings of the front and back in this, a combination of three into one?
勝疏謬況此三乘一段析薪科文略無一字偶中以此論之則一科一非便有百數十非吾昔講至於此略出私科復子得之遂別寫一本強改數字署復之名與析薪本科別行以此觀之吾或更出前後之科復子亦將署其名矣可笑可笑。
薪曰四者至此義中言總開意者上開一乘下開人天此不可準前約是大是一等此義正同三乘中第一義顯法本末約三宗各別今亦例然不可謂一乘中合於三乘以今云總間意故等。
議曰著許多句語上解總開二字耳然率不能釋通此意既非一乘合於三乘三乘何故不開當引三韓本曰一乘三乘小乘人天為四此總開意也豈不明白欲解斯章當廣求眾本以會之然後下筆而但寫瑜伽雜集梵語廣略婆沙卷數俱舍緣起于文何用棄本逐末四十七妄也。
二融本末中。
議曰會解析薪並同教百非釋此同教得名有四義薪曰三一合明則羊鹿牛等一一車中或合大小或合三一為也會解曰此乃三一合說則三乘一乘和合不異應亦一乘中有三一合而不異菩薩乘中有三一合而不異聲聞乘中有大小或三一合而不異無量乘等皆爾百非新義曰此約三一具故名同應取此四句之等三也此義雖平白不是略有影附差勝前義也更有此約三一共說此頗有理而百非諱之往往偶然出此語耳觀之皆失此科之意是以妄說若是今亦略件其謬云耳。
薪曰二融下
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：勝疏的謬誤之處，更何況是這三乘的段析薪科文，幾乎沒有一個字是偶然說中的。如果用這個來評論，那麼一個科文一個錯誤，就會有一百多個錯誤。我以前講解到這裡，略微提出了我個人的科文，復子得到了它，於是另外抄寫了一本，勉強改了幾個字，署上覆之的名字，與析薪的原本分開流行。從這個來看，我或許會再提出前後的科文，復子也將署上他的名字了，可笑啊可笑。
薪曰：四者到這裡，義中說總開的意思是，上面開顯一乘，下面開顯人天乘。這不可以按照之前的約定，是大乘是一等。這個意義正同於三乘中的第一義，顯法本末，按照三宗各有區別，現在也按照這個例子，不可以認為一乘中包含三乘，因為現在說的是總間意，所以相等。
議曰：寫了這麼多句話，只是爲了解釋總開二字罷了，然而大多不能解釋通順這個意思。既然不是一乘包含於三乘，那麼三乘為什麼不開顯呢？應當引用三韓本說：一乘、三乘、小乘、人天為四，這才是總開的意思啊。難道不明白嗎？想要解釋這個章節，應當廣泛尋求各種版本來會通它，然後再下筆。而只是抄寫《瑜伽師地論》、《雜集論》、梵語廣略《婆沙》的卷數，對於文章有什麼用呢？捨棄根本而追逐末節，真是四十七妄啊。
二、融本末中。
議曰：會解析薪都認為同教百非解釋這個同教得名有四種意義。薪曰：三一合明，那麼羊車、鹿車、牛車等，一一車中或者包含大乘小乘，或者包含三乘一乘，作為會合。會解曰：這乃是三一合說，那麼三乘一乘和合不異，應該也是一乘中有三一合而不異，菩薩乘中有三一合而不異，聲聞乘中有大小乘或者三一合而不異，無量乘等都是這樣。百非新義曰：這是按照三一具足的緣故，名為同，應該取這四句的等三。這個意義雖然平白，但不是略微有影附，比之前的意義要好一些。更有這種按照三一共說的，這頗有道理，而百非卻隱諱它，往往偶然說出這種話罷了。觀察這些都失去了這個科文的意思，因此妄說。如果是這樣，我現在也略微列舉它的謬誤之處罷了。
薪曰：二融下
【English Translation】 English version: The errors of Shengshu are even more so than those in this section of the Three Vehicles' Duan Xin Kewen (段析薪科文), where almost not a single word is accidentally correct. If we comment on it in this way, then one error per Kewen would result in over a hundred errors. When I used to lecture on this, I slightly presented my personal Kewen, which Fuzi (復子) obtained. Consequently, he copied it into another book, forcibly changing a few words and signing it with the name 'Fuzi,' circulating it separately from the original Xin (薪). Judging from this, I might present the preceding and following Kewen, and Fuzi will also sign his name on them. How laughable, how laughable.
Xin (薪) says: 'The four' up to this point, the meaning within says that the intention of 'general opening' is that above, it reveals the One Vehicle, and below, it reveals the Human and Heavenly Vehicle. This cannot be based on the previous agreement that the Great Vehicle is equal. This meaning is exactly the same as the first meaning in the Three Vehicles, revealing the root and branch of the Dharma. According to the Three Schools, each has its own differences, and now it is also according to this example. It cannot be considered that the One Vehicle contains the Three Vehicles, because what is now said is the intention of 'general intermingling,' so they are equal.
Yi (議) says: So many sentences are written just to explain the two words 'general opening,' but mostly they cannot explain this meaning clearly. Since it is not that the One Vehicle is contained in the Three Vehicles, then why don't the Three Vehicles reveal it? One should quote the Three Han version, saying: 'The One Vehicle, the Three Vehicles, the Small Vehicle, and the Human and Heavenly Vehicle are four; this is the meaning of general opening.' Isn't it clear? If you want to explain this chapter, you should widely seek various versions to understand it, and then write. But only copying the number of volumes of 'Yogacarabhumi-sastra' (瑜伽師地論), 'Samuccaya' (雜集論), and the Sanskrit extensive and concise 'Vibhasa' (婆沙), what use is it for the article? Abandoning the root and pursuing the branches is truly forty-seven delusions.
Two, in the merging of root and branch.
Yi (議) says: Both Huijie (會解) and Xixin (析薪) believe that Tongjiao (同教) is the same teaching. Bai Fei (百非) explains that this Tongjiao is named with four meanings. Xin (薪) says: 'The three and one are combined and clarified,' then the sheep cart, deer cart, ox cart, etc., in each cart either contains the Great Vehicle and Small Vehicle, or contains the Three Vehicles and One Vehicle, as a convergence. Huijie (會解) says: 'This is the saying of the three and one combined,' then the Three Vehicles and One Vehicle are harmonized and not different. It should also be that in the One Vehicle there are three and one combined and not different, in the Bodhisattva Vehicle there are three and one combined and not different, in the Sravaka Vehicle there are the Great and Small Vehicles or three and one combined and not different, and so on for countless vehicles. Bai Fei's (百非) new meaning says: 'This is because the three and one are complete, so it is named the same. One should take the equal three of these four sentences.' Although this meaning is plain, it is not slightly shadowed, and it is better than the previous meaning. There is also this kind of saying according to the three and one together, which is quite reasonable, but Bai Fei (百非) conceals it, often accidentally saying this kind of thing. Observing these all lose the meaning of this Kewen, therefore speaking falsely. If this is the case, I will now briefly list its errors.
