X58n1000_評復古記
卍新續藏第 58 冊 No. 1000 評復古記
No. 1000
評復古記(一名扶焚薪)
希迪 謹錄
題曰復古記。
評曰。斯文之作。裁自師資。述人既殊。理應略揀。今雷同立名者。推讓之禮安在哉。有若曰。自生民以來。未有盛于孔子也。其易繼乎。
記曰。自狹之寬。折為十類。乃至然上諸經。皆各詮顯一乘教義分齊。若以同別開判者。前八別教。以雖互為主伴。皆是無盡法海。故第九一經。義當同教。以隨一方。遂機少說。
評曰。題稱華嚴記。開同別者。應問曰。華嚴二家揀時意邪。收時意邪。揀收俱時意邪。揀時意者。清涼何曰無盡修多羅總名。收時意者。何曰揀非涅槃等。俱時意者。揀收二開。皆為別旨。何開同別。
記曰。第九一經。義當同教。以隨一方。逐機少說。但為方便。非主經故。是故下同教中。始自一乘二三乘等並列余經皆是第九眷屬經攝。良由是方便。乃至入一乘攝。
評曰。且明二中初義。太一云。依法華經。約界分體相。方便究竟不同。其究竟乘。第九攝乎。是方便乎又三乘中初義。太一云。顯法本示不同。賢首釋一乘雲。以其唯說別教。是知皆眷屬是方便非也。
記曰。無盡教海。詮示一乘
因果二大甚深分齊。又曰。皆各詮顯一乘教義分齊。又曰。難思教海。總曰華嚴。通顯一乘教義二大分齊。故立斯題。
評曰。題中華嚴者。所弘經也。一乘教義分齊者。所釋義也。章者能釋文也。是則弘經作章。以章釋義。故次文云。今將開釋如來海印三昧一乘教義。略作十門等。今于數行之間。三處謂華嚴。詮顯一乘教義分齊。具意安在哉。陸沉正義也。
記曰。建立者。孔目曰。一乘法義。佛及普賢行愿建立。有情眾生。依而住持。
評曰。如此等引證。可謂知其源流。但演義為文。非玉峰辨不三昧也。
記曰。是故下同教中。始於一乘經無量乘。並列其中。總出余經。故曰余經。是共教一乘。三乘小乘共依故。
評曰。下顯法本末門。一乘乃當圓教。三乘當中間三教。而至相謂。余經是共教一乘。三乘小乘共依故。其一乘乃泯二之教。其三乘唯始教。二義天壤。輒便引成。若不煎除。必至蔓莚。
記曰。前代諸德。但于教門。顯權實不同。方便正乘有異。尊顯華頓。圓究竟等。
評曰。世尊初成正覺。指天上天下唯華嚴獨尊。(光明覺品疏曰。佛成道后。始放光明。卻現初生及涅槃者。約微細門。融三世故。鈔曰。約微細門者。一中頓具一切諸法。炳然齊現。名
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本 因果二大甚深分齊。又說，都各自詮釋顯揚一乘教義的分齊。又說，難以思議的教海。總的來說是《華嚴經》。通達顯揚一乘教義的二大分齊。所以立這個題目。
評：題目中的『華嚴』，是所弘揚的經典。『一乘教義分齊』，是所解釋的義理。『章』是能解釋的文。這樣就是弘揚經典，作章來解釋義理。所以下面的文字說，『現在將要開釋如來海印三昧一乘教義，略作十門』等等。現在在幾行字之間，三處提到《華嚴經》，詮釋顯揚一乘教義的分齊，完整的意義在哪裡呢？這是淹沒了正義啊。
記：建立者，孔目說：『一乘法義，佛及普賢行愿建立。有情眾生，依而住持。』
評：像這樣的引證，可以說是知道它的源流。但演義成文，如果不是玉峰辨析，就不能達到三昧的境界。
記：因此在同教中，開始於一乘經無量乘，並列在其中，總括其餘的經典。所以說『余經』，是共教一乘，三乘小乘共同依止的。
評：下面顯示法本末門，一乘應當是圓教，三乘應當是中間的三教，而互相稱謂。『余經』是共教一乘，三乘小乘共同依止。它的一乘是泯滅二的教義，它的三乘只是始教。兩種意義天差地別，竟然隨便引用。如果不加以清除，必定會蔓延滋長。
記：前代的諸位德者，只是在教門中，顯示權實的不同，方便正乘的差異，尊崇顯揚華頓，圓究竟等。
評：世尊最初成就正覺，指天上天下唯有《華嚴經》最為尊貴。（光明覺品疏說：佛成道后，開始放出光明，卻顯現初生及涅槃，這是從微細的方面來說，融合三世的緣故。鈔說：從微細的方面來說，一中頓然具備一切諸法，明顯地同時顯現，叫做……）
【English Translation】 English version The two great profound divisions of cause and effect. It also says that they each explain and reveal the divisions of the One Vehicle (Ekayana) teaching. It also says, the ocean of teaching that is difficult to conceive. In general, it is the Avatamsaka (Flower Garland Sutra). Thoroughly revealing the two great divisions of the One Vehicle teaching. Therefore, this title is established.
Commentary: The 'Avatamsaka' in the title is the sutra being propagated. 'Divisions of the One Vehicle teaching' are the principles being explained. 'Chapter' is the text that can explain. Thus, it is propagating the sutra, making chapters to explain the principles. Therefore, the following text says, 'Now, we will explain the One Vehicle teaching of the Samadhi of the Ocean Seal of the Tathagata (Tathagata-samudra-mudra), briefly making ten gates,' and so on. Now, within a few lines, the Avatamsaka is mentioned in three places, explaining and revealing the divisions of the One Vehicle teaching. Where is the complete meaning? This is submerging the correct meaning.
Note: The establisher, Kongmu (孔目), says: 'The Dharma meaning of the One Vehicle is established by the Buddha and the vows and practices of Samantabhadra (普賢). Sentient beings rely on it and maintain it.'
Commentary: Such citations can be said to know its origin. However, elaborating the meaning into writing, if it is not distinguished by Yufeng (玉峰), one cannot attain samadhi.
Note: Therefore, in the same teaching, starting from the One Vehicle Sutra and countless vehicles, they are listed together, encompassing the remaining sutras. Therefore, it is said 'other sutras' are the common teaching of the One Vehicle, which the Three Vehicles and the Small Vehicle commonly rely on.
Commentary: Below, the gate of the root and branch of the Dharma is revealed. The One Vehicle should be the Perfect Teaching (Round Teaching), and the Three Vehicles should be the three teachings in between, and they address each other. 'Other sutras' are the common teaching of the One Vehicle, which the Three Vehicles and the Small Vehicle commonly rely on. Its One Vehicle is the teaching that obliterates duality, and its Three Vehicles are only the Initial Teaching. The two meanings are worlds apart, yet they are casually cited. If they are not removed, they will surely spread and grow.
Note: The virtuous ones of previous generations only showed the differences between provisional and real in the teaching gate, the differences between expedient and correct vehicles, honoring and revealing the suddenness of the Avatamsaka, the completeness of the roundness, and so on.
Commentary: When the World Honored One (世尊) first attained perfect enlightenment, he pointed out that only the Avatamsaka is the most honored in heaven and earth. (The commentary on the 'Luminous Awakening' chapter says: After the Buddha attained enlightenment, he began to emit light, but showed the initial birth and nirvana, which is from the subtle aspect, merging the three times. The notes say: From the subtle aspect, all dharmas are suddenly fully present in one, clearly appearing simultaneously, called...)
［彼］細門。故說一相之中。具餘七相。如在母胎。即具餘七。今在成正覺相中。具餘七相也。言融三世者。亦即十世隔法異成門。受生是過去。涅槃是未來。故有謂初生非初成者。抵突自宗)華嚴大經。豈俟諸師。而然後為尊非。章曰。炳然同時。齊頭顯現。華嚴大經。豈俟諸師。而然後為顯邪。當知華嚴大經。由諸祖之弘傳。不由諸師之尊顯也。
記曰。真觀以來。奘師西歸。基師承襲。以五性三乘為實。一乘一性為權。其說翳於一乘。其道盛行中國。起信等疏。以言教具缺等。辭而辟之。遂明一性一乘為實。三乘五性為權。終頓二教。皆談一性。是以判入一乘。清涼承后圭山繼踵等。
評曰。觀其文意。謂吾祖獨以法相繁興。而判終頓為一。不然。何云其道盛行中國。遂明一性一乘為實。三乘五性為權。乃至是以判入一乘邪。儻三藏不歸。法相不興。則諸祖概將終頓。但為權否。若爾。吾宗風說終頓為實。儘是遮情。非顯法理。當知終頓為賢。亦一乘宗顯法理也。其間十條料揀。始可遮情耳。
記曰。問清涼曰。昔實不滯方便。故不會之。何謂趣正乘是方便邪。答曰。祖師但曰不滯方便。不言不是方便。
評曰。不滯方便之方便。始教權三也。正乘方便之方便。一乘也。故太一曰。一
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： ［彼］細門（指微細的法門）。所以說在一相之中，具備其餘七相。如同在母胎中，即已具備其餘七相。如今在成就正覺之相中，也具備其餘七相。說到融攝三世，也就是十世隔法異成門。受生是過去，涅槃是未來。所以有人說初生並非初成，這是牴觸自家宗義。《華嚴大經》，難道要等待其他法師，然後才顯得尊貴嗎？章疏說，炳然同時，齊頭顯現。《華嚴大經》，難道要等待其他法師，然後才顯得明顯嗎？應當知道《華嚴大經》，是由歷代祖師的弘揚傳佈，而不是由某些法師的尊崇顯揚。
記述說，從真觀（法師名）以來，玄奘（法師名）法師西行歸來，窺基（法師名）法師繼承其學說，以五性三乘為實，一乘一性為權。這種說法遮蔽了一乘的教義，但其學說在中國盛行。起信論等疏，以言教不完備等理由來駁斥它，於是闡明一性一乘為實，三乘五性為權。終教和頓教，都談論一性，因此判歸於一乘。清涼（法師名）繼承其後，圭山（法師名）繼續追隨等。
評論說，從其文意來看，認為我的祖師獨自以法相的繁榮興盛，而判終教和頓教為一。如果不是這樣，為什麼說其學說在中國盛行，於是闡明一性一乘為實，三乘五性為權，乃至因此判歸於一乘呢？如果玄奘三藏（法師名）沒有歸來，法相沒有興盛，那麼諸位祖師是否會將終教和頓教，都只看作是權宜之說呢？如果那樣，我們宗派所說的終教和頓教為實，就全是遮掩實情，而不是顯揚法理了。應當知道終教和頓教為賢，也是一乘宗顯揚法理。其中的十條揀擇，才可以遮掩實情罷了。
記述說，問清涼（法師名）說，過去真實不滯留于方便，所以不會合。為什麼說趣向正乘是方便呢？回答說，祖師只是說不滯留于方便，沒有說不是方便。
評論說，不滯留于方便的方便，是始教的權宜三乘。正乘方便的方便，是一乘。所以太一（法師名）說，一
【English Translation】 English version: [That] Subtle gate (refers to subtle Dharma gate). Therefore, it is said that within one aspect, all other seven aspects are complete. Just as in the mother's womb, the other seven are already complete. Now, in the aspect of accomplishing perfect enlightenment, the other seven aspects are also complete. Speaking of integrating the three times, it is also the gate of the ten times separated by different accomplishments of Dharma. Being born is the past, Nirvana is the future. Therefore, some say that initial birth is not initial accomplishment, which contradicts one's own sect. The Avatamsaka Sutra, does it need to wait for other teachers to then be honored? The chapter says, 'Clearly at the same time, appearing side by side.' Does the Avatamsaka Sutra need to wait for other teachers to then be revealed? It should be known that the Avatamsaka Sutra is propagated by the ancestral masters, not by the honoring and revealing of certain teachers.
It is recorded that since Zhenguan (a Dharma master's name), Master Xuanzang (a Dharma master's name) returned from the West, Master Kuiji (a Dharma master's name) inherited his teachings, considering the five natures and three vehicles as real, and the one vehicle and one nature as provisional. This saying obscures the doctrine of the One Vehicle, but its teachings flourished in China. Commentaries on the Awakening of Faith and others refuted it with reasons such as incomplete teachings, and then clarified that the One Nature and One Vehicle are real, and the Three Vehicles and Five Natures are provisional. Both the Teaching of the End and the Sudden Teaching discuss the One Nature, therefore they are classified into the One Vehicle. Qingliang (a Dharma master's name) inherited it later, and Guishan (a Dharma master's name) continued to follow, etc.