Xin (薪) says: Two merging below
本即一乘末即三乘小乘若上三乘中雲顯法本末即三乘通本末今並是末耳。
議曰妄作多端便謂兩重本末三乘為本既無依據乘教且無開顯之益臆說何為以末為本失一妄也。
薪曰此等本末以法界融之方得本末無礙據三寶章中出通收所以云以本融末圓融無二相故攝方便故同一法界故彼云圓融無二同今會融無二彼云同一法界正同今文彼是同教所以今豈得非故今由同一法界有二門故方得上分諸乘三之與一或合為一或分為二三等皆得自在也言等者等取小乘人天也。
議曰以法界融之方得本末無礙者前說只由同一法界有二門方得分諸乘中雖分三一皆合三一為之今問曰為復三一各合三一為體此二無別是故無礙邪為復同一法界理故無礙邪前後若異二說不能兩立前後若同同義安在設能曲說令同僻澀不顯又為是開合自在故無礙為復互收法體故無礙邪前後互乖失二妄也薪曰據三寶章以本融末圓融無二相故攝方便故同一法界故彼云圓融無二同今會融無二彼云同一法界正同今文彼是同教所以今豈得非等者議曰據彼正文曰或亦通收以本末圓融無二相故攝方便故同一法界故是故乃至人天所得亦在其中今問汝曰汝謂今文為是會融無二有其二門同一法界有其二門邪為是會彼諸乘融和無二同一法界故有二門為一義邪彼三故字義理甚明輒改
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 本（根本）即一乘（Ekayana，唯一佛乘），末（枝末）即三乘（Triyana，聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）。小乘（Hinayana）若上三乘中雲顯法本末，即三乘通本末，今並是末耳。
議曰：妄作多端，便謂兩重本末。三乘為本，既無依據，乘教且無開顯之益，臆說何為？以末為本，失一妄也。
薪曰：此等本末，以法界（Dharmadhatu）融之，方得本末無礙。據《三寶章》中出通收，所以云：『以本融末，圓融無二相故，攝方便故，同一法界故。』彼云圓融無二，同今會融無二。彼云同一法界，正同今文。彼是同教，所以今豈得非？故今由同一法界有二門故，方得上分諸乘三之與一，或合為一，或分為二，三等皆得自在也。言等者，等取小乘人天也。
議曰：以法界融之，方得本末無礙者，前說只由同一法界有二門，方得分諸乘中雖分三一，皆合三一為之。今問曰：為復三一各合三一為體，此二無別，是故無礙邪？為復同一法界理故無礙邪？前後若異，二說不能兩立。前後若同，同義安在？設能曲說令同，僻澀不顯。又為是開合自在故無礙？為復互收法體故無礙邪？前後互乖，失二妄也。薪曰：據《三寶章》『以本融末，圓融無二相故，攝方便故，同一法界故。』彼云圓融無二，同今會融無二。彼云同一法界，正同今文。彼是同教，所以今豈得非？等者議曰：據彼正文曰：『或亦通收，以本末圓融無二相故，攝方便故，同一法界故，是故乃至人天所得亦在其中。』今問汝曰：汝謂今文為是會融無二，有其二門，同一法界有其二門邪？為是會彼諸乘融和無二，同一法界故，有二門為一義邪？彼三故字義理甚明，輒改。
【English Translation】 English version The root (本) is the One Vehicle (一乘, Ekayana), and the branches (末) are the Three Vehicles (三乘, Triyana: Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, and Bodhisattvayāna). If the Hinayana (小乘) and the above Three Vehicles speak of the root and branches of the Dharma, then the Three Vehicles encompass both root and branches. Now, all are merely branches.
Critique: Fabricating multiple interpretations leads to the assertion of two levels of root and branches. Claiming the Three Vehicles as the root lacks basis, and the teachings of the vehicles offer no benefit of clarification. What is the purpose of such conjecture? Taking the branches as the root is one fallacy.
Xin says: Only by merging these roots and branches with the Dharmadhatu (法界), can one attain unobstructedness between root and branches. According to the 'Chapter on the Three Jewels,' it is stated that 'By merging the root with the branches, there is perfect fusion without duality, thus encompassing expedient means, thus being the same Dharmadhatu.' It says 'perfect fusion without duality,' which is the same as the present 'harmonious fusion without duality.' It says 'the same Dharmadhatu,' which is exactly the same as the present text. That is the same teaching, so how can the present be different? Therefore, because the present has two aspects due to the same Dharmadhatu, one can then attain the freedom of the upper division of the vehicles, where three and one either merge into one or divide into two. The term 'etc.' includes the Hinayana, humans, and devas.
Critique: 'Only by merging with the Dharmadhatu can one attain unobstructedness between root and branches.' The previous statement says that only because the same Dharmadhatu has two aspects can the vehicles be divided. Although divided into three and one, they all combine three and one. Now, I ask: Do the three and one each combine three and one as their substance, and are these two not different, hence unobstructed? Or is it unobstructed because of the principle of the same Dharmadhatu? If the former and latter are different, the two statements cannot stand together. If the former and latter are the same, where does the sameness lie? Even if one can twist the explanation to make them the same, it would be obscure and unclear. Furthermore, is it unobstructed because of the freedom of opening and closing? Or is it unobstructed because of the mutual inclusion of the Dharma's substance? The former and latter contradict each other, which is the second fallacy. Xin says: According to the 'Chapter on the Three Jewels,' 'By merging the root with the branches, there is perfect fusion without duality, thus encompassing expedient means, thus being the same Dharmadhatu.' It says 'perfect fusion without duality,' which is the same as the present 'harmonious fusion without duality.' It says 'the same Dharmadhatu,' which is exactly the same as the present text. That is the same teaching, so how can the present be different? Etc. Critique: According to the original text, it says: 'Or it also universally includes, because the root and branches are perfectly fused without duality, thus encompassing expedient means, thus being the same Dharmadhatu, therefore even what humans and devas attain is also included therein.' Now I ask you: Do you mean that the present text is a harmonious fusion without duality, having two aspects, and the same Dharmadhatu having two aspects? Or is it that the harmonious fusion of those vehicles is without duality, and because of the same Dharmadhatu, there are two aspects as one meaning? The meaning of the word 'therefore' in that text is very clear; it is changed arbitrarily.