It is commented that, judging from the meaning of the text, it is believed that our ancestor alone used the flourishing of Dharma characteristics to judge the Teaching of the End and the Sudden Teaching as one. If not, why would it be said that its teachings flourished in China, and then clarified that the One Nature and One Vehicle are real, the Three Vehicles and Five Natures are provisional, and even therefore classified into the One Vehicle? If Tripitaka Xuanzang (a Dharma master's name) had not returned and the Dharma characteristics had not flourished, would all the ancestral masters have regarded the Teaching of the End and the Sudden Teaching as merely provisional? If so, our sect's saying that the Teaching of the End and the Sudden Teaching are real would all be concealing the truth, not revealing the Dharma principle. It should be known that the Teaching of the End and the Sudden Teaching are virtuous, and also the One Vehicle sect reveals the Dharma principle. The ten discriminations in between can only conceal the truth.
It is recorded that, Qingliang (a Dharma master's name) was asked, 'In the past, reality did not dwell on expedients, so they did not converge. Why is it said that approaching the Correct Vehicle is an expedient?' He replied, 'The ancestral master only said not to dwell on expedients, not that it is not an expedient.'
It is commented that, the expedient that does not dwell on expedients is the provisional three vehicles of the Initial Teaching. The expedient of the Correct Vehicle is the One Vehicle. Therefore, Taiyi (a Dharma master's name) said, 'One'
乘義者。分別有二等。何以為問。答中亦不以此義釋成。而云但云不滯方便。不言不是方便。是亦權實不分失。
記曰。雖不俟會。根熟而自歸。譬如寄食旅亭。不遣而自往矣。
評曰。記以寄食旅亭。釋故不會之之語者。且不滯方便。三中牛車邪。亦白牛車邪。寄食旅亭。化城邪。寶處邪。
記曰。以三中等者。相宗不信三外有一。以門外牛車觀于露地。二牛不辨。故今判云。三中牛車。同於羊鹿。俱屬方便門也。
評曰。謂由相宗不信有一。今判牛車同於羊鹿者。準下章曰。與彼三乘。全別不同。宜可廣依華嚴經普賢境界準思之。又曰。良由此法。出情難信。是故聖者將彼三乘。對比決之。且賢首云。與彼三乘。全別不同。特揀法相邪。又經家獨為法相而決之邪。又況科家云正顯相。若於正顯相科中。便云相宗不信三外有一。而料揀者。何妨笑庵法師下章三處明文。法相宗通終教邪。又何妨藏藏獨揀權始邪。然海東書良證也。而覺抄謂。相宗學人多不信之等者。約聖意多含也。以傍為正失。
記曰。答依等者。阿含經等。依彼自宗。則云有所稟之教。依以起行。以行趣果。得二涅槃。今依法華了義大乘等經。則云昔日但有善誘之空言。不能如實修四無量。故無實行。
評曰
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 關於『乘義』，可以分為兩種不同的層次。提問者的問題是什麼呢？回答中並沒有用這個意義來解釋清楚，只是說『不滯方便』，卻沒有說『不是方便』。這樣也是權巧和真實沒有區分清楚的過失。 註釋中說：即使不等待法華會上開悟，根機成熟的人也會自然歸向佛法，就像寄住在旅館的人，不用人送也會自己回去一樣。 評論說：註釋用寄住在旅館來解釋『故不會之』這句話，那麼，『不滯方便』，是指三乘中的牛車嗎？還是指白牛車呢？寄住在旅館，是指化城嗎？還是指寶所呢？ 註釋中說：用三乘中的牛車等來比喻，是因為法相宗不相信三乘之外還有一乘。他們就像在露地上從門外看牛車，分不清二牛（羊車、鹿車）。所以現在判斷說，三乘中的牛車，和羊車、鹿車一樣，都屬於方便之門。 評論說：說是因為法相宗不相信有一乘，所以現在判斷牛車和羊車、鹿車一樣，那麼，按照下文所說『與彼三乘，全別不同』，應該廣泛地依據《華嚴經》普賢菩薩的境界來思考。又說：『良由此法，出情難信』，所以聖者將三乘對比來決斷。而且賢首大師說，『與彼三乘，全別不同』，是特意揀別法相宗嗎？或者經家只是為法相宗而決斷嗎？而且科判家說『正顯相』，如果在『正顯相』的科判中，就說法相宗不相信三乘之外有一乘，而進行評論，那麼何妨笑庵法師在下文三處明確說明法相宗通於終教呢？又何妨藏**揀別權始教呢？然而海東的書是很好的證明。而覺抄說，法相宗的學人大多不相信等等，是就聖人的意圖而言，包含了很多意義。把旁支當作正宗就錯了。 註釋中說：回答依據等等，《阿含經》等等，依據他們自己的宗派，就說是有所稟受的教法，依據它來修行，以修行趨向果位，得到二種涅槃。現在依據《法華經》了義大乘等等經典，就說過去只有善巧誘導的空話，不能如實地修四無量心，所以沒有實際的修行。 評論說：
【English Translation】 English version: Regarding the 'meaning of the Vehicle (Yana)', there are two different levels of distinction. What is the question of the questioner? The answer does not clarify this meaning, but only says 'not attached to expedient means (upaya)', without saying 'not expedient means'. This is also a fault of not distinguishing between provisional (upaya) and real (paramartha). The commentary says: Even without waiting for enlightenment at the Lotus Assembly, those whose roots are mature will naturally turn to the Dharma, just like someone lodging at an inn will return home without being sent. The critique says: The commentary uses lodging at an inn to explain the phrase 'therefore, they will not meet'. Then, 'not attached to expedient means', does it refer to the ox-cart in the Three Vehicles? Or does it refer to the white ox-cart? Lodging at an inn, does it refer to the illusory city (化城, huà chéng)? Or does it refer to the treasure land (寶處, bǎo chù)? The commentary says: Using the ox-cart in the Three Vehicles as an analogy is because the Dharmalaksana school (法相宗, Fǎxiàng zōng) does not believe there is One Vehicle outside the Three Vehicles. They are like looking at an ox-cart from outside the gate in an open field, unable to distinguish between the two ox-carts (sheep cart and deer cart). Therefore, it is now judged that the ox-cart in the Three Vehicles, like the sheep cart and deer cart, all belong to the gate of expedient means. The critique says: Saying that it is because the Dharmalaksana school does not believe there is One Vehicle, so it is now judged that the ox-cart is the same as the sheep cart and deer cart, then, according to what is said below, 'completely different from the Three Vehicles', one should broadly rely on the realm of Samantabhadra Bodhisattva in the Avatamsaka Sutra to contemplate. It also says: 'Indeed, this Dharma is difficult to believe', so the sages compare the Three Vehicles to make a judgment. Moreover, Master Xianshou (賢首, Xiánshǒu) said, 'completely different from the Three Vehicles', is it specifically distinguishing the Dharmalaksana school? Or is the sutra master only making a judgment for the Dharmalaksana school? Moreover, the commentator says 'directly revealing the characteristics', if in the commentary of 'directly revealing the characteristics', it is said that the Dharmalaksana school does not believe there is One Vehicle outside the Three Vehicles, and a critique is made, then why not allow Master Xiao'an (笑庵, Xiào'ān) to clearly explain in three places in the following chapter that the Dharmalaksana school is connected to the ultimate teaching? And why not allow Zang** to distinguish the provisional beginning teaching? However, the book from Haedong (海東, Hǎidōng) is good evidence. And Juechao (覺抄, Juéchāo) says that most scholars of the Dharmalaksana school do not believe, etc., which refers to the intention of the sages and contains many meanings. It is wrong to take the branch as the main. The commentary says: The answer is based on, etc., the Agamas, etc., according to their own school, they say that it is a teaching that has been received, and they rely on it to cultivate, and use cultivation to move towards the fruit, and obtain two kinds of Nirvana. Now, according to the definitive Mahayana sutras such as the Lotus Sutra, they say that in the past there were only skillful means of empty words, and they could not truly cultivate the Four Immeasurables, so there was no actual practice. The critique says:
。此中所揀通大也。釋以愚法。能揀一乘也。釋以終教可乎。能所不分。判妙為粗。二過也。
記曰。若望等者。本末出界。今既出已。非不得也。仍在所引之中。故皆無得望一乘也。
評曰。前引探玄分二之文。又引清涼后一不共之語。若爾。則后一為不共一乘。前四為共教三乘。三乘中通愚法及迴心也。今卻用顯法本末聖言。揀定義何邪。且下章云。愚法二乘並在所引諸子中。故知三乘外別有小乘等者。乃是開愚法異迴心三宗差別也。前引開二。此用分三。寬成允當。又云。故皆無得望一乘者。望圓教一乘邪。終教一乘邪。若望終教。此中豈以終教為一乘。若望圓教。圓教一乘。豈獨揀于愚法。
記曰。約同教者。未顯無盡。故非別教。如善財見三千塵數知識。探玄判曰。同教者義同此也。同者同前諸教三乘。故名同也。
評曰。此約同教。是華嚴否。彼約同教。是法華否。縱二處皆曰約同。而部類天別。授彼證此。殊非正當。又曰。同者同前諸教三乘故名同者。記家釋同教得名所教也。太一曰。華嚴經又前之五會。及十明已后。盡不思義品。即以一乘別教。從三乘說。今亦爾否。若爾。華嚴前之五會。極不思議品。應是同教邪。別不然者。何引三千世界塵數知識。又清涼曰。同頓同實
【現代漢語翻譯】 此處所揀擇的是通教的大乘。如果解釋為愚法，就能揀別出一乘。如果解釋為終教可以嗎？能詮和所詮不分，把妙法判為粗法，這是兩種過失。
《記》中說：『如果期望等同，那麼從根本到末端都超出了界限。』現在既然已經超出，並非不能這樣說。仍然在所引用的範圍之內，所以都不能期望一乘。
《評》中說：前面引用了探玄將佛法分為二的文句，又引用了清涼關於『后一』是不共的說法。如果這樣，那麼『后一』就是不共的一乘，前面的四種就是共教的三乘，三乘中包括愚法和迴心。現在卻用顯法的根本和末端聖言來揀別定義，這是為什麼呢？而且下章說：『愚法二乘都在所引用的諸子之中。』由此可知三乘之外另有小乘等，這是開愚法和迴心三宗的差別。前面引用開二，這裡用分三，寬泛而恰當。又說：『所以都不能期望一乘』，是期望圓教的一乘呢？還是終教的一乘呢？如果期望終教，那麼這裡豈不是把終教作為一乘？如果期望圓教，圓教的一乘，難道僅僅揀別愚法嗎？
《記》中說：『如果按照同教來說，就沒有顯現無盡的道理，所以不是別教。』例如善財童子見到三千塵數那麼多的善知識。探玄判說：『同教的意義與此相同。』同，是與前面的諸教三乘相同，所以名為同教。
《評》中說：這裡所說的同教，是《華嚴經》的同教嗎？那裡所說的同教，是《法華經》的同教嗎？即使兩處都說『按照同教』，但部類卻有天壤之別，用那裡的證據來證明這裡，實在是不恰當。又說：『同，是與前面的諸教三乘相同，所以名為同教。』《記》的作者解釋同教，是得到名稱的所教。太一說：《華嚴經》又在之前的五會，以及十明之後，直到不思議品，就用一乘別教，從三乘來說。現在也是這樣嗎？如果這樣，《華嚴經》之前的五會，以及極不思議品，應該是同教嗎？如果不是這樣，為什麼引用三千世界塵數那麼多的善知識？而且清涼說：『同頓同實』
【English Translation】 Modern Chinese version Here, what is being selected is the Great Vehicle of the Tong Teaching (Tongjiao) [teaching common to both Hinayana and Mahayana]. If explained as the teaching for the ignorant (Yufa) [those of dull faculties], it can distinguish the One Vehicle (Yicheng) [the ultimate vehicle to Buddhahood]. Is it acceptable to explain it as the concluding teaching (Zhongjiao) [the Lotus Sutra teaching]? The object and subject of the teaching are not distinguished, and the wonderful Dharma is judged as coarse, these are two faults.
The Commentary says: 'If one expects equality, then from the root to the branch, it exceeds the boundary.' Now that it has exceeded, it is not that it cannot be said. It is still within the scope of what is cited, so none can expect the One Vehicle.
The Critique says: Previously, the text from Tanxuan dividing the Dharma into two was cited, and also the saying from Qingliang that 'the latter one' is uncommon. If so, then 'the latter one' is the uncommon One Vehicle, and the previous four are the Three Vehicles of the common teaching, which includes the teaching for the ignorant and those who turn their minds towards the Mahayana. Now, however, the fundamental and terminal sacred words of the Manifest Teaching are used to select and define, why is this? Moreover, the following chapter says: 'The Two Vehicles of the teaching for the ignorant are all within the cited sons.' From this, it is known that outside the Three Vehicles, there are separate Hinayana teachings, etc., which is the difference between opening the teaching for the ignorant and the three schools of turning the mind. Previously, opening two was cited, here dividing three is used, which is broad and appropriate. It also says: 'So none can expect the One Vehicle,' is it expecting the One Vehicle of the Perfect Teaching (Yuanjiao) [the highest teaching]? Or the One Vehicle of the Concluding Teaching? If expecting the Concluding Teaching, then is the Concluding Teaching regarded as the One Vehicle here? If expecting the Perfect Teaching, does the One Vehicle of the Perfect Teaching only select the teaching for the ignorant?
The Commentary says: 'If according to the Common Teaching, the inexhaustible principle is not manifested, so it is not the Distinct Teaching (Biejiao) [teaching distinct to the Mahayana].' For example, Sudhana (Shancai) [a youth in the Gandavyuha Sutra] sees three thousand dust-mote numbers of good advisors. Tanxuan judges: 'The meaning of the Common Teaching is the same as this.' Common, is the same as the previous Three Vehicles of the teachings, so it is named Common Teaching.
The Critique says: Is the Common Teaching mentioned here the Common Teaching of the Avatamsaka Sutra (Huayan Jing)? Is the Common Teaching mentioned there the Common Teaching of the Lotus Sutra (Fahua Jing)? Even if both places say 'according to the Common Teaching,' the categories are as different as heaven and earth, using the evidence there to prove here is truly inappropriate. It also says: 'Common, is the same as the previous Three Vehicles of the teachings, so it is named Common Teaching.' The author of the Commentary explains the Common Teaching as the teaching from which the name is derived. Taiyi says: 'The Avatamsaka Sutra is also in the previous five assemblies, and after the Ten Understandings, until the Inconceivable Qualities chapter, it uses the One Vehicle Distinct Teaching, speaking from the Three Vehicles.' Is it the same now? If so, the previous five assemblies of the Avatamsaka Sutra, and the extremely Inconceivable Qualities chapter, should be the Common Teaching? If it is not so, why cite the dust-mote numbers of good advisors in the three thousand worlds? Moreover, Qingliang says: 'Same sudden, same real.'
者。該彼所詮。入圓成此。彰其無礙。今云。同前諸教三乘。亦若此否。又十章並清涼總相會通義理分齊行愿義記諸文同教。皆以同前諸教。作得名所以否。章文云。此約同教一乘。以明異耳。抄家卻云。同前諸教三乘。故名同也。豈為允當。
記曰。又彼下二別教至又彼等者。至相同在。一乘則圓明具德處。三乘則一相孤門。故知二宗不同。今約以辨。
評曰。具德前章。以辨今文。又引圓明具德。明二宗不同。何異折薪。一一德中。具無量德相十玄之義邪。唯益繁文。不諳章旨。不然。具德之言。與焚薪多車揀一車。無盡佛法。一成一切成。有何干預。
記曰。一相一寂。即一事一理。所謂三乘終教。一相真如也。
評曰。將一事解一相者。終教應是事真如那。以記三所謂三乘終教一相真如故。清涼曰。根本智觀理一相。肇公曰。一相者即空相也。事真如否。下文曰。一相一寂一味理等。即未嘗云事。思之。
記曰。尚須分宗者。文中雖但云三一差別。意兼小乘。明有三宗。一小乘宗。二三乘宗。三一乘宗。
評曰。前云然此一乘三乘差別。此云。其別教一乘所明行位因果等相。與彼三乘教施設分齊全別。不同中問。又云開示一乘三乘文義差別。又云。一乘三乘差別顯耳。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：
問：他們所詮釋的，是爲了融入圓成，從而彰顯其無礙。現在說，『與之前的諸教三乘相同』，也是這樣嗎？還有，《十章》以及清涼的《總相會通義理分齊行愿義記》等文章都說『同教』，都是因為『與之前的諸教相同』而得名的嗎？《章》文中說：『這是就同教一乘來說，爲了說明不同之處。』而抄家卻說：『與之前的諸教三乘相同，所以叫做同。』這難道恰當嗎？
答：解釋：『又彼下二別教至又彼等者。至相同在。』一乘則是圓明具德之處，三乘則是一相孤門。所以知道二宗不同。現在就此辨析。
評論：『具德』前一章，是爲了辨析現在的文章。又引用『圓明具德』，來說明二宗不同，這和折柴有什麼區別？每一個德中，都具有無量德相，以及十玄的意義嗎？只會增加繁瑣的文字，不理解《章》的旨意。不是這樣的，『具德』的說法，和焚燒柴火，多車中揀選一車，無盡佛法，一成一切成，有什麼關係呢？
答：解釋：『一相一寂』，就是一事一理，所謂三乘終教，一相真如啊。
評論：將一事解釋為一相，那麼終教應該是事真如嗎？因為《記》中說『所謂三乘終教一相真如』。清涼說：『根本智觀理一相。』肇公說：『一相者即空相也。』是事真如嗎？下文說：『一相一寂一味理等』，即未曾說是事，思考一下。
答：解釋：尚且需要分宗，文中雖然只說三一差別，意思是兼顧小乘，說明有三宗：一、小乘宗，二、三乘宗，三、一乘宗。
評論：前面說『然而這一乘三乘差別』，這裡說『其別教一乘所明行位因果等相，與彼三乘教施設分齊全別』，不同中問。又說『開示一乘三乘文義差別』，又說『一乘三乘差別顯耳』。
【English Translation】 English version:
Question: Is what they explain meant to integrate into the perfect completion, thereby demonstrating its unobstructedness? Now, is it also the case that 'the same as the previous teachings of the Three Vehicles'? Furthermore, do the 'Ten Chapters' and Qingliang's 'Comprehensive Understanding of the Meaning and Divisions of Principles and Practices' and other texts all use 'same teaching' because they are named 'the same as the previous teachings'? The 'Chapter' text says: 'This is in terms of the same teaching of the One Vehicle, in order to explain the differences.' However, the commentator says: 'The same as the previous teachings of the Three Vehicles, therefore it is called the same.' Is this appropriate?
Answer: Explanation: 'Also, the following two Separate Teachings to also those, etc., to the same exist.' The One Vehicle is the place of perfect enlightenment and complete virtue, while the Three Vehicles are the solitary gate of one aspect. Therefore, we know that the two schools are different. Now, we analyze this.
Commentary: The previous chapter on 'Complete Virtue' is to analyze the current text. Furthermore, quoting 'Perfect Enlightenment and Complete Virtue' to explain the difference between the two schools, what difference is there from breaking firewood? In each virtue, are there countless aspects of virtue and the meaning of the Ten Profound Principles? It only increases redundant text and does not understand the meaning of the 'Chapter'. It is not like this. What relationship does the statement of 'Complete Virtue' have with burning firewood, choosing one cart from many carts, endless Buddha-dharma, one accomplishment being all accomplishments?
Answer: Explanation: 'One aspect, one stillness' is one thing, one principle, the so-called final teaching of the Three Vehicles, the one aspect of True Thusness.
Commentary: Interpreting one thing as one aspect, then should the final teaching be the True Thusness of phenomena? Because the 'Record' says 'the so-called final teaching of the Three Vehicles, the one aspect of True Thusness'. Qingliang says: 'Fundamental wisdom contemplates the one aspect of principle.' Zhao Gong says: 'One aspect is the aspect of emptiness.' Is it the True Thusness of phenomena? The following text says: 'One aspect, one stillness, one taste, principle, etc.', that is, it never says it is phenomena. Think about it.
Answer: Explanation: It is still necessary to divide the schools. Although the text only mentions the difference between three and one, it implies the Small Vehicle, indicating that there are three schools: 1. The Small Vehicle School, 2. The Three Vehicle School, 3. The One Vehicle School.
Commentary: Earlier it said 'However, the difference between this One Vehicle and Three Vehicles', here it says 'The aspects of practice, stages, causes, and effects explained by the Separate Teaching of the One Vehicle are completely different from the establishment and division of the Three Vehicle teachings', different in the middle question. It also says 'Revealing the difference in the meaning of the texts of the One Vehicle and Three Vehicles', and also says 'The difference between the One Vehicle and Three Vehicles is clearly shown.'
何嘗約三宗料揀。不然。大疏玄談。全揀全收。意兼小乘。分三宗差別不。且三宗差別。下同教中。廣引經論。詳辨義理。何特於此。紊繁章旨。
記曰。然此三宗寄於五教。則有二說。乃至今目前義至文更釋。
評曰。文意既非三宗。從而又說二種權實。因妄至妄也。
記曰。若但明分相。則唯彰權實不因。義非絕待。豈知一外無三。獨一圓極。今備該諸權。統攝一切。方盡圓融無礙之大宗也。
評曰。原其揀收。乃一乘家實德。故云不一是上分相門。不異是此該攝門。焚薪云。究竟正乘。坐斷法界。舊曰圓融無是普法。斯則隨舉一門。理皆圓足。記云唯彰義非。今該方盡。皆斧鑿痕。
記云。浮石乃至昔說三乘。泛總為別。今言即一攬別成總。乃成普法也。
評曰。昔說三乘。今日一乘。三時五時漸教也。圓釋別教該攝門可乎。匪唯暗于章門連文。類之意皆失。
記曰。初二三存故。得有所依。后二三即是一。無可存壞。汝等所行。是菩薩道。故得入一乘也。
評曰。后二三即是一者。初二應不即一邪。初二亦即一者。何獨云后二三即是一。又云汝等所行是菩薩道故得入一乘者。且別教之下。彼三乘法。宛若太虛。所謂義言也。今以法華釋成可乎。又無不壞無
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 為什麼一定要按照三宗（San Zong，指法相宗、三論宗、華嚴宗）來選擇和判斷呢？不然的話，大疏（Da Shu，指《華嚴經疏》）所闡述的玄妙理論，應該是全部選擇和接受，而不是有所揀擇。如果兼顧小乘（Xiao Cheng，指小乘佛教），難道要將三宗的差別分開嗎？而且三宗的差別，在下同教（Xia Tong Jiao，指佛教的教義分類）中，已經廣泛引用經論，詳細辨析義理了，為什麼還要特別在這裡進行區分，擾亂繁瑣的章節主旨呢？ 《記》（Ji，指對經文的註解）中說：然而這三宗寄託於五教（Wu Jiao，指佛教的五種教義分類），則有兩種說法。乃至於現在，目前的義理，甚至要通過文字來進一步解釋。 評語說：既然文中的意思並非指三宗，又說什麼兩種權實（Quan Shi，指權教和實教），這是因為妄念而導致的妄念啊。 《記》中說：如果僅僅是闡明各自的分相，那麼就只能彰顯權實，而不是因為義理而存在，義理並非是絕對的。難道不知道一之外沒有三，只有唯一圓滿的境界嗎？現在全部包含各種權教，統攝一切，才能完全體現圓融無礙的大宗。 評語說：探究其選擇和接受的根本，乃是一乘（Yi Cheng，指大乘佛教）的真實功德，所以說『不一』是上分相門（Shang Fen Xiang Men，指區分差別的法門），『不異』是此該攝門（Gai She Men，指包含一切的法門）。《焚薪》（Fen Xin，佛教著作名）中說：『究竟正乘，坐斷法界。』舊說圓融無礙是普法（Pu Fa，指普遍的佛法）。因此，隨便舉出一個法門，其道理都是圓滿充足的。《記》中說『唯彰義非，今該方盡』，這都是斧鑿的痕跡。 《記》中說：浮石（Fu Shi，人名）乃至過去所說的三乘，泛泛地總括為差別。現在說『即一攬別成總』，乃是成就普法。 評語說：過去說三乘，現在說一乘，這是三時五時（San Shi Wu Shi，指佛教教義發展的不同階段）的漸教（Jian Jiao，指漸進的教義）。用圓釋（Yuan Shi，指圓滿的解釋）來解釋別教（Bie Jiao，指區別的教義）的該攝門可以嗎？這不僅是對章節和文句的理解不清，而且連文句的意義都喪失了。 《記》中說：最初的二三（指二乘和三乘）存在，所以可以有所依靠。後來的二三即是一，沒有什麼可以存在或壞滅。你們所行的是菩薩道（Pu Sa Dao，指菩薩的修行道路），所以可以進入一乘。 評語說：後來的二三即是一，那麼最初的二三難道不即是一嗎？如果最初的二三也即是一，為什麼只說後來的二三即是一呢？又說『你們所行的是菩薩道，所以可以進入一乘』，而且在別教之下，那三乘的法，宛如太虛，這就是所謂的義言啊。現在用法華（Fa Hua，指《法華經》）來解釋和成就，可以嗎？又沒有不壞滅的。
【English Translation】 English version: Why must we select and judge according to the Three Schools (San Zong, referring to the Faxiang School, the Sanlun School, and the Huayan School)? Otherwise, the profound theories expounded in the Da Shu (Da Shu, referring to the 'Huayan Sutra Commentary') should be selected and accepted in their entirety, rather than being selectively chosen. If we consider the Hinayana (Xiao Cheng, referring to Theravada Buddhism), should we separate the differences of the Three Schools? Moreover, the differences of the Three Schools have already been widely cited in scriptures and treatises in the Xia Tong Jiao (Xia Tong Jiao, referring to the classification of Buddhist doctrines), with detailed analyses of the meanings. Why should we specifically differentiate them here, disrupting the complex main points of the chapters? The 'Record' (Ji, referring to annotations on scriptures) says: However, these Three Schools are based on the Five Teachings (Wu Jiao, referring to the five classifications of Buddhist doctrines), and there are two interpretations. Even now, the current meaning must be further explained through the text. The commentary says: Since the meaning of the text does not refer to the Three Schools, why speak of two kinds of expedient and real (Quan Shi, referring to expedient teachings and real teachings)? This is delusion leading to delusion. The 'Record' says: If we only clarify their respective characteristics, then we can only highlight the expedient and the real, not because of the meaning. The meaning is not absolute. Do we not know that there is no three outside of one, only the unique and perfect realm? Now, fully encompassing all expedient teachings and unifying everything, we can fully embody the great principle of perfect harmony and non-obstruction. The commentary says: Investigating the root of its selection and acceptance is the real merit of the One Vehicle (Yi Cheng, referring to Mahayana Buddhism), so it is said that 'not one' is the Shang Fen Xiang Men (Shang Fen Xiang Men, referring to the Dharma gate of distinguishing differences), and 'not different' is the Gai She Men (Gai She Men, referring to the Dharma gate of encompassing everything). The 'Burning Fuel' (Fen Xin, the name of a Buddhist text) says: 'Ultimately, the correct vehicle, sitting firmly in the Dharma realm.' The old saying is that perfect harmony and non-obstruction is the universal Dharma (Pu Fa, referring to the universal Buddha Dharma). Therefore, whatever Dharma gate is mentioned, its principles are complete and sufficient. The 'Record' says 'only highlights the meaning, now encompasses completely,' these are all traces of artificiality. The 'Record' says: Fushi (Fu Shi, a person's name) and even the Three Vehicles spoken of in the past, vaguely generalize into differences. Now it is said that 'immediately one encompasses the differences to become the whole,' which is to achieve the universal Dharma. The commentary says: In the past, it was said to be the Three Vehicles, now it is said to be the One Vehicle, this is the gradual teaching (Jian Jiao, referring to gradual teachings) of the three times and five times (San Shi Wu Shi, referring to different stages of the development of Buddhist doctrines). Is it permissible to use the perfect explanation (Yuan Shi, referring to perfect explanation) to explain the encompassing gate of the distinct teaching (Bie Jiao, referring to distinct teachings)? This is not only a lack of understanding of the chapters and sentences, but also a loss of the meaning of the sentences. The 'Record' says: The initial two or three (referring to the Two Vehicles and Three Vehicles) exist, so there is something to rely on. The later two or three are one, there is nothing to exist or perish. What you are practicing is the Bodhisattva path (Pu Sa Dao, referring to the path of Bodhisattvas), so you can enter the One Vehicle. The commentary says: The later two or three are one, then are the initial two not one? If the initial two are also one, why only say that the later two or three are one? It is also said that 'what you are practicing is the Bodhisattva path, so you can enter the One Vehicle,' and under the distinct teaching, the Dharma of the Three Vehicles is like the void, this is the so-called meaning. Is it permissible to use the Lotus Sutra (Fa Hua, referring to the 'Lotus Sutra') to explain and achieve this? Also, there is nothing that does not perish.