彼文以順己意擅改祖文失破句科文失四妄也易簡取此為同教得名所以天下非之汝今亦說由此方得三一合明此亦得名所以且三寶章得名所以乎乖亂宗因失五妄也又會解釋總會中同教得名為彼文中有一同字便謂由此而名同教今文亦見同字將作得名所以此說大謬當亟去之嬰兒認影失六妄也汝曰三寶章中出通收所以此章是得名所以又謂無礙所以三義既異如何直爾會同異同不辨失七妄也又曰由同一法界有二門故方得上分諸乘中三之與一或合為一或分二三等試復論之汝謂三之與一合一分三等者是將三一合為一乘應將三一各出等分分為諸乘以汝立理云各合三一大小而為之故來書曰會解既落諸方罪我者夫猶春秋乎今知罪有所歸不可抵諱謬說無根失八妄也薪云言等者等取小乘人天也議曰文云諸乘等小乘人天何以非諸乘中若言不解此等字者何從揀之晦僻若此而自方于春秋多見其不量力也怒臂當車失九妄也。
薪曰初則下上云皆隨本宗定故即今文不壞權義也又前云三乘等併名一乘即今文而即泯義也又上云約一乘辯是今云不異實義也又上云融一同大是今云而即權也。
議曰汝上文云皆隨本宗定故者是同也又云然皆點三為一併說一乘為門又如法相交參中雖有兩宗俱存並立而交接攝方便中雖方便正乘角立和合要令捨本名而並稱一乘棄方
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 他（彼文）爲了順應自己的意思，擅自修改祖師的文句，犯了破句的過失，這是第一種虛妄。科判文句的意義錯誤，這是第二種虛妄。簡單地取用『同教』這個詞來為自己命名，所以天下人都反對他。你（汝）現在也說由此才能使三一合明，這也是爲了得名，所以說三寶章是爲了得名嗎？這真是擾亂宗門的根本，犯了第五種虛妄。又說會解釋總會中的『同教』是爲了得名，因為他的文章中有一個『同』字，就說由此而得名『同教』。現在你的文章中也出現了『同』字，難道也要用這個來作為得名的理由嗎？這種說法大錯特錯，應當立即去除。這就像嬰兒認影子一樣，是第六種虛妄。你說三寶章中包含了通收的意義，所以這個章節是爲了得名。又說沒有阻礙，所以三義既然不同，怎麼能直接會同？異同不辨，這是第七種虛妄。又說因為同一法界有二門，所以才能得到上分諸乘中的三與一，或者合為一，或者分為二三等。試著再論述一下。你說三與一合一分三等，這是將三一合為一乘，應該將三一各自取出等分，分為諸乘。你立論說各自合三一的大小而為之，所以來信說會解已經落入各方，罪責在我。這就像《春秋》一樣嗎？現在知道罪責有所歸屬，不可抵賴，謬論沒有根據，這是第八種虛妄。薪說言『等』，是等同於小乘人天。議論說，文章說諸乘等同於小乘人天，為什麼小乘人天不是諸乘中的？如果說不理解這個『等』字，又從何處揀擇？如此晦澀偏頗，卻自比于《春秋》，真是太不自量力了。這就像怒臂擋車一樣，是第九種虛妄。
薪說：最初說上下云都隨著本宗來確定，所以現在的文章沒有破壞權義。又前面說三乘等同併名為一乘，就是現在的文章而即是泯義。又上面說約一乘來辯論，現在說不異於實義。又上面說融一同大，現在說是即權。
議論說：你上面的文章說都隨著本宗來確定，這是相同。又說然而都點三為一，並說一乘為門。又如法相交參中，雖然有兩宗俱存並立，而交接攝方便中，雖然方便正乘角立和合，也要讓它們捨棄本來的名稱而並稱為一乘，拋棄方...
【English Translation】 English version: He (彼文, Bǐ Wén - 'that text') arbitrarily altered the ancestral text to suit his own intentions, committing the fault of breaking sentences, which is the first falsehood. He misinterpreted the meaning of the categorized sentences, which is the second falsehood. He simply took the term '同教' (Tóng Jiào - 'same teaching') to name himself, so the world opposed him. You (汝, Rǔ - 'you') now also say that only by this can the 'three-one' be clearly united. Is this also for the sake of gaining a name, so you say the 'Chapter of the Three Jewels' is for the sake of gaining a name? This truly disrupts the root of the sect, committing the fifth falsehood. Furthermore, he says that the 'same teaching' in the general assembly of interpretations is for the sake of gaining a name, because there is a 'same' character in his text, so he says it is named 'same teaching'. Now, the 'same' character also appears in your text. Are you also going to use this as a reason for gaining a name? This statement is greatly mistaken and should be removed immediately. This is like a baby recognizing a shadow, which is the sixth falsehood. You say that the 'Chapter of the Three Jewels' contains the meaning of comprehensive inclusion, so this chapter is for the sake of gaining a name. Furthermore, you say there is no obstruction, so since the three meanings are different, how can they be directly combined? Failing to distinguish between similarities and differences is the seventh falsehood. Furthermore, you say that because the same Dharma Realm has two gates, one can obtain the upper division of the various vehicles, where the three and the one either combine into one or divide into two or three, etc. Try to discuss it again. You say that the three and the one combine into one and divide into three, etc. This is combining the three-one into one vehicle, and each of the three-one should be equally divided into the various vehicles. You establish the theory that each combines the size of the three-one to make it so, so the letter says that the interpretation has already fallen into various directions, and the blame is on me. Is this like the 'Spring and Autumn Annals'? Now I know where the blame lies, and it cannot be denied. The fallacy has no basis, which is the eighth falsehood. Xin (薪 - 'firewood') says that '等' (děng - 'equal') means equal to the Small Vehicle of humans and gods. The discussion says that the text says the various vehicles are equal to the Small Vehicle of humans and gods. Why are the Small Vehicle of humans and gods not among the various vehicles? If you say you don't understand this 'equal' character, then from where do you choose? So obscure and biased, yet you compare yourself to the 'Spring and Autumn Annals', truly overestimating your abilities. This is like angrily blocking a car with your arm, which is the ninth falsehood.
Xin says: Initially, it was said that the upper and lower clouds are all determined according to the original sect, so the current text does not destroy the provisional meaning. Furthermore, it was previously said that the three vehicles are equal and are jointly named one vehicle, which is the current text and is the meaning of annihilation. Furthermore, it was said above that it is discussed in terms of one vehicle, and now it is said that it is not different from the real meaning. Furthermore, it was said above that it is a fusion of the same and great, and now it is said that it is the provisional.
The discussion says: Your above text says that it is all determined according to the original sect, which is the same. Furthermore, it says that all point to three as one and say that one vehicle is the gate. Furthermore, as in the mutual participation of Dharma characteristics, although there are two sects that exist and stand together, and in the mutual reception of expedient means, although the expedient and correct vehicles stand together in a corner and harmonize, they must also abandon their original names and be jointly called one vehicle, abandoning the direction...