可存。是取昔以否。夫該攝大旨者。可堂曰。縱收諸教。一一同圓。故唯有一乘。更無餘也。圭山曰。二地中廣明十惡十善。即該人天乘也。四諦品及五地十重四諦。即該聲聞乘也。六地十重十二因緣。即該緣覺乘也。
部般若不出三天偈文。涅槃法華出現品中一兩門記盡。清涼曰。既不厭舍。曾何乘之。一成一切成。無一眾生不具佛智。賢首曰。如經中以普賢眼見一切眾生。皆已究竟。故云唯有一乘。更無餘也。
記曰。何以不作問。及結語邪。答。一乘隱顯者。對別機小智說也。
評曰。一乘隱顯對別機小智者。三乘存壞。對普機大智說否。若對大智。何曰三乘。若亦別機。何獨隱顯。
記曰。是則下三結指二。初結成一異二門相即也。
評曰。且章云。是則不壞不一。而明不異者。蓋壞相之作。非不思議故也。若將下。指配照此不壞不一。乃分相門。而明否異。乃該攝門。何嘗明相即之義耶。之章云不一不異。而抄家卻以一異釋成。相反若是。非唯壞其不一。抑亦壞其不異。不知其可也。
記曰。若爾。何故清涼但言同頓同實。
評曰。揀權通說。諸祖同途。特諸清涼。故生疣贅。
記曰。合後三教。為一性宗。則后三合為一乘。至義分齊開同別處。將彼二
【現代漢語翻譯】 可存（Ke Cun，人名）。是取昔以否？夫該攝大旨者，可堂（Ke Tang，人名）曰：『縱收諸教，一一同圓，故唯有一乘（Ekayana，唯一佛乘），更無餘也。』圭山（Gui Shan，地名）曰：『二地中廣明十惡十善，即該人天乘（乘，vehicle，此處指教法）也。四諦品及五地十重四諦，即該聲聞乘（Śrāvakayāna，聲聞乘）也。六地十重十二因緣，即該緣覺乘（Pratyekabuddhayāna，緣覺乘）也。』 部般若不出三天偈文，涅槃法華出現品中一兩門記盡。清涼（Qing Liang，人名）曰：『既不厭舍，曾何乘之？一成一切成，無一眾生不具佛智。』賢首（Xian Shou，人名）曰：『如經中以普賢（Samantabhadra，菩薩名）眼見一切眾生，皆已究竟，故云唯有一乘，更無餘也。』 記曰：『何以不作問，及結語邪？』答：『一乘隱顯者，對別機小智說也。』 評曰：『一乘隱顯對別機小智者，三乘存壞，對普機大智說否？若對大智，何曰三乘？若亦別機，何獨隱顯？』 記曰：『是則下三結指二，初結成一異二門相即也。』 評曰：『且章云：是則不壞不一，而明不異者，蓋壞相之作，非不思議故也。若將下，指配照此不壞不一，乃分相門，而明否異，乃該攝門，何嘗明相即之義耶？之章云不一不異，而抄家卻以一異釋成，相反若是，非唯壞其不一，抑亦壞其不異，不知其可也。』 記曰：『若爾，何故清涼但言同頓同實？』 評曰：『揀權通說，諸祖同途，特諸清涼，故生疣贅。』 記曰：『合後三教，為一性宗，則后三合為一乘，至義分齊開同別處，將彼二』
【English Translation】 English version: Ke Cun (name of a person). Is it taking the past as it is? As for those who encompass the great principles, Ke Tang (name of a person) said: 'Even if all teachings are gathered, each one is perfectly complete, therefore there is only one Ekayana (唯一佛乘, the One Vehicle), and nothing else.' Gui Shan (name of a place) said: 'In the second stage, the extensive explanation of the ten evils and ten good deeds encompasses the human and celestial vehicle (乘, vehicle, here referring to teachings). The chapter on the Four Noble Truths and the Four Noble Truths in the five stages and ten levels encompass the Śrāvakayāna (聲聞乘, Hearer Vehicle). The twelve links of dependent origination in the sixth stage and ten levels encompass the Pratyekabuddhayāna (緣覺乘, Solitary Realizer Vehicle).' The verses of the Prajñā section do not go beyond the three days, and the one or two aspects in the chapter on the appearance of Nirvana and Lotus Sutra are completely recorded. Qing Liang (name of a person) said: 'Since one is not tired of abandoning, what vehicle is there? One accomplishment is all accomplishments, and no sentient being lacks the wisdom of the Buddha.' Xian Shou (name of a person) said: 'As in the sutra, with the eyes of Samantabhadra (普賢, name of a Bodhisattva), all sentient beings are seen to have already reached the ultimate, therefore it is said that there is only one vehicle, and nothing else.' The commentary says: 'Why is there no question or concluding remark?' The answer is: 'The hidden and manifest aspects of the One Vehicle are spoken to those of separate capacities and small wisdom.' The critique says: 'The hidden and manifest aspects of the One Vehicle are for those of separate capacities and small wisdom. Is the existence or destruction of the Three Vehicles spoken to those of universal capacities and great wisdom? If it is for great wisdom, why are they called the Three Vehicles? If it is also for separate capacities, why only hidden and manifest?' The commentary says: 'Therefore, the following three conclude by pointing to two, initially concluding the mutual identity of the two doors of one and different.' The critique says: 'Moreover, the chapter says: 'Therefore, it is neither destroyed nor one,' and explains that it is not different, because the creation of the destroyed aspect is inconceivable. If the following is used to match and illuminate this 'neither destroyed nor one,' it is dividing the aspect door, and explaining that the difference is the encompassing door. How does it explain the meaning of mutual identity? The chapter says 'neither one nor different,' but the commentator explains it as one and different, which is the opposite. It not only destroys its 'not one,' but also destroys its 'not different.' I don't know how it can be so.' The commentary says: 'If so, why does Qing Liang only speak of being the same in suddenness and the same in reality?' The critique says: 'Selecting the provisional and universally speaking, the ancestors are on the same path, especially Qing Liang, hence creating superfluous growths.' The commentary says: 'Combining the latter three teachings into one nature school, then the latter three combine into one vehicle, to the point where the meaning and boundaries open up the same and different places, taking those two'
教為同教。彼一為別教。
評曰。后三合為一乘。至義分齊開同別者。且義分齊中。亦如貞元合後三。開同別否。
記曰。是故且同頓實至不地抄云。若同三乘。亦收前四。則當始小。是故清涼亦同諸祖。總會諸權。以入一實也。
評曰。地抄若同三乘。亦收前四。別教邪。同教邪。若同教者。何諸祖云。若下同諸乘道十無礙一部太宗。又云。下同諸乘下約融通說。若別教者。何以法真大師。亦引成同教。
記曰。分諸乘者。明統列方便。總入正乘。融本末者。顯一理遍通。權實無礙。
評曰。此云分諸乘。乃統列方便。下曰。如是立中同教之內。亦列別教一乘。然此列方便。或是彼別教應非彼列別教。或是此列方便。應非記之不審。此居一焉。又融本末時。引理遍通。而棄義門異者。融本末中。應壞權實邪。今釋曰。分諸乘者。顯法不同也。如經露地所授。並臨門三車等。融本末者。說一切乘無差別也。如會三歸一等。
記云。初標數六重者。顯全收也。
評曰。顯全收者。為與前語。所以現全收同邪。為與三寶童。或亦通收同邪。若與三寶章同者。何以下亦引證融本末邪。若與前科同者。該攝分乘二義同乎。章家分諸乘。記家顯全收。歒體相違也。
記曰。皆
【現代漢語翻譯】 教義分為同教和別教。其中一種是別教。
評論說：后三種教義合為一乘（Ekayana，唯一交通工具/道路）。至於在義理的區分上，是開顯同教還是別教呢？那麼在義理的區分中，是否像貞元時期那樣，合併后三種教義，然後開顯同教和別教呢？
解釋說：因此，且以同於頓教和實教為例。《至不地抄》中說：『如果與三乘（Triyana，三種交通工具/道路）相同，也包括前四種教義。』那麼應當從始教和小教開始。因此，清涼也與諸位祖師相同，總括所有的權教，以進入一實之境。
評論說：《地抄》中說：『如果與三乘相同，也包括前四種教義。』這是別教呢？還是同教呢？如果是同教，為什麼諸位祖師說：『下同諸乘道十無礙一部太宗。』又說：『下同諸乘』是就融通的角度來說的。如果是別教，為什麼法真大師也引用它來成就同教呢？
解釋說：區分諸乘，是爲了表明統攝和排列方便法門；總歸於正乘，是爲了彰顯一理遍通，權教和實教之間沒有障礙。
評論說：這裡說『區分諸乘』，是爲了統攝和排列方便法門。下面說：『像這樣，在同教之內，也排列了別教的一乘。』然而，這種排列方便法門，或許是彼別教的，不應是彼排列別教；或許是此排列方便法門，不應是解釋的不審。這居於哪一種呢？又在融通本末時，引用理遍通，而捨棄義門差異，在融通本末中，難道應該破壞權教和實教嗎？現在解釋說：『區分諸乘』，是爲了彰顯法門的不同。例如經中所說的露地所授，以及臨門三車等。『融通本末』，是爲了說明一切乘沒有差別。例如會三歸一等。
解釋說：最初標出六重，是爲了顯示完全收攝。
評論說：顯示完全收攝，是爲了與前面的話語相同，所以現在完全收攝同教嗎？是爲了與三寶章相同，或者也通收同教嗎？如果與三寶章相同，為什麼下面也引用來證明融通本末呢？如果與前面的科判相同，那麼該攝分乘二義相同嗎？章家的區分諸乘，與記家的顯示完全收攝，二者體相違背啊。
解釋說：都是...
【English Translation】 Teachings are divided into Common Teaching (Tongjiao) and Distinct Teaching (Biejiao). One of them is Distinct Teaching.
Commentary: The latter three teachings are combined into the One Vehicle (Ekayana). As for distinguishing between Common and Distinct based on the difference in meaning, is it to reveal Common Teaching or Distinct Teaching? Then, in the distinction of meaning, is it like in the Zhenyuan period, where the latter three teachings are merged, and then Common and Distinct Teachings are revealed?
Note: Therefore, let's take being the same as the Sudden Teaching (Dunjiao) and Real Teaching (Shijiao) as an example. The 'Zhibudi Chao' says: 'If it is the same as the Three Vehicles (Triyana), it also includes the previous four teachings.' Then it should start from the Initial Teaching (Shijiao) and Small Teaching (Xiaojiao). Therefore, Qingliang is also the same as all the Patriarchs, encompassing all the Provisional Teachings (Quan Jiao) to enter the realm of One Reality.
Commentary: The 'Di Chao' says: 'If it is the same as the Three Vehicles, it also includes the previous four teachings.' Is this Distinct Teaching or Common Teaching? If it is Common Teaching, why do the Patriarchs say: 'Below is the same as the Three Vehicles, the unobstructed part of the Daoshi Wuwai Yibu Taizong.' And also say: 'Below is the same as the Three Vehicles' is spoken from the perspective of harmonization. If it is Distinct Teaching, why does Dharma Master Fazhen also cite it to accomplish Common Teaching?
Note: Distinguishing the Vehicles is to show the encompassing and arranging of expedient means; totally entering the Correct Vehicle is to manifest that one principle pervades, and there is no obstruction between Provisional and Real Teachings.
Commentary: Here it says 'Distinguishing the Vehicles' is to encompass and arrange expedient means. Below it says: 'Like this, within the Common Teaching, the One Vehicle of Distinct Teaching is also arranged.' However, this arrangement of expedient means, perhaps it belongs to that Distinct Teaching, it should not be that arrangement of Distinct Teaching; perhaps it is this arrangement of expedient means, it should not be that the explanation is unclear. Which one does this reside in? Also, when harmonizing the root and branches, citing the principle of pervasiveness, and abandoning the differences in the meaning gates, in harmonizing the root and branches, should the Provisional and Real Teachings be destroyed? Now the explanation says: 'Distinguishing the Vehicles' is to manifest the differences in the teachings. For example, the teachings given in the open ground mentioned in the sutras, and the three carts at the gate, etc. 'Harmonizing the root and branches' is to explain that all vehicles are without difference. For example, the convergence of the three refuges into one, etc.
Note: Initially marking out six levels is to show complete inclusion.
Commentary: Showing complete inclusion, is it to be the same as the previous words, so now completely including the Common Teaching? Is it to be the same as the Three Jewels chapter, or also universally including the Common Teaching? If it is the same as the Three Jewels chapter, why is it also cited below to prove the harmonization of root and branches? If it is the same as the previous classification, then are the two meanings of encompassing and dividing the vehicles the same? The Zhang family's distinguishing of the vehicles, and the Ji family's showing of complete inclusion, are contradictory in their essence.
Note: All are...
名一乘者。即圓教攝四。皆名圓也。
評曰。圓教攝四皆名圓者。且此中一乘。為泯權皈實一乘邪。為望正乘而為方便。受一乘名邪。若望正乘而為方便受一乘名者。何用清涼全收義耶。若泯權歸實一乘者。此一乘。何反不及所流辨邪。以下記文。獨判攝方便。為非即圓通自在義故。
記曰。故經下二引經。是菩薩道。即一乘也。
評曰。是菩薩道即一乘者。正乘邪。方便乘邪。若正乘者。何以章云是同非別。若方便乘者。何以前文引為三即一。現全收句。
記曰。方便乘者。分別有十。乃至若橫依方便。進趣法門。即有二義。通說一乘。一由依究竟一乘教成。何以故。從一乘流故。又為一乘教所目故。二與彼究竟圓乘為方便故。故說一乘非即圓通自在義也。一切三乘等。併名一乘。若謂是所流為取目無異事等。即圓通法也。若言說方便是方便。則三乘等非即圓通義也。
評曰。若謂橫依方便所流所目三乘等即圓通法者。為事圓通邪。理事圓通邪。若同教理事圓通者。何唯所流所目而特揀攝方便邪。且攝方便非理事圓通乎。若別教事事圓通者。何以前記將作同教因法邪。據此即有二種同教也。又若所流所目乃圓通法。攝方便為非圓通法者。其法相交參。就勝門八義意趣教事深細十義方
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 所謂『一乘』（Ekayana，唯一乘載之意），即圓教（perfect teaching）統攝四教（four teachings），皆可稱為『圓』。
評述：圓教統攝四教皆可稱為『圓』，那麼，這裡所說的一乘，是泯除權巧歸於真實的一乘呢？還是相對於正乘（true vehicle）而言，作為方便而接受一乘之名呢？如果是相對於正乘而言，作為方便而接受一乘之名，為何清涼（Qingliang，指華嚴宗清涼澄觀大師）要全部收攝其義呢？如果是泯除權巧歸於真實的一乘，那麼，這一乘，為何反而不如其所流出的方便呢？因為下面的記錄文字，單獨判別統攝方便，認為其並非即是圓融通達自在之義。
記錄：所以經文下面兩次引用經典，所說的是菩薩道（Bodhisattva path），即是一乘。
評述：說是菩薩道即是一乘，是正乘呢？還是方便乘呢？如果是正乘，為何章節中說的是相同而非差別？如果是方便乘，為何前面的文字引用時，說是三即一，現在卻全部收攝其義？
記錄：方便乘，分別有十種，乃至如果橫向依靠方便，進趣佛法之門，即有兩種含義：通俗地說一乘，一是由於依靠究竟一乘之教而成，為什麼呢？因為是從一乘流出。又是被一乘之教所標示。二是與那究竟圓乘作為方便。所以說一乘並非即是圓融通達自在之義。一切三乘（three vehicles）等，都可稱為一乘。如果說是所流出的，作為標示，沒有差異等，即是圓通之法。如果說言說方便是方便，那麼三乘等並非即是圓通之義。
評述：如果說橫向依靠方便所流出的、所標示的三乘等即是圓通之法，是事圓通（phenomenal perfection）呢？還是理事圓通（perfection in principle and phenomena）呢？如果同於教理的事理圓通，為何唯獨所流出的、所標示的，而特別揀擇統攝方便呢？難道統攝方便不是事理圓通嗎？如果是別教（distinct teaching）的事事圓通（perfection in every phenomenon），為何之前的記錄將其作為同教（common teaching）的因法呢？根據此說，即有兩種同教了。又如果所流出的、所標示的乃是圓通之法，統攝方便為非圓通之法，那麼其法相交錯參雜，就殊勝之門八義意趣教事深細十義方面而言，又該如何呢？
【English Translation】 English version: The term 'Ekayana' (One Vehicle), refers to the perfect teaching (yuanjiao) encompassing the four teachings (sijiao), all of which can be called 'perfect' (yuan).
Commentary: If the perfect teaching encompasses the four teachings, all of which can be called 'perfect,' then is this Ekayana a single vehicle that eliminates expedient means and returns to reality, or is it named Ekayana as an expedient relative to the true vehicle (zhengcheng)? If it is named Ekayana as an expedient relative to the true vehicle, why would Qingliang (referring to the Huayan School master Qingliang Chengguan) fully incorporate its meaning? If it is a single vehicle that eliminates expedient means and returns to reality, then why is this Ekayana inferior to the expedient means that flow from it? Because the following recorded text separately judges the inclusion of expedient means, considering it not to be the meaning of perfect, unobstructed, and self-existent.
Record: Therefore, the two citations of scriptures below refer to the Bodhisattva path, which is the Ekayana.
Commentary: To say that the Bodhisattva path is the Ekayana, is it the true vehicle or the expedient vehicle? If it is the true vehicle, why does the chapter say it is the same and not different? If it is the expedient vehicle, why did the previous text cite it as 'three are one,' but now fully incorporates its meaning?
Record: The expedient vehicle is divided into ten types, and even if one horizontally relies on expedient means to advance towards the Dharma gate, there are two meanings: Generally speaking, Ekayana is established by relying on the ultimate Ekayana teaching. Why? Because it flows from the Ekayana. It is also designated by the Ekayana teaching. Secondly, it serves as an expedient for that ultimate perfect vehicle. Therefore, it is said that Ekayana is not the meaning of perfect, unobstructed, and self-existent. All three vehicles, etc., can be called Ekayana. If it is said that what flows out is used as a designation, without difference, etc., then it is the Dharma of perfect penetration. If it is said that verbal expedient means are expedient, then the three vehicles, etc., are not the meaning of perfect penetration.
Commentary: If it is said that the three vehicles, etc., that flow from and are designated by horizontally relying on expedient means are the Dharma of perfect penetration, is it phenomenal perfection (shi yuantong) or perfection in principle and phenomena (li-shi yuantong)? If it is the same as the perfection in principle and phenomena of the teaching, why only select what flows out and is designated, and specifically exclude the inclusion of expedient means? Is the inclusion of expedient means not perfection in principle and phenomena? If it is the perfection in every phenomenon (shi-shi yuantong) of the distinct teaching (biejiao), why did the previous record treat it as the causal Dharma of the common teaching (tongjiao)? According to this, there are two types of common teaching. Furthermore, if what flows out and is designated is the Dharma of perfect penetration, and the inclusion of expedient means is not the Dharma of perfect penetration, then how should the intermingling of their Dharma characteristics be understood in terms of the eight meanings of the superior gate, the profound and subtle ten meanings of the teaching, events, etc.?