便歸咎竟此云不壞權不礙三皆約不妨三乘自宗不知一故二義天遠十妄也又曰上云三乘等併名一乘即今文而即泯者上來七義雖三乘宛然併名一乘如乘小不動本位望后一乘是彼方便隨彼本乘受一乘名三乘等皆爾亦要兩相俱存皆受一乘之名是彼之方便也何嘗說泯此亦云泥十一妄也又曰上云約一乘辨是今云不異實義也者此應三乘第二義中初義且彼中自說凡合二聲聞大乘之中雖有權實皆菩薩乘者是約一乘宗中所辨之義非三乘等宗義也此中自言攬彼之實而成此權則權雖顯然不能異實有何干涉而作此說十二妄也薪又曰又上云融一同大是今云即權也者今問曰上文融一同大是約一乘辨今云即權亦約一乘辨乎又融一同大以俱是菩薩所乘故今亦爾邪上文次句即云合愚法同小乘亦約同一法界體無二乎謬妄者十三妄也。
薪曰又今云三乘即一即上該攝門中無不壞無可存義又今云而不礙三即上不待壞不礙存義又今云一乘即三即上無不隱無可顯義又今云而不礙一即上不待隱不礙顯義也今云是故一三融攝體無二也者即上唯有一乘更無三義唯有三乘更無一義同時也故上指云此如下同教中辨。
議曰上云由四句俱即一故唯有一等今但配無不壞無可存二句可乎十四妄也又上云以三即一故不異四句俱不異若爾亦四句俱不礙三豈約二句而已是知汝但配
二者謬也十五妄也三即一既爾一即三亦然一即三但配二句十六妄也而不礙一亦配二句十七妄也上文唯有一乘更無餘者正說權盡而實現一乘獨立下文四句之初句別教一乘也不得其意十八妄也又上云唯有三乘更無一者正說隱實揚權分別說三下文第二句三乘等教不知一也亦不能曉十九妄也又二門同時不失隱視訊記憶體壞故不妨二宗權實角立以義門異時理遍通故不妨有別有三但言同教二十妄也縱使二門前後亦不失全體無二三一融攝有同教義昔日三乘今日一乘不失為和會故二十一妄也上文但指一即於三云何同教辨而通指之二十二妄也(此上但是都無所曉平白不是隻可笑而不可形容故不能盡謬妄科目也)。
薪曰更兼次問答中意並是辨前兩重四句中義也故知今泯權攬實二門無二之義非唯成上分諸乘中開合等義亦即成上該攝門中意也由此義故前記中以該攝門中徴釋等義屬同教意而為別教所以者義見於此。
議曰前二四句為門不同是故唯三唯一義非同教今此二門體無二理亦許二門角立是故下文由此镕融有其四句唯一唯三二宗不同非唯同教以通為局失二十三妄也汝引三寶章云通收所以彼云是故乃至人天所得亦在其中汝今會同而云成上開合該攝等義自成矛盾失二十四妄也且開合者自緣法本是一如來說一機有三故分別說三調練既熟會三
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 這兩種觀點都是錯誤的，是第十五種妄見。認為三即是一，既然如此，一即是三，也是錯誤的。認為一即是三，但只對應兩句經文，是第十六種妄見。認為不影響『一』也對應兩句經文，是第十七種妄見。上文只有一乘（Ekayana，唯一佛乘），沒有其他的，正是說明權宜之說已經窮盡，而顯現一乘的獨立性。下文四句經文的第一句是別教（Prthag-buddha-yana， पृथग्बुद्धयान，與圓教相對，指僅說一分道理的教法）的一乘，是不理解其含義，是第十八種妄見。又說上文只有三乘（Triyana，聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘），沒有一乘，正是說明隱藏真實，弘揚權宜之說，分別說三乘，下文第二句說三乘等教，是不知一乘，也不能理解，是第十九種妄見。又說二門（兩種法門）同時存在，不失隱視訊記憶體壞，所以不妨礙二宗（兩種宗派）權實對立，因為義理之門在不同時，理體普遍相通，所以不妨礙有別有三，但說是同教（指藏教、通教、別教、圓教中的通教），是第二十種妄見。縱使二門有先後，也不失全體無二，三一融合，有同教的含義。昔日是三乘，今日是一乘，不失為和會，所以是第二十一種妄見。上文只是指『一』，卻說『三』，怎麼能說是同教，辨別而通指，是第二十二種妄見。（以上這些都是完全不理解，平白無故的錯誤，只可笑而不可形容，所以不能窮盡謬妄的條目）。 薪曰：更進一步問答中的意思，都是辨析前面兩重四句中的含義。所以知道現在泯權攬實二門沒有二致的含義，不僅僅成就了上面分諸乘中開合等含義，也成就了上面該攝門中的意思。由此義理，所以之前的記錄中，以該攝門中的征釋等義，屬於同教的含義，而認為是別教，其中的道理就在於此。 議曰：前面的二四句因為法門不同，所以只有三和一的含義，不是同教。現在這兩個法門體性沒有二理，也允許二門對立，所以下文由此镕融有其四句，唯一和唯三二宗不同，不僅僅是同教，以通為局，是第二十三種妄見。你引用三寶章說通收，所以那裡說，『是故乃至人天所得亦在其中』，你現在會同，卻說成就了上面的開合該攝等含義，自相矛盾，是第二十四種妄見。而且開合，是因為緣法本是一，如來說一機有三，所以分別說三，調練成熟，會三
【English Translation】 English version Both of these views are wrong, and constitute the fifteenth false view. To think that three is one, and therefore one is three, is also wrong. To think that one is three, but only corresponds to two lines of scripture, is the sixteenth false view. To think that it doesn't affect 'one' also corresponding to two lines of scripture is the seventeenth false view. The preceding text only has the Ekayana (唯一佛乘, the One Vehicle), with nothing else, precisely explaining that the expedient teachings have been exhausted, and revealing the independence of the One Vehicle. The first line of the four lines of scripture below is the Prthag-buddha-yana ( पृथग्बुद्धयान, the Separate Teaching), which doesn't understand its meaning, and is the eighteenth false view. Furthermore, to say that the preceding text only has the Triyana (聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘, the Three Vehicles), with no One Vehicle, precisely explains hiding the truth and promoting the expedient teachings, separately speaking of the Three Vehicles. The second line of the following text says the Three Vehicles and other teachings do not know the One Vehicle, nor can they understand it, and is the nineteenth false view. Moreover, to say that the two gates (兩種法門, two dharma gates) exist simultaneously, without losing the hidden and manifest, existence and destruction, so it doesn't hinder the two schools (兩種宗派, two schools) of provisional and real standing in opposition, because the gate of meaning is different in time, the principle is universally connected, so it doesn't hinder having distinction and three, but to say it is the common teaching (指藏教、通教、別教、圓教中的通教, referring to the Tong Teaching among the Tripitaka Teaching, Common Teaching, Separate Teaching, and Perfect Teaching), is the twentieth false view. Even if the two gates have a sequence, it doesn't lose the whole being non-dual, the three and one merging, having the meaning of the common teaching. In the past it was the Three Vehicles, today it is the One Vehicle, not losing the harmony, so it is the twenty-first false view. The preceding text only refers to 'one', but speaks of 'three', how can it be said to be the common teaching, distinguishing and universally referring to it, is the twenty-second false view. (All of the above are completely incomprehensible, plain and simple errors, only laughable and indescribable, so the items of false views cannot be exhausted). Xin said: Furthermore, the meaning in the subsequent questions and answers are all to analyze the meaning in the preceding two layers of four lines. Therefore, knowing that the meaning of the two gates of obliterating the provisional and embracing the real is not different, not only accomplishing the meanings of opening and closing etc. in the above division of the vehicles, but also accomplishing the meaning in the above all-encompassing gate. Because of this meaning, in the previous record, the meaning of questioning and explaining etc. in the all-encompassing gate belongs to the meaning of the common teaching, and is considered the separate teaching, the reason for this lies here. Yi said: The preceding two sets of four lines are different because the dharma gates are different, so there is only the meaning of three and one, not the common teaching. Now these two dharma gates have no two principles in their essence, and also allow the two gates to stand in opposition, so the following text, because of this melting and fusing, has its four lines, the only one and the only three, the two schools are different, not only the common teaching, taking the universal as the limited, is the twenty-third false view. You quote the chapter on the Three Jewels saying universal collection, so there it says, 'Therefore, even what is obtained by humans and devas is also included within it.' You now harmonize, but say that it accomplishes the above meanings of opening and closing, all-encompassing etc., contradicting yourself, is the twenty-fourth false view. Moreover, opening and closing is because the causal dharma is originally one, the Tathagata speaks of one machine having three, so separately speaking of three, training is mature, uniting the three