便。此五義圓通同教邪。非即圓通同教也。又斷惑分齊文曰。若攝方便。前諸教所明。併入此中。以是此方便故。及所流所目故。且彼中同教。是非即圓通同教邪。又若攝方便與所流所目圓通不圓通異者。且攝方便中二乘迴心。如舍利弗等六千人。于文殊邊。迴心即得十大法門。及十眼十耳等境界。其所流所目圓通同教之機。得何法門。何等境界。若與攝方便所得同者。何圓通不圓通之異。若與方便所得不同者。離十大法門十眼十耳等境界外。更有何法。又賢首何于明佛種性行位分齊中。獨取不即圓通。而棄圓通乎。清涼約圓融不融。分成二種。融即別教普法。不融乃同教一乘。今此記文。立立圓通不圓通同教。于理可乎。又若約教義攝益中。為彼所目作別教釋圓通法者。橫依方便。約唯一圓教否。三乘俱非教義。約正乘方便乘。同別角玄否。則亦違下章就同教說。又亦自語楚夏。以前文就同教說故。然法真大師。引至相會三歸一。故知同也。又引今以理求通之。與同無別趣也。曰。今從至相等正義既出。遂今華嚴大宗。同別二教。猶天之日月。易之乾坤紀綱振舉。主伴齊彰。學者司南。得門而入。使未淵源之遊說。孰不負荊歸已。築底之玄談。理應截舌。病根連㧞。教眼永安。立二種同。深不可也。
記曰。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：問：那麼，這五種方便（指攝方便、所流、所目、圓通、同教）是相同的圓通同教嗎？答：不是相同的圓通同教。又，關於斷惑的分齊，文中說：『如果攝取方便，之前的各種教義所闡明的，都併入其中，因為這是方便的緣故，以及所流和所目的緣故。』那麼，其中的同教，是非即圓通同教嗎？又，如果攝方便與所流所目的圓通，在圓通與不圓通上有所不同，那麼，在攝方便中，二乘（聲聞乘和緣覺乘）迴心，比如舍利弗等六千人，在文殊菩薩那裡迴心，立即得到十大法門，以及十眼十耳等境界。那麼，所流所目的圓通同教的根機，得到什麼法門？什麼境界？如果與攝方便所得相同，那麼，圓通與不圓通的差異在哪裡？如果與方便所得不同，那麼，除了十大法門、十眼十耳等境界外，還有什麼法？又，賢首國師為什麼在闡明佛種性行位分齊時，只取不即圓通，而捨棄圓通呢？清涼國師根據圓融與不圓融，分成兩種：圓融即別教的普法，不圓融乃同教的一乘。現在這篇記文，立圓通與不圓通的同教，在道理上可以嗎？又，如果從教義攝益的角度，為彼所目作別教解釋圓通法，橫向依據方便，是唯一圓教嗎？三乘（聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）都不是教義，是依據正乘方便乘，同別角玄嗎？那麼也違反了下章就同教說的內容，也自相矛盾。因為前文就同教說的緣故。然而，法真大師引用至相會三歸一，所以知道是相同的。又引用『現在以理求通』，與同沒有別的旨趣。說：『現在從至相等正義既出，於是華嚴大宗，同教和別教，猶如天空的日月，易經的乾坤，紀綱振舉，主伴齊彰，學者有了指南，得門而入，使那些沒有淵源的遊說，誰不負荊請罪？那些築底的玄談，理應截舌。病根連根拔起，教眼永遠安寧。』立兩種同，實在不可取。 記文說：
【English Translation】 English version: Question: Then, are these five expedients (referring to 'gathering expedient', 'that which flows', 'that which is aimed at', 'perfect penetration', and 'common teaching') the same perfect penetration common teaching? Answer: They are not the same perfect penetration common teaching. Furthermore, regarding the divisions of cutting off delusion, the text says: 'If gathering expedient is included, what was explained by the previous teachings is all incorporated into this, because this is an expedient, and because of that which flows and that which is aimed at.' Then, is the common teaching within that the non-identical perfect penetration common teaching? Also, if 'gathering expedient' and the 'perfect penetration' of 'that which flows' and 'that which is aimed at' differ in terms of perfect penetration and non-perfect penetration, then, within 'gathering expedient', the turning of minds of the two vehicles (Śrāvakayāna and Pratyekabuddhayāna), such as Śāriputra and the six thousand others, upon turning their minds at Mañjuśrī's side, immediately obtain the ten great Dharma gates, as well as the realms of ten eyes and ten ears. Then, what Dharma gates and what realms do the capacities of the perfect penetration common teaching of 'that which flows' and 'that which is aimed at' obtain? If it is the same as what is obtained by 'gathering expedient', then where is the difference between perfect penetration and non-perfect penetration? If it is different from what is obtained by the expedient, then what Dharma is there besides the ten great Dharma gates, ten eyes, and ten ears? Furthermore, why did Master Xianshou, in clarifying the divisions of the Buddha-nature conduct and position, exclusively take the non-identical perfect penetration and abandon perfect penetration? Master Qingliang divided it into two types based on fusion and non-fusion: fusion is the universal Dharma of the distinct teaching, and non-fusion is the one vehicle of the common teaching. Now, this commentary establishes a common teaching of perfect penetration and non-perfect penetration. Is this reasonable? Also, if from the perspective of the teaching's benefit, one interprets the perfect penetration Dharma for 'that which is aimed at' as a distinct teaching, is it horizontally based on expedient, and is it the only perfect teaching? Are the three vehicles (Śrāvakayāna, Pratyekabuddhayāna, and Bodhisattvayāna) not the teaching's meaning, and is it based on the correct vehicle and expedient vehicle, the same or different, angled and profound? Then it also violates the content of the following chapter which discusses the common teaching, and it also contradicts itself, because the previous text discussed the common teaching. However, Master Fazhen cited 'reaching the meeting and returning to the three', so it is known to be the same. He also cited 'now seeking penetration through reason', which has no different purpose from the same. He said: 'Now, since the correct meaning of reaching equality has been issued, therefore, in the Huayan (Avataṃsaka) school, the common teaching and the distinct teaching are like the sun and moon in the sky, like Qian and Kun in the Book of Changes, the fundamental principles are upheld, the host and guests are clearly distinguished, scholars have a guide, and enter through the gate, so that those who speak without a source, who would not carry thorns and return to themselves? Those who engage in profound discussions without a foundation should have their tongues cut off. The root of the illness is pulled out completely, and the eye of the teaching is forever at peace.' Establishing two kinds of sameness is deeply unacceptable. The commentary says:
合一同三為大乘。開出愚法為小乘。迴心屬大。以此趣佛果故。
評曰。迴心屬大。皆趣佛果者。大般若曰。若不情類于聲聞乘性決定者。聞此法已。速能證得自無漏地等。深密又曰。普為發趣一切乘者。趣佛果乎。雖華嚴論分上下乘別。非此中意。
記曰。上開者。是於一大善巧法中。開作三宗也。
評曰。此引探玄。證一乘為別。前謂方便配一乘。屬同法真得。爾自語相違邪。前云但演義為文。非玉峰辨第三昧者。為此等也。
記曰。當知分相中雖但揀三乘。祖意正有三宗不同。
評曰。前文正在三宗不同者。且分相門別旨邪。三宗邪。合愚法同迴心邪。開愚法異迴心邪。下重示三宗。成顯法本末邪。成分相門邪。
記曰。法華會三歸一。正破小乘。故曰非也。
評曰。法華會三歸一者。漸之終極邪。圓之同教邪。文云。正破小乘。合愚法同迴心破邪。開愚法異迴心破邪。此中法華非小乘。與前正破小乘。其意同邪異邪。
記曰。問終教亦有二乘邪。答界內二乘。前教則無。唯此有也。昔人云。此乃說前小乘。非終教有。此說太疏。
評曰。此之問答。申斷惑前義耶。若申前義。何謂昔人此說太疏。若申后義。何謂界內二乘終教。獨有如此。誥之全無所
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 合三乘為一，即是大乘（Mahayana）。分開愚法，即是小乘（Hinayana）。迴心向大乘，是因為以此可以趨向佛果（Buddha-phala）。
評論說：『迴心向大乘，皆趨向佛果』，如《大般若經》（Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra）所說：『若非情性決定屬於聲聞乘（Śrāvakayāna）者，聞此法已，速能證得自無漏地等。』《深密解脫經》（Samdhinirmocana Sutra）又說：『普遍爲了發趣一切乘者，趨向佛果嗎？』雖然《華嚴論》（Avatamsaka Sutra）區分上下乘的差別，但並非此處的意義。
記錄說：上面所說的『開』，是在一大善巧法中，開作三宗。
評論說：此處引用探玄的說法，證明一乘（Ekayana）是別教。前面說方便配一乘，屬於同法真得。你這是自語相違嗎？前面說只是演義為文，並非玉峰辨第三昧者，就是爲了這個。
記錄說：應當知道，在分相中雖然只是揀擇三乘，祖師的用意正是有三宗不同。
評論說：前文正在說三宗不同，且分相門別旨嗎？三宗嗎？合愚法同迴心嗎？開愚法異迴心嗎？下面重新顯示三宗，成就顯法本末嗎？成分相門嗎？
記錄說：《法華經》（Lotus Sutra）會三歸一，正是爲了破斥小乘，所以說『非也』。
評論說：《法華經》會三歸一，是漸教的終極嗎？是圓教的同教嗎？經文說『正是爲了破斥小乘』，合愚法同迴心破斥嗎？開愚法異迴心破斥嗎？此處的《法華經》非小乘，與前面『正是爲了破斥小乘』，其意義相同嗎？不同嗎？
記錄說：問：終教也有二乘嗎？答：界內二乘，前教則沒有，唯有此教有。昔人說：『這乃是說前小乘，非終教有。』此說太疏漏。
評論說：此處的問答，是申述斷惑前的意義嗎？若是申述前義，為何說昔人此說太疏漏？若是申述后義，為何說界內二乘終教獨有如此，誥之全無所說？
【English Translation】 English version: Unifying the three vehicles into one is Mahayana (Great Vehicle). Separating out the teaching for the foolish is Hinayana (Small Vehicle). Turning the mind towards the Great Vehicle is because by this one can approach Buddhahood (Buddha-phala).
Commentary: 『Turning the mind towards the Great Vehicle, all approach Buddhahood,』 as the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra (Great Perfection of Wisdom Sutra) says: 『If those whose nature is not definitely inclined towards the Śrāvakayāna (Hearer Vehicle), upon hearing this Dharma, will quickly be able to attain their own non-outflow ground, etc.』 The Samdhinirmocana Sutra (Explanation of the Profound Meaning Sutra) also says: 『Universally for those who aspire to all vehicles, is it to approach Buddhahood?』 Although the Avatamsaka Sutra (Flower Garland Sutra) distinguishes the differences between the upper and lower vehicles, that is not the meaning here.
Record: The 『opening』 mentioned above is the opening into three schools within one great skillful Dharma.
Commentary: Here, it cites Tanxuan's statement to prove that the Ekayana (One Vehicle) is a separate teaching. Earlier, it said that expedient means are matched with the One Vehicle, belonging to the same Dharma and truly attained. Are you contradicting yourself? Earlier, it said that it was only interpreting the meaning as text, not like Yufeng distinguishing the third samadhi, and this is why.
Record: It should be known that although only the three vehicles are selected in the division of characteristics, the Patriarch's intention is precisely that there are three different schools.
Commentary: The previous text is precisely about the differences between the three schools, and is it a separate purpose of the division of characteristics? Is it about the three schools? Is it about combining the foolish Dharma with the turning of the mind? Is it about separating the foolish Dharma from the turning of the mind? Below, it re-shows the three schools, accomplishing the root and branch of the manifest Dharma? Is it about the division of characteristics?
Record: The Lotus Sutra unifies the three and returns to one, precisely to refute the Small Vehicle, so it says 『no.』
Commentary: The Lotus Sutra unifies the three and returns to one, is it the ultimate of the gradual teaching? Is it the common teaching of the perfect teaching? The text says 『precisely to refute the Small Vehicle,』 is it about combining the foolish Dharma with the turning of the mind to refute? Is it about separating the foolish Dharma from the turning of the mind to refute? The Lotus Sutra here is not the Small Vehicle, is its meaning the same as or different from the previous 『precisely to refute the Small Vehicle』?
Record: Question: Does the concluding teaching also have the two vehicles? Answer: The two vehicles within the boundary, the previous teaching does not have, only this teaching has. An ancient person said: 『This is speaking of the previous Small Vehicle, not that the concluding teaching has it.』 This statement is too superficial.
Commentary: Is this question and answer elaborating on the meaning before severing delusion? If it is elaborating on the previous meaning, why say that the ancient person's statement is too superficial? If it is elaborating on the later meaning, why say that the concluding teaching uniquely has the two vehicles within the boundary, and the proclamation has nothing to say about it?
守。
記曰。又問此上諸論。義當始教。何以於此終教引邪。答斷惑中有二義。乃至當知經論義實多含。此諸論等。義通三教。是故此中引成終教之義。
評曰。問中雲。何以於此終教引答。又結云。是故此中引成終教之義。此則三車。唯屬實教。不通初門。乃令始教進非三乘。退非愚法。是何乘耶。且大乘初門。一宗文籍。於此三宗。竟無所歸耳。又瑜伽聲聞抉擇雜集論等。並空有二宗經文。併爲實教大乘。則始教之下。宛若大虛也。以記云終教引故。又云。當知經論義實多含。成終教故。若謂深必該淺。並屬終教者。且章文正辨三宗差別。孰云以後攝前邪。又既云引成終教之義。記家乃謂。章文唯約斷惑中初義也。若爾。則三宗義亦不成。以始教許出。無界內二乘故。又若三車唯終頓者。何以焚薪云。若后義雖始教。而愚法二乘亦在所引中邪。又復累及所引探玄權字徒施。以云經論義實多含。歸終教故。仍使分教中一三乘教義不極成。以引成此中三車唯終頓故。遂使三宗乃成破法。非緣起好法。以缺大乘初門。攝生方便故。昔人三車唯屬初門。今判三車齊歸終頓。過猶不及也。又若謂章文唯約初義者。如何說得終頓教下有二乘耶。以初義無二聲聞故。又復細視文意。雖約初義。而不能承用初義。何者
【現代漢語翻譯】 守。
記曰：又問，以上這些論述，從義理上來說應當屬於始教（Dharmachakra of the genesis，佛陀初轉法輪時期的教法）。為什麼在這裡引用終教（Dharmachakra of the conclusion，佛陀最後時期所說的教法）的觀點呢？回答是，斷除迷惑包含兩種含義。應當知道，經論的義理實際上包含很多內容。這些論述等，義理上貫通三教（Three Vehicles，聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）。因此，在這裡引用它們來成就終教的義理。
評曰：問中說，『為什麼在這裡引用終教的觀點？』，最後總結說，『因此，在這裡引用它們來成就終教的義理』。這樣說來，三車（Three Vehicles，以三種不同的交通工具來比喻佛陀引導眾生的三種教法）就只屬於實教（True teaching，真實之教），不貫通初門（Initial teaching，初始的教法）。這使得始教既不能進入三乘，又不能退回到愚法（Ignorant teachings，低階的、不究竟的教法）。這是什麼乘呢？而且大乘（Mahayana，大乘佛教）的初門，一宗的文獻，在這三宗中，竟然沒有歸屬。此外，《瑜伽師地論》（Yogacarabhumi-sastra，瑜伽行者的修行階位）、《聲聞地論》（Sravakabhumi-sastra，聲聞乘的修行階位）、《抉擇分》（Viniscaya-samgraha，對各種問題的決斷）、《雜集論》（Abhidharma-samuccaya，阿毗達摩的概論）等，以及空宗（Emptiness school，主張一切皆空的宗派）和有宗（Existence school，主張一切存在的宗派）的經文，都屬於實教的大乘。那麼，在始教之下，就好像一片空虛。因為《記》中說引用的是終教的觀點。又說，『應當知道，經論的義理實際上包含很多內容，成就終教的義理』。如果說深奧的義理必然包含淺顯的義理，都屬於終教，那麼，章文（Commentary，對經文的註釋）正是爲了辨別三宗的差別，誰說以後面的包含前面的呢？而且既然說引用它們來成就終教的義理，記家（Commentator，註釋者）卻說，章文只是關於斷除迷惑中的初始含義。如果這樣，那麼三宗的義理也不能成立，因為始教允許超出無界內的二乘（Two Vehicles，聲聞乘和緣覺乘）的修行者存在。而且如果三車只屬於終教和頓教（Sudden teaching，頓悟之教），那麼，為什麼《焚薪》（Burning firewood，比喻去除煩惱）中說，即使後面的義理屬於始教，愚法和二乘也包含在所引用的內容中呢？而且還會牽連到所引用的《探玄記》（Tanxuanji，對《華嚴經》的註釋）中的權字（Expedient word，方便之說）徒勞無功，因為說經論的義理實際上包含很多內容，歸屬於終教。仍然使得分教（Divided teaching，將佛陀的教法分為不同的階段）中的一三乘教義不能完全成立，因為引用它們來成就這裡的三車只屬於終教和頓教。於是使得三宗成為破法（Breaking the Dharma，破壞佛法），而不是緣起好法（Good Dharma of dependent origination，因緣和合而生的好的佛法），因為缺少大乘的初門，攝生方便（Means of embracing sentient beings，接引眾生的方便法門）。過去的人認為三車只屬於初門，現在判斷三車都歸屬於終教和頓教，矯枉過正了。而且如果說章文只是關於初始含義，那麼，怎麼能說終教和頓教下有二乘呢？因為初始含義中沒有二聲聞。而且仔細觀察文意，雖然是關於初始含義，卻不能承用初始含義。為什麼呢？
【English Translation】 Shou.