歸一乃至人天亦復如是何預彼章通收所以不曉開合失二十五妄也又況汝說開合殊非祖意亦與吾家先達後進所說不同大率凡說應法界以法界融攝方便等非說同教中開合所由不識祖意失二十六妄也下文躡此云由此镕融有其四句何嘗以此二門全體無二為內教卻作別教所以則兼前以該攝徴釋之義屬同皆謬也而況前將徴釋全配別教二門則見此子同別二教都無所曉矣是亦以通為局失二十七妄也但指彼徴釋不知該攝中一切三乘本來是一亦是此中竟恒無盡泯權歸實之一乘大旨全乖失二十八妄也。
薪曰是故下云至又此存壞隱顯即上該攝門二四句中義上該攝中三一不異乃是二門俱齊此既縱奪明義門有異也故云雖具隱顯等如是則上該攝難是不異今亦有異權實不失故前指斯義於此明矣。
議曰復子作此會者由前說入三即是入一故也且前文雖明不異亦有三即二門何常失於權實若非義門有異安得唯有一乘唯有三乘又安得說三乘機得有所依得入一乘等邪如何該攝但是二門俱齊不異全無權實失二十九妄也又若於該攝門中作此問者應不答釋耶若欲答釋用此答否該攝不容徴問失三十妄也又言此既縱奪明義有異又云如是則上該攝是不異今亦有異者今問汝曰若爾應是上文但說理遍通此方說義門有異耶又上文何以亦云不異有二又便指此二為不一門良
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：歸一乃至人天（指天人和人類）也是如此，這與彼章（指之前的章節）的通收有什麼關係呢？因此不明白開合的道理，這是第二十五個錯誤。更何況你說的開合與祖師的意旨不同，也與我們家的先達後進所說的不一樣。大體上，凡是說法應合法界，以法界融攝方便等，而不是說在同教中開合的原因。不認識祖師的意旨，這是第二十六個錯誤。下文接著說『由此镕融有其四句』，何曾以此二門（指開門和合門）全體無二作為內教，卻當作別教？所以說兼前以該攝，征釋的意義屬於相同，都是錯誤的。更何況前面將征釋完全配屬別教二門，可見此人對同教和別教都一無所知了，這也是以通為局，是第二十七個錯誤。只是指出那個征釋，不知道該攝中一切三乘本來是一，這也是此中究竟恒常無盡，泯滅權巧歸於真實的一乘大旨完全違背，這是第二十八個錯誤。
薪曰：『是故』下文說『至又此存壞隱顯』，即是上面該攝門二四句中的義理，上面該攝中三一不異，乃是二門都相同。這裡既然縱奪明義，門就有差異了，所以說『雖具隱顯等』，這樣則上面該攝是不異，現在也有差異，權實不失，所以前面指出這個意義在這裡就明白了。
議曰：復子作此會者，由於前面說入三即是入一的緣故。況且前文雖然說明不異，也有三即二門，何曾失去權實？如果不是義門有差異，怎麼會唯有一乘，唯有三乘？又怎麼能說三乘的根機能夠有所依靠，能夠進入一乘等等呢？怎麼能說該攝只是二門都相同不異，完全沒有權實？這是第二十九個錯誤。又如果在該攝門中作此問，應不應該回答解釋呢？如果想要回答解釋，用這個回答嗎？該攝不容許征問，這是第三十個錯誤。又說『這裡既然縱奪明義有異』，又說『這樣則上面該攝是不異，現在也有異』，現在問你說：如果這樣，應該是上文只是說理普遍，這裡才說義門有差異嗎？又上文為什麼也說不異有二？又便指這二為不一門，真是...
【English Translation】 English version: 'Returning to the One' and even the realms of humans and gods (referring to humans and gods) are also like this. What does this have to do with the 'universal inclusion' of the previous chapter? Therefore, not understanding the principle of opening and closing is the twenty-fifth mistake. Moreover, your explanation of opening and closing differs from the intention of the Patriarchs and also from what the predecessors and successors of our school have said. Generally speaking, all teachings should accord with the Dharmadhatu (realm of reality), using the Dharmadhatu to encompass expedient means, etc., rather than explaining the reasons for opening and closing within the same teaching. Not recognizing the intention of the Patriarchs is the twenty-sixth mistake. The following text continues, 'Therefore, this fusion has its four phrases.' How could these two gates (referring to the opening and closing gates), in their entirety and without difference, be regarded as an internal teaching, yet be treated as a separate teaching? Therefore, saying that it combines the previous to encompass, and that the meaning of questioning and explaining belongs to the same, are all mistakes. Furthermore, since you completely assign the questioning and explaining to the two gates of separate teachings, it shows that this person knows nothing about the shared and separate teachings. This is also taking the universal as the limited, which is the twenty-seventh mistake. Merely pointing out that questioning and explaining, without knowing that all three vehicles within the encompassing are originally one, is also completely contrary to the ultimate principle of the One Vehicle, which is ultimately constant and endless, obliterating the expedient and returning to the real. This is the twenty-eighth mistake.
Xin said: 'Therefore,' the following text says, 'up to and including the existence, destruction, hiddenness, and manifestation,' which is the meaning within the two sets of four phrases of the above-mentioned encompassing gate. In the above-mentioned encompassing, the three and the one are not different, which means that the two gates are both the same. Since there is now a difference in clarifying the meaning through acceptance and rejection, it is said, 'Although possessing hiddenness and manifestation, etc.' In this way, the above-mentioned encompassing is not different, but now there is also a difference, and the expedient and the real are not lost. Therefore, pointing out this meaning earlier becomes clear here.
The debater said: The reason why you make this interpretation is because you said earlier that entering the three is the same as entering the one. Moreover, although the previous text clarifies that there is no difference, there are also the three-in-one and two gates. How could the expedient and the real ever be lost? If there were no difference in the gate of meaning, how could there be only the One Vehicle, only the Three Vehicles? And how could it be said that the capacities of the Three Vehicles can have something to rely on and can enter the One Vehicle, etc.? How can it be said that the encompassing is merely that the two gates are both the same and not different, completely without the expedient and the real? This is the twenty-ninth mistake. Furthermore, if this question were asked within the encompassing gate, should it not be answered and explained? If you want to answer and explain, would you use this answer? The encompassing does not allow questioning and explanation, which is the thirtieth mistake. Furthermore, saying 'Since there is now a difference in clarifying the meaning through acceptance and rejection,' and also saying 'In this way, the above-mentioned encompassing is not different, but now there is also a difference,' I now ask you: If that is the case, should it be that the above text only speaks of the universality of principle, and only here is there a difference in the gate of meaning? And why does the above text also say that there is no difference in two? And then you point to these two as the gate of non-oneness, truly...
由二門有異可作不一門說是以指也又復今亦有異者為是不一故有異邪為是三即一一即三兩義不同故有異邪若謂不一者何以不異門有此二義若曰兩義不同故有異者何以異前又汝前文但將義異為不一門前科妄誕此釋又非因謬致謬失三十一妄也。
薪曰由此下總躡上文通明四句非唯屬同教也以此一章唯有四句別教所揀即是三乘等三一合說即是同教果海離言故非三一故今總結數也。
議曰由前義故是以有四句者則前是釋義此是結成前因此宗也今問汝曰為止四句是通一章為復結釋俱通邪若言俱通何獨判云通明四句非唯同教又章中曰此同教說諸乘等若唯四句通者豈有釋義局而結文通邪因局宗通失三十二妄也又泯權歸實權盡而實現是同教乎攬實成權一隱而三存一乘乎不得斯意默而不言可乎不曉章旨失作記不明失三十四妄也又汝謂羊鹿牛等並露地車一一皆合三一而為今亦三亦一是此義否若或不同如何指之若言同者如何又說具三一邪此中三一豈可各各有三一乎昔有好草書者點筆疾書書已不識則復子頗類矣自書不省過三十五妄也。
薪曰言隨於一門皆全收法體者上雖有四句但有二義謂一乘三乘若別教三乘等本是一乘則一外無三若三乘教攬實而成則三外無一若同教既具三一居然全收果海雙非泯同平等故云全收法體也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 如果說二門之間存在差異，就可以說它們不是同一門，這是用手指指明的方式。現在又出現了差異，是因為它們不是同一（門）所以才存在差異嗎？還是因為三即是一，一即是三，這兩種含義不同所以才存在差異呢？如果說它們不是同一（門），為什麼不異門也存在這兩種含義呢？如果說是因為兩種含義不同所以才存在差異，那又和之前的差異有什麼不同呢？而且你前面的文章只是將含義的差異作為不是同一門的原因，之前的科判是虛妄的，這個解釋又是因錯誤導致錯誤，這是第三十一處虛妄。
薪曰：下面總結上文，通盤說明四句，不僅僅是屬於同教。這一章只有四句，別教所揀擇的就是三乘等，三一合說就是同教，果海離言，所以不是三一，所以現在總結數量。
議曰：因為前面的含義，所以才有四句，那麼前面是解釋含義，這裡是總結完成。前面是根據這個宗義。現在問你，為止四句是貫通一章，還是總結解釋都貫通呢？如果說都貫通，為什麼只判為通明四句，不僅僅是同教呢？而且章中說，這是同教所說的諸乘等，如果只有四句貫通，難道有解釋含義是區域性的，而總結文章是貫通的嗎？因為區域性宗義貫通，這是第三十二處虛妄。而且泯滅權巧迴歸真實，權巧窮盡而真實顯現，這是同教嗎？攬取真實成就權巧，一隱沒而三存在，這是一乘嗎？不明白這個意思，沉默不語可以嗎？不瞭解文章的宗旨，寫作記錄不明白，這是第三十四處虛妄。而且你說羊、鹿、牛等，以及露地車，一一都包含三一，而成為現在也是三也是一，是這個意思嗎？如果不同，又如何指代呢？如果說是相同的，又如何說具備三一呢？這其中的三一難道可以各自都有三一嗎？過去有擅長草書的人，點筆快速書寫，寫完后自己都不認識，又讓兒子辨認，非常相似啊！自己寫的字自己都不明白，這是第三十五處虛妄。
薪曰：說隨於一門都完全收攝法體，上面雖然有四句，但只有兩種含義，即一乘和三乘。如果是別教的三乘等，本來就是一乘，那麼一之外沒有三；如果三乘教攬取真實而成就，那麼三之外沒有一。如果是同教，既具備三一，顯然完全收攝果海，雙重否定泯滅同異，平等，所以說完全收攝法體。 English version: If there are differences between the two gates, it can be said that they are not the same gate, which is the way of pointing with a finger. Now there are differences again, is it because they are not the same (gate) that there are differences? Or is it because 'three is one' and 'one is three', these two meanings are different that there are differences? If it is said that they are not the same (gate), why do the non-different gates also have these two meanings? If it is said that the differences exist because the two meanings are different, then what is the difference from the previous differences? Moreover, your previous article only took the difference in meaning as the reason for not being the same gate. The previous classification was false, and this explanation is a mistake leading to another mistake. This is the thirty-first falsehood.
Xin said: Below summarizes the above text, comprehensively explaining the four sentences, not only belonging to the same teaching (Tongjiao). This chapter only has four sentences. What the Separate Teaching (Biejiao) chooses is the Three Vehicles (Sancheng) etc. The combined saying of Three and One is the same teaching. The Fruit Sea (Guohai) is beyond words, so it is not Three and One. Therefore, now summarize the quantity.
Yi said: Because of the previous meaning, there are four sentences. Then the previous is explaining the meaning, and this is summarizing and completing. The previous is based on this tenet. Now I ask you, is the purpose of the four sentences to connect the entire chapter, or do the summary and explanation both connect? If you say that they both connect, why only judge it as comprehensively explaining the four sentences, not only the same teaching? Moreover, the chapter says that this is the same teaching that speaks of the various vehicles etc. If only the four sentences connect, is it possible that the explanation of the meaning is local, while the summary of the article is comprehensive? Because the local tenet connects, this is the thirty-second falsehood. Moreover, obliterating the expedient and returning to the truth, the expedient is exhausted and the truth appears, is this the same teaching? Embracing the truth to achieve the expedient, one is hidden and three exist, is this the One Vehicle (Yicheng)? Is it okay to remain silent if you don't understand this meaning? Not understanding the purpose of the article, writing the record unclearly, this is the thirty-fourth falsehood. Moreover, you say that sheep, deer, cattle, etc., and the open-air cart, each contains the Three and One, and becomes now also three and also one, is this the meaning? If it is different, how do you refer to it? If it is said to be the same, how do you say it possesses the Three and One? Can the Three and One in this each have the Three and One? In the past, there was someone who was good at cursive script, writing quickly with the brush, and after writing, he himself did not recognize it, so he had his son identify it, which was very similar! He himself did not understand the words he wrote, this is the thirty-fifth falsehood.
Xin said: Saying that following one gate completely collects the Dharma body, although there are four sentences above, there are only two meanings, namely the One Vehicle and the Three Vehicles. If it is the Separate Teaching's Three Vehicles etc., it is originally the One Vehicle, then there is no three outside of one; if the Three Vehicle teaching embraces the truth and achieves it, then there is no one outside of three. If it is the same teaching, which possesses both the Three and One, it clearly completely collects the Fruit Sea, doubly negating obliterating sameness and difference, equality, therefore it is said to completely collect the Dharma body.
【English Translation】 Modern Chinese Translation: If there are differences between the two gates, it can be said that they are not the same gate, which is the way of pointing with a finger. Now there are differences again, is it because they are not the same (gate) that there are differences? Or is it because 'three is one' and 'one is three', these two meanings are different that there are differences? If it is said that they are not the same (gate), why do the non-different gates also have these two meanings? If it is said that the differences exist because the two meanings are different, then what is the difference from the previous differences? Moreover, your previous article only took the difference in meaning as the reason for not being the same gate. The previous classification was false, and this explanation is a mistake leading to another mistake. This is the thirty-first falsehood.