Commentary says: Again, it is asked, these above discussions, in terms of meaning, should belong to the Dharmachakra of the genesis (the Buddha's teachings during the initial turning of the Dharma wheel). Why are the views of the Dharmachakra of the conclusion (the Buddha's teachings during the final period) cited here? The answer is that the eradication of delusion contains two meanings. It should be known that the meaning of the sutras and treatises actually contains a lot of content. These discussions, etc., are consistent with the Three Vehicles (Sravaka Vehicle, Pratyekabuddha Vehicle, Bodhisattva Vehicle) in meaning. Therefore, they are cited here to accomplish the meaning of the Dharmachakra of the conclusion.
Critique says: The question says, 'Why are the views of the Dharmachakra of the conclusion cited here?', and finally concludes, 'Therefore, they are cited here to accomplish the meaning of the Dharmachakra of the conclusion.' In this way, the Three Vehicles (three different vehicles used as metaphors for the Buddha's three teachings to guide sentient beings) only belong to the True teaching, and do not penetrate the Initial teaching. This makes the Dharmachakra of the genesis neither able to enter the Three Vehicles nor able to retreat to the Ignorant teachings. What vehicle is this? Moreover, the initial gate of the Mahayana (Great Vehicle), the literature of one school, has no belonging in these three schools. In addition, the Yogacarabhumi-sastra (Stages of practice for Yogacarins), Sravakabhumi-sastra (Stages of practice for Sravakas), Viniscaya-samgraha (Decisions on various issues), Abhidharma-samuccaya (Overview of Abhidharma), etc., as well as the sutras of the Emptiness school and the Existence school, all belong to the Mahayana of the True teaching. Then, under the Dharmachakra of the genesis, it is like a void. Because the Commentary says that the views of the Dharmachakra of the conclusion are cited. It also says, 'It should be known that the meaning of the sutras and treatises actually contains a lot of content, accomplishing the meaning of the Dharmachakra of the conclusion.' If it is said that profound meanings necessarily contain shallow meanings, and all belong to the Dharmachakra of the conclusion, then the Commentary is precisely to distinguish the differences between the three schools. Who says that the latter contains the former? Moreover, since it is said that they are cited to accomplish the meaning of the Dharmachakra of the conclusion, the Commentator says that the Commentary is only about the initial meaning in the eradication of delusion. If so, then the meaning of the three schools cannot be established, because the Dharmachakra of the genesis allows the existence of practitioners of the Two Vehicles (Sravaka Vehicle and Pratyekabuddha Vehicle) who exceed the realm of no-boundary. Moreover, if the Three Vehicles only belong to the Dharmachakra of the conclusion and the Sudden teaching, then why does 'Burning firewood' (a metaphor for removing afflictions) say that even if the later meaning belongs to the Dharmachakra of the genesis, the Ignorant teachings and the Two Vehicles are also included in the cited content? Moreover, it will also involve the expedient word (skillful means) in the cited Tanxuanji (Commentary on the Avatamsaka Sutra) being in vain, because it is said that the meaning of the sutras and treatises actually contains a lot of content, belonging to the Dharmachakra of the conclusion. It still makes the one Three Vehicles teaching in the Divided teaching not fully established, because they are cited to accomplish that the Three Vehicles here only belong to the Dharmachakra of the conclusion and the Sudden teaching. Thus, the three schools become breaking the Dharma, rather than the Good Dharma of dependent origination, because of the lack of the initial gate of the Mahayana, the means of embracing sentient beings. In the past, people thought that the Three Vehicles only belonged to the initial gate, but now they judge that the Three Vehicles all belong to the Dharmachakra of the conclusion and the Sudden teaching, which is overcorrection. Moreover, if it is said that the Commentary is only about the initial meaning, then how can it be said that there are Two Vehicles under the Dharmachakra of the conclusion and the Sudden teaching? Because there are no two Sravakas in the initial meaning. Moreover, looking closely at the meaning of the text, although it is about the initial meaning, it cannot inherit the initial meaning. Why?
。且始教許出。終教不許者。其終教不許。如彌勒所問經論法華經等。其始教許出。如瑜伽聲聞抉擇雜集等論。今記家盡將空有二宗經論義實多含。一發判為終教。是誰許出邪。問曰。大乘始教。為將愚法二乘教。即羊鹿邪。非羊鹿邪。若非羊鹿者。何以許彼出界可歸邪。若即羊鹿者。何以文中三車外又有界內二乘邪。又問曰。大品云。欲得聲聞乘當學般若波羅蜜等。斷惑中。初義邪。后義邪。羅漢實義在大乘中。初義邪。后義邪。普超三昧經云。唯大乘中。得有三藏。初義邪。后義邪。瑜伽聲聞抉擇雜集等論。與婆沙俱舍等不同。初義邪。后義邪。章文云。大乘必具三。初義邪。后義邪。然當知章旨雙備二義。其初義如文可見。其後義良由影在實證。在大已下。故不言也。三寶章云。謂彼愚法二乘無漏。亦非可歸。以非究竟安隱處故。如彼化城。終頓舍故。乃至如經中歸聲聞僧犯菩薩戒等。此約三乘終教說。解曰。即此初義終教不許出也。且彼云。亦非可歸。即此約大乘終教已去。並不名究竟出三界也。今此不能如實修四無量。即彼云。歸聲聞僧犯菩薩戒者。是也。彼又曰。如前愚法。亦是可歸。以諸趣寂皆究竟故。諸不定性必迴心故。此約始教說。解曰。即此初義。始教許出也。故下章云。以下同上。亦許二乘全
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：而且始教允許出離，終教不允許出離。終教不允許出離，例如《彌勒所問經論》、《法華經》等。始教允許出離，例如《瑜伽師地論》、《聲聞地》、《抉擇分》、《雜集論》等。現在著述者完全將空有二宗的經論，其中義理實際上包含很多內容，一旦判定為終教，是誰允許出離的呢？ 問：大乘始教，是將愚法二乘的教法，即羊車、鹿車嗎？不是羊車、鹿車嗎？如果不是羊車、鹿車，為什麼允許他們出離三界可以歸依呢？如果是羊車、鹿車，為什麼經文中三車之外又有界內二乘呢？ 又問：《大品般若經》說：『想要得到聲聞乘，應當學習般若波羅蜜等。』斷惑方面，是初義還是后義？阿羅漢的真實意義在大乘中，是初義還是后義？《普超三昧經》說：『只有大乘中，才有三藏。』是初義還是后義？《瑜伽師地論》、《聲聞地》、《抉擇分》、《雜集論》等論，與《婆沙論》、《俱舍論》等不同，是初義還是后義？章文說：『大乘必定具備三藏。』是初義還是后義？ 然而應當知道，章文的旨意兼備兩種含義。初義如文字可見。后義是因為影子存在於真實證悟中，所以在『大乘』之後，就不再說了。《三寶章》說：『所謂的愚法二乘的無漏，也不是可以歸依的，因為不是究竟安穩之處，如同化城，最終會被捨棄。』乃至如經中所說歸依聲聞僧會觸犯菩薩戒等，這是就三乘終教來說的。 解釋：就是這個初義，終教是不允許出離的。而且他們說：『也不是可以歸依的』，就是說從大乘終教開始，就不算究竟出離三界了。現在這些人不能如實修習四無量心，就是他們說的『歸依聲聞僧會觸犯菩薩戒』的意思。 他們又說：『如前面的愚法，也是可以歸依的，因為諸趣寂滅都是究竟的，諸不定性必定會迴心。』這是就始教來說的。 解釋：就是這個初義，始教是允許出離的。所以下面的章節說：『以下同上，也允許二乘完全…』
【English Translation】 English version: Moreover, the initial teaching (始教) allows for liberation, while the final teaching (終教) does not. The final teaching that does not allow for liberation is exemplified by texts such as the Maitreya-paripṛcchā-sūtra (彌勒所問經論, The Sutra on the Questions of Maitreya) and the Lotus Sutra (法華經). The initial teaching that allows for liberation is exemplified by treatises such as the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra (瑜伽師地論), Śrāvakabhūmi (聲聞地), Viniscaya-saṃgrahaṇī (抉擇分), and Abhidharma-samuccaya (雜集論). Now, commentators completely categorize the sutras and treatises of both the Emptiness (空) and Existence (有) schools, whose meanings actually contain much, as belonging to the final teaching. Who allows for liberation in that case? Question: Does the initial teaching of the Mahāyāna (大乘始教) regard the teachings of the ignorant two vehicles (愚法二乘), namely the sheep cart (羊車) and deer cart (鹿車), as such? Or not? If not, why is it allowed for them to leave the Three Realms (三界) and be able to take refuge? If so, why are there two vehicles within the realms (界內二乘) in the scriptures, in addition to the three vehicles (三車)? Another question: The Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra (大品般若經) says: 'If you want to attain the Śrāvakayāna (聲聞乘), you should study the Prajñāpāramitā (般若波羅蜜) etc.' Regarding the cutting off of delusions, is it the initial meaning (初義) or the later meaning (后義)? Is the true meaning of an Arhat (阿羅漢) in the Mahāyāna the initial meaning or the later meaning? The Pusa chao sanmei jing (普超三昧經) says: 'Only in the Mahāyāna are the Three Baskets (三藏) found.' Is it the initial meaning or the later meaning? Are the Yogācārabhūmi-śāstra, Śrāvakabhūmi, Viniscaya-saṃgrahaṇī, Abhidharma-samuccaya, etc., different from the Vibhāṣā (婆沙論) and Kośa (俱舍論)? Is it the initial meaning or the later meaning? The commentary says: 'The Mahāyāna must possess the Three Baskets.' Is it the initial meaning or the later meaning? However, it should be known that the meaning of the commentary encompasses both meanings. The initial meaning is visible in the text. The later meaning is because the shadow exists in the actual realization, so it is not mentioned after 'Mahāyāna'. The Sanbao zhang (三寶章) says: 'The non-outflow (無漏) of the so-called ignorant two vehicles is also not something to take refuge in, because it is not an ultimate place of peace, like a phantom city (化城), which will eventually be abandoned.' Even as the sutra says that taking refuge in the Śrāvakasaṃgha (聲聞僧) violates the Bodhisattva precepts (菩薩戒), etc., this is spoken of in terms of the final teaching of the Three Vehicles (三乘終教). Explanation: It is this initial meaning that the final teaching does not allow for liberation. Moreover, they say: 'It is also not something to take refuge in,' which means that from the final teaching of the Mahāyāna onwards, it is not considered ultimate liberation from the Three Realms. Now, these people cannot truly cultivate the Four Immeasurables (四無量心), which is what they mean by 'taking refuge in the Śrāvakasaṃgha violates the Bodhisattva precepts'. They also say: 'Like the previous ignorant Dharma, it is also something to take refuge in, because the quiescence of all destinies is ultimate, and all those of undetermined nature will surely turn their minds.' This is spoken of in terms of the initial teaching. Explanation: It is this initial meaning that the initial teaching allows for liberation. Therefore, the following chapter says: 'The following is the same as above, and it also allows the two vehicles completely...'