Xin said: Below summarizes the above text, comprehensively explaining the four sentences, not only belonging to the same teaching (Tongjiao). This chapter only has four sentences. What the Separate Teaching (Biejiao) chooses is the Three Vehicles (Sancheng) etc. The combined saying of Three and One is the same teaching. The Fruit Sea (Guohai) is beyond words, so it is not Three and One. Therefore, now summarize the quantity.
Yi said: Because of the previous meaning, there are four sentences. Then the previous is explaining the meaning, and this is summarizing and completing. The previous is based on this tenet. Now I ask you, is the purpose of the four sentences to connect the entire chapter, or do the summary and explanation both connect? If you say that they both connect, why only judge it as comprehensively explaining the four sentences, not only the same teaching? Moreover, the chapter says that this is the same teaching that speaks of the various vehicles etc. If only the four sentences connect, is it possible that the explanation of the meaning is local, while the summary of the article is comprehensive? Because the local tenet connects, this is the thirty-second falsehood. Moreover, obliterating the expedient and returning to the truth, the expedient is exhausted and the truth appears, is this the same teaching? Embracing the truth to achieve the expedient, one is hidden and three exist, is this the One Vehicle (Yicheng)? Is it okay to remain silent if you don't understand this meaning? Not understanding the purpose of the article, writing the record unclearly, this is the thirty-fourth falsehood. Moreover, you say that sheep, deer, cattle, etc., and the open-air cart, each contains the Three and One, and becomes now also three and also one, is this the meaning? If it is different, how do you refer to it? If it is said to be the same, how do you say it possesses the Three and One? Can the Three and One in this each have the Three and One? In the past, there was someone who was good at cursive script, writing quickly with the brush, and after writing, he himself did not recognize it, so he had his son identify it, which was very similar! He himself did not understand the words he wrote, this is the thirty-fifth falsehood.
Xin said: Saying that following one gate completely collects the Dharma body, although there are four sentences above, there are only two meanings, namely the One Vehicle and the Three Vehicles. If it is the Separate Teaching's Three Vehicles etc., it is originally the One Vehicle, then there is no three outside of one; if the Three Vehicle teaching embraces the truth and achieves it, then there is no one outside of three. If it is the same teaching, which possesses both the Three and One, it clearly completely collects the Fruit Sea, doubly negating obliterating sameness and difference, equality, therefore it is said to completely collect the Dharma body.
議曰今試問汝汝謂法體目於何法應是望一乘以三乘為法體望三乘以一乘為法體望同教以一乘三乘為法體望果海如同教邪何者汝以一乘收三乘為全收法體等故豈不曰泯權權不立攬實實不失權若不立三乘已為烏有一將誰收實若不失一乘殷然權將安收一存故可收三亡應不可三亡故可收一存應不可是知紕謬不識法體三十六妄也。
薪曰是故下結無礙相使忘三一之情同契全收之旨也。
議曰同教百非曰決謂全收只作同教不許義通別教今云同契全收者為通別邪為局同邪若局者汝說四句通乎一章今此結成又局同教且初后局而中間通章家略不揀料正如汝謂卻是祖師不能作文耶若言通別者今之通或是百非局應非百非局或是今之通應非復子必居其一焉妄將不逃矣不曉全收失三十七妄也又若通者文中或存壞等應兼隱顯汝謂此之存壞隱顯與前存壞等義為異非異若非異者何以前局而後通若言異者異相云何汝特作記而不和會是亦作記不明失三十八妄也是知汝辨同教三書五萬余言未有一字略中倫理所以爾者蓋由未知真師去處耳儻有夾山之志徑游鶴國一見船子卒成大器不亦佳乎。
焚薪卷第二(終)
No. 996-A 可堂送焚薪書
(某)白昔者嘗聞吾子每講圓覺愷然已為普眼已下草堂略無經旨遂有不作阿毗
曇之嘆后衍尼子之悲乃述辯疑誤之書以授高弟弟子吾竊謂昔人有言曰舜何人也予何人也君子自強不息不自欺也吾家之有是人柱石棟樑也已而又曰不慎許可其若是耶人固有任耳而賤目者吾豈為是哉雖無辯誤幸有析薪遂取歲次辛酉迎福所出善本拭目以觀焉既贊釋卷而笑曰薛能所謂我生若在開元日爭遣名為李翰林者也吾祖固無愧矣召諸生謂曰彼蚍蜉者又安能撼大樹乎妄自賢聖多見其不量力也吾聞惡不可長諸生寧不慎哉語未既有莞耳而笑于列者曰仆聞冰寒於水青青於藍世固有之且析薪者經論之苑章疏之府也彼所吐者不過四五餘皆群賢之書眾祖佛之口豈易重古輕今而遽忽之乎先生之言過矣予曰嘻是何言哉是何言哉物之所施固有所可固有所不可渥洼雖良可使警夜偷乎韓獹雖捷可使司晝漏乎張樂洞庭之野魚固深潛鳥固高飛豈曰犬馬之不良簫韶之不美哉蓋所施非其宜也且不能以意逆志則不得聖人之心不得聖人之心而用其語是遣堯牽羊而舜鞭之羊不得食堯舜俱疲不若一孺子也故其書汝見其圭璋我見其瓦礫也又有出其列者而前曰然則誠能為我條件舛謬書之方策使我服膺夫子之言乎予曰諾遂書之終第一折薪得二百有六病焉謹因附達此舉一隅者也吾聞是是非非知者之別是謂是非謂非直者之發大人能格君心之非是必術也吝其非而不改惟自屈也是以
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：曇之嘆息後世那些尼姑的悲哀，於是撰寫了《辯疑誤之書》，來傳授給得意的弟子。我私下認為，過去的人有句話說：『舜是什麼人？我是什麼人？』君子應該自強不息，不自欺。我們家有這樣的人，真是像柱石棟樑一樣啊！』但又說：『不謹慎地許可，竟然是這樣嗎？』人本來就有重視耳朵而輕視眼睛的，我怎麼會做這種事呢？即使沒有《辯誤》，幸好還有《析薪》。』於是拿出辛酉年迎福寺刊印的善本，擦亮眼睛來觀看。看完書卷后笑著說：『薛能所說的『我如果生在開元年間，怎麼會讓李白獨享翰林之名呢？』我們的祖先確實沒有愧對前人啊！』召集學生們說：『那些螞蟻，又怎麼能撼動大樹呢？妄自尊大，只會顯得不自量力。我聽說惡習不可滋長，你們難道不應該謹慎嗎？』話還沒說完，就有人在佇列中捂著嘴笑著說：『我聽說冰比水冷，青出於藍而勝於藍，世上本來就有這樣的事。而且《析薪》是經論的園囿，章疏的府庫。它所摒棄的，不過是四五條，其餘都是群賢的書籍，眾祖佛的言論，怎麼能輕易地重古輕今而草率地忽略呢？先生的話說得過分了。』我說：『唉！這是什麼話啊？這是什麼話啊？東西的施用，本來就有適合和不適合的。渥洼的良馬，即使很好，可以用來做警夜防盜的事情嗎？韓獹的獵犬，即使敏捷，可以用來做白天報時的事情嗎？在洞庭湖的曠野演奏音樂，魚自然會深潛，鳥自然會高飛，難道是說犬馬不好，簫韶之樂不美妙嗎？只是因為施用的場合不合適啊！而且不能以自己的心意去揣測聖人的心意，就不能領會聖人的精神。不能領會聖人的精神而使用他的言語，就像讓堯去牽羊，讓舜去鞭打羊，羊得不到食物，堯和舜都疲憊不堪，不如一個普通的孩子。所以你們看到的是書中的美玉，我看到的卻是書中的瓦礫啊！』又有人從佇列中走出來，上前說：『既然這樣，那麼您真的能為我們逐條指出書中的錯誤，制定改正的方略，使我們能夠信服夫子的教誨嗎？』我說：『可以。』於是寫完了書的結尾，第一篇《析薪》就發現了二百零六處錯誤。謹此附上，只是舉出一個例子罷了。我聽說辨別是非，是智者的區別，這叫做辨別是非，說出錯誤，是正直的人的表達。大人能夠匡正君王心中的錯誤，這一定是高超的手段。吝惜自己的錯誤而不改正，只會讓自己更加困窘。因此……
【English Translation】 English version: Tan sighed at the sorrow of the nuns of later generations, and thus wrote the book 'Bian Yi Wu Zhi Shu' (A Book for Distinguishing Doubts and Errors) to impart it to his favorite disciples. I privately think that the people of the past had a saying: 'What kind of person was Shun (a legendary sage king of China)? What kind of person am I?' A gentleman should strive for self-improvement and not deceive himself. To have such a person in our family is like a pillar and beam!' But then he also said: 'To carelessly permit, is it really like this?' People inherently value ears and despise eyes, how could I do such a thing? Even without 'Bian Wu' (Distinguishing Errors), fortunately there is 'Xi Xin' (Analyzing Firewood).' So he took out the good edition printed by Yingfu Temple in the year Xinyou, wiped his eyes and watched. After reading the scroll, he smiled and said: 'What Xue Neng (a poet of the Tang Dynasty) said, 'If I were born in the Kaiyuan era (the reign of Emperor Xuanzong of Tang), how could I let Li Bai (a famous poet of the Tang Dynasty) exclusively enjoy the name of Hanlin (a member of the Imperial Academy)?' Our ancestors have indeed not been ashamed of their predecessors!' He summoned the students and said: 'How can those ants shake a big tree? To overestimate oneself will only appear to be overreaching. I have heard that evil habits should not be allowed to grow, shouldn't you be cautious?' Before he finished speaking, someone in the ranks covered his mouth and smiled, saying: 'I have heard that ice is colder than water, and blue comes from indigo but is bluer than it, such things exist in the world. Moreover, 'Xi Xin' (Analyzing Firewood) is the garden of scriptures and treatises, the treasury of memorials and documents. What it rejects is only four or five items, the rest are the books of wise men and the words of Buddhas, how can we easily value the past and despise the present and hastily ignore it? The teacher's words are excessive.' I said: 'Alas! What are you saying? What are you saying? The application of things inherently has what is suitable and what is not. The good horse of Wowa (a place famous for horses), even if it is good, can it be used to guard against theft at night? The hunting dog of Hanlu (a place famous for dogs), even if it is agile, can it be used to tell the time during the day? Playing music in the wilderness of Dongting Lake (a large lake in China), the fish will naturally dive deep, and the birds will naturally fly high, is it because dogs and horses are not good, or the music of Xiaoshao (ancient music) is not beautiful? It's just because the occasion of application is not suitable! And if you cannot infer the sage's mind with your own intention, you cannot understand the spirit of the sage. If you cannot understand the spirit of the sage and use his words, it is like letting Yao (a legendary sage king of China) lead a sheep and letting Shun (a legendary sage king of China) whip the sheep, the sheep will not get food, and Yao and Shun will be exhausted, it is better than an ordinary child. So what you see is the jade in the book, but what I see is the rubble in the book!' Another person came out of the ranks and stepped forward and said: 'In that case, can you really point out the errors in the book for us one by one, formulate strategies for correction, so that we can be convinced by the teachings of the master?' I said: 'I can.' So he finished writing the end of the book, and in the first article 'Xi Xin' (Analyzing Firewood), he found two hundred and six errors. I hereby attach it, just to give an example. I have heard that distinguishing right from wrong is the distinction of the wise, this is called distinguishing right from wrong, and speaking out the errors is the expression of the upright. A great man can correct the errors in the heart of the king, this must be a superb means. To be stingy with one's own errors and not correct them will only make oneself more embarrassed. Therefore...
大禹聖人聞善言則拜吾子佛氏之子來者之表去惡遷善唯恐不及者也吾固可以言講授之暇取以閱之用吾言而為善則聚眾本以焚之曰述作之難固若是吾祖之可宗也聖賢可重也又若是改過自新誰曰不可故曰過則勿憚改用吾言為不善則鏤版以俟識者如欲更加朱黃則于每段之後隨時䟦之慎勿碎細破句而注之如同教差當使人難曉阮子有言勝公榮者不得不與飲今吾子是不得不與言者故言之問訊之禮苛細略之幸察也。
(某)白歲丁卯壬寅戊子書
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：大禹聖人聽到好的言論就拜謝。您，佛的弟子，是來展現去除惡習、遷向善良的榜樣，唯恐做得不夠快。我本來就可以和您談談，在講授之餘拿來閱讀。如果使用我的言論而行善，就聚集眾人，原本打算焚燒它，說著述的艱難就是這樣。我的祖先是值得傚法的，聖賢是值得尊重的，又像是改過自新，誰說不可以呢？所以說，有了過錯就不要害怕改正。如果使用我的言論而為不善，就刻在版上等待有識之士。如果想要新增硃紅或黃色，就在每段之後隨時題跋。謹慎不要瑣碎地斷句而註釋它，如同佛教的教義那樣，應當使人難以理解。阮籍曾說過，勝過公榮的人不得不與他一同飲酒。現在您就是不得不與我交談的人，所以和您談談。問訊的禮節如果過於細緻就省略了，希望您能明察。 (某)在歲次丁卯年壬寅月戊子日書寫。
【English Translation】 English version: The sage Dayu (大禹 - a legendary ruler of ancient China) would bow in gratitude upon hearing good words. You, a disciple of the Buddha, are here to exemplify the removal of evil and the movement towards goodness, fearing only that you are not doing it quickly enough. I could originally discuss with you, taking it to read in my spare time from lecturing. If using my words leads to good deeds, then gather the people. I originally intended to burn it, saying that the difficulty of writing is like this. My ancestors are worthy of emulation, and sages are worthy of respect, just as with reforming oneself, who says it cannot be done? Therefore, it is said, 'Do not fear to correct your faults.' If using my words leads to evil, then carve it on a block to await discerning individuals. If you wish to add vermilion or yellow, then write a postscript after each paragraph at any time. Be careful not to annotate it by breaking the sentences into trivial pieces, as with Buddhist teachings, which should be made difficult for people to understand. Ruan Ji (阮籍 - a Chinese poet) once said, 'One who surpasses Gong Rong (公榮 - a historical figure) must be made to drink with him.' Now you are someone I must speak with, so I am speaking with you. If the formalities of inquiry are too detailed, they are omitted, I hope you will understand. (So-and-so) wrote this on the day of Wuzi (戊子) in the month of Renyin (壬寅) in the year of Dingmao (丁卯).