斷惑障分斷所知障也。彼又曰。此大乘中自有二無漏故。又亦自有三乘法故。故說通二。非攝愚法。此通始終漸教說也。解曰。即此第二義。愚法則始。亦不許通大。則終亦許出也。彼云。亦自有三乘法。即此文是故大乘必具三也。此云羅漢實義在大乘中。即彼云此大乘中自有二無漏者。是也。以彼證此。二義宛然。上兼一乘。下並愚法。三宗備矣。斯蓋法真大師。有唐親承。承三宗也。一時開悟。悟三宗也。三昧醞釀。釀三宗也。縱辨而說三宗也。則知吾教宗部雖繁。要歸不出三宗。舍三宗不足以明賢首道。不足以議賢首教。故學者不可不思。思者不可不學也。
記曰。此中下三科揀通大示要。問曰。仍諸共教上下相望。有共不共等。
評曰。此中合引探玄。共大之小非愚法。共小之大非別教。卻引要問共教之下共不共。于章何用。
記曰。依此三義者。進指智論。遠則指其開三本義通文。
評曰。智論唯有共不共二種般若。何三義之可指耶。
記曰。前二不融為同教。后一圓融為別教。則一乘宗中。離同別外。亦無餘法。是故諸祖並無二種同教。對一別也。
評曰。既曰諸祖並無二種。何忽判孔目。橫依方便者。圓通不圓通之異邪。當知非即圓通自在。雙結二義。並皆不融
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 斷惑障，是斷除所知障。彼宗又說：『此大乘中自有二種無漏智故，又也自有三乘法故，所以說通於二者，並非攝取愚法。』這是通於始終的漸教所說。解釋說：即此第二義，愚法則始，也不允許通於大乘，則終也允許超出。彼宗說：『也自有三乘法』，即是此文的意思，所以大乘必定具備三乘。這裡說羅漢的真實意義在大乘之中，即彼宗所說『此大乘中自有二種無漏』，就是這個意思。用彼宗來證明此宗，二義宛然。上面兼顧一乘，下面包括愚法，三宗完備了。這大概是法真大師，在唐朝親自承傳，承傳了三宗。一時開悟，悟了三宗。三昧醞釀，釀成了三宗。縱然辯論而說三宗。那麼就知道我們教宗的宗部雖然繁多，要歸根結底不出三宗。捨棄三宗不足以闡明賢首之道，不足以議論賢首之教。所以學者不可不思考，思考的人不可不學習。
記中說：此中下三科揀選通大，顯示要義。問：仍然是諸共教上下相望，有共與不共等。
評：此中應該合併引用《探玄記》，共于大乘的小乘不是愚法，共于小乘的大乘不是別教。卻引用《要問》，共教之下的共與不共，對於本章有什麼用處？
記中說：依據這三種意義，往前指《智度論》，往遠指其開三本義通文。
評：智度論只有共與不共兩種般若，哪裡有三種意義可以指代呢？
記中說：前二種不融合爲同教，后一種圓融為別教。那麼在一乘宗中，離開同教別教之外，也沒有其餘的法。所以諸位祖師並沒有兩種同教，來對應一種別教。
評：既然說諸位祖師並沒有兩種同教，為什麼忽然判孔目，橫向依據方便呢？是圓通與不圓通的差異嗎？應當知道不是即圓通自在，雙重總結兩種意義，都不能融合。
【English Translation】 English version: 『Severing the illusions and obstructions』 means severing the Obstruction of the Known (所知障). That school also says: 『Within this Mahayana (大乘, Great Vehicle) itself, there are two types of non-outflow wisdom; moreover, it also contains the teachings of the Three Vehicles (三乘), therefore it is said to encompass both, not including the ignorant teachings.』 This refers to the gradual teachings that encompass the beginning and the end. The explanation says: 『Precisely this second meaning, the ignorant teachings are the beginning, and it is not allowed to encompass the Mahayana; then the end is also allowed to transcend.』 That school says: 『It also contains the teachings of the Three Vehicles,』 which is the meaning of this text, therefore Mahayana must possess the Three Vehicles. Here it says that the true meaning of Arhat (羅漢, one who is worthy) is within Mahayana, which is what that school says: 『Within this Mahayana itself, there are two types of non-outflow,』 that is the meaning. Using that school to prove this school, the two meanings are clear. Above, it encompasses the One Vehicle (一乘), below, it includes the ignorant teachings, the Three Schools are complete. This is probably Master Fazhen (法真), who personally received the transmission in the Tang Dynasty, receiving the transmission of the Three Schools. He attained enlightenment at once, understanding the Three Schools. Samadhi (三昧, meditative consciousness) brewed, brewing the Three Schools. Even in debate, he spoke of the Three Schools. Then we know that although the schools of our teachings are numerous, ultimately they do not go beyond the Three Schools. Abandoning the Three Schools is not enough to clarify the Way of the Worthy Head (賢首), not enough to discuss the teachings of the Worthy Head. Therefore, scholars must think about it, and those who think about it must learn it.
The Record says: 『The following three sections select the encompassing Great, showing the essentials.』 Question: 『Still, the various common teachings look up and down to each other, having common and uncommon, etc.』
Commentary: 『Here, one should combine and cite the 『Record of Exploring the Profound (探玄記)』, the Small Vehicle (小乘) common to the Great Vehicle is not the ignorant teachings, the Great Vehicle common to the Small Vehicle is not the Separate Teaching (別教). Yet, it cites the 『Essential Questions (要問)』, the common and uncommon under the common teaching, what is the use for this chapter?』
The Record says: 『According to these three meanings, it points forward to the 『Great Wisdom Treatise (智度論)』, and far away it points to its opening of the three original meanings, encompassing the text.』
Commentary: 『The Great Wisdom Treatise only has two types of Prajna (般若, wisdom): common and uncommon. Where are the three meanings that can be pointed to?』
The Record says: 『The first two do not merge into the same teaching, the last one is perfectly merged into the Separate Teaching. Then, within the One Vehicle school, apart from the same teaching and the separate teaching, there is no other Dharma (法, teachings). Therefore, all the patriarchs do not have two types of the same teaching, to correspond to one separate teaching.』
Commentary: 『Since it says that all the patriarchs do not have two types, why suddenly judge the categories, horizontally relying on expedients? Is it the difference between perfect penetration and non-perfect penetration? It should be known that it is not the freedom of perfect penetration, doubly concluding the two meanings, and both cannot be merged.』
。為同教一乘也。
記曰。為相宗學人有不信者。是故再三指示也。
評曰。賢首所以重示三宗者。聖者格言不可舍也。謂治相學。妄誕太甚。
記曰。二從理成行門。此有三義。初中約一乘辨者。以大乘揀二乘故。小乘則迴心也。就普機說。故知約一乘辨。
評曰。就普機說。故知約一乘辨者。科家云。從理成行門。太一曰。于方便中。從理成行分三。就普機否。前記曰。是故下同教中。始自一乘二三乘等。皆是眷屬經攝。良由是方便等。且眷屬方便。就普機否。茍爾。其九本更被何器。又況焚薪自明此義。
記曰。總開意者。約三世門及人天為四。
評曰。此約何三世間。若智正覺等三世間。總開中將何乘配器世間。若出出世等三世間。何云及人天為四。若作此釋。三轉本子不勝憤悶也。
記云。上來下三結指。是知大小人天等法皆入此門。良由是方便故。
評曰。據上統列方便。總入正乘。今云皆入此門者。乃是大小人天皆入正乘也。且下云。三一無礙皆入此門。應是正乘邪。既失旨歸。莫知所主。是知用三寶章者。迷東為西也。
記曰。吾祖曰。然此教海最深。包含無外。語其橫收。全收吾教。乃至人天總無不包。乃至真不曉者也。
評曰。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本：爲了同歸於一乘佛法啊。
記錄中說：因為相宗（Xiangzong，唯識宗， Consciousness-only school）的學人有不相信的，所以再三指示。
評論說：賢首（Xianshou，法藏，Fazang，華嚴宗實際創始人）之所以再三闡釋三宗，是因為聖者的格言不可拋棄。這是爲了治理相宗學說中虛妄荒誕的說法太過分的情況。
記錄中說：第二是從理而成行門。這裡有三重含義。最初是就一乘佛法來辨析，因為用大乘佛法來揀擇二乘佛法，小乘佛法則是回心轉意。這是就普遍的根機來說的，所以知道是就一乘佛法來辨析。
評論說：就普遍的根機來說，所以知道是就一乘佛法來辨析。科判家說：『從理而成行門』。太一說：『在方便法門中，從理而成行分為三，是就普遍的根機嗎？』之前的記錄說：『所以下面的同教中，開始於一乘、二乘、三乘等，都是眷屬經所攝。』正是因為這是方便法門等，且眷屬是方便法門，是就普遍的根機嗎？如果這樣，那麼其他的九本經典又被什麼根器所接受呢？更何況焚燒柴火是爲了自證此義。
記錄中說：總括開顯的意義是，約三世間以及人天道為四。
評論說：這裡是約哪種三世間？如果是智正覺等三世間，那麼總括開顯中將什麼乘法匹配于器世間？如果是出世間、出出世間等三世間，為什麼說以及人天道為四？如果這樣解釋，三轉法輪的本意恐怕要憤懣了。
記錄中說：上面以下三段總結指明，是知道大小人天等法都進入此門。正是因為這是方便法門。
評論說：根據上面統攝列舉的方便法門，總括進入正乘。現在說都進入此門，乃是大小人天都進入正乘。而且下面說，三一無礙都進入此門，應該是正乘嗎？既然失去了宗旨歸宿，就不知道所主張的是什麼。因此知道用三寶章的人，是迷失了東西方向。
記錄中說：吾祖（Wuzu，指華嚴宗的祖師）說：『然而此教海最深，包含無外。說它的橫向收攝，完全收攝吾教，乃至人天都無不包含，乃至真正不曉得的人啊。』
評論說：
【English Translation】 English version: It is for the sake of the One Vehicle (Ekayana) of the same teaching.
The record says: Because there are those among the students of the Consciousness-only school (Xiangzong, 唯識宗) who do not believe, it is repeatedly pointed out.
The commentary says: The reason why Xianshou (賢首, Fazang, 法藏) repeatedly explains the Three Teachings is that the sayings of the sages cannot be abandoned. This is to address the situation where the false and absurd claims in the Consciousness-only school are excessive.
The record says: Secondly, it is the practice door that is accomplished from principle. There are three meanings here. Initially, it is analyzed in terms of the One Vehicle, because the Mahayana (大乘, Great Vehicle) is used to distinguish the Two Vehicles (二乘, Shravakayana and Pratyekabuddhayana). The Hinayana (小乘, Small Vehicle) is to turn the mind. This is discussed in terms of the universal capacity, so it is known that it is analyzed in terms of the One Vehicle.
The commentary says: It is discussed in terms of the universal capacity, so it is known that it is analyzed in terms of the One Vehicle. The classifier says: 'The practice door that is accomplished from principle.' Taiyi says: 'In the expedient means (upaya), the practice that is accomplished from principle is divided into three. Is it in terms of the universal capacity?' The previous record says: 'Therefore, in the following same teaching, starting from the One Vehicle, Two Vehicles, Three Vehicles, etc., all are included in the retinue sutras.' It is precisely because these are expedient means, and the retinue is an expedient means, is it in terms of the universal capacity? If so, then what capacity will the other nine original texts be accepted by? Moreover, burning firewood is to prove this meaning oneself.
The record says: The meaning of the overall opening is that it is about the three realms of existence (三世間) and the realms of humans and gods, making four.
The commentary says: Which three realms of existence are being referred to here? If it is the three realms of existence such as wisdom, correct enlightenment, etc., then in the overall opening, what vehicle will be matched with the realm of vessels (器世間)? If it is the three realms of existence such as the world, the world beyond the world, etc., why is it said that it is about the realms of humans and gods, making four? If this explanation is made, the original intention of the Three Turnings of the Dharma Wheel (三轉法輪) will probably be indignant.
The record says: The above three sections conclude and point out that it is known that the dharmas of the Great, Small, humans, gods, etc., all enter this door. It is precisely because this is an expedient means.
The commentary says: According to the expedient means listed above, everything is included in the Correct Vehicle (正乘). Now it is said that everything enters this door, which means that the Great, Small, humans, gods, etc., all enter the Correct Vehicle. Moreover, it is said below that the three ones without obstruction all enter this door, should it be the Correct Vehicle? Since the ultimate goal is lost, it is not known what is being advocated. Therefore, it is known that those who use the Three Jewels chapter are lost, mistaking east for west.
The record says: Our Ancestor (Wuzu, 吾祖, referring to a patriarch of the Huayan school) said: 'However, this sea of teachings is the deepest, encompassing without exception. Speaking of its horizontal inclusion, it completely includes our teachings, even humans and gods are all included, even those who truly do not understand.'
The commentary says:
前釋標數。云顯全收。此引清涼。全收五教。是將誥所以。現全收釋。分諸乘也。且分諸乘。是該攝門否。文呵或者不曉。是亦強酒而惡醉者也。
記曰。此同教者。指分諸乘中或三或一。權實無礙。角立互成。而總名一乘者。良由應法界。而有二門。有二門故。兩宗並立。應法界故。三一無礙。
評曰。此文具三種宗法。其因有總別焉。且華嚴笑庵。將同一法界。作同教得名所以。法真以乘錯宗。因力排之。今記仍用因一法界。有其二門。為因可乎。又云。權實無礙用立互成者。力量平等也。且攬實成權。能全成泯權歸實否。既能全成。何以章雲實現未必一向藉于權。又云。雖具在壞竟必有盡邪。又泯權歸實全成攬實成權者。何以章云攬實實不失。又云。雖具隱顯。竟恒無盡邪。
記曰。又云。此文在三乘一乘方究竟。何以故。稱法界故。
評曰。此文乃約前教三乘。后教一乘為門。說因緣義。非約同教何以知者。下章云。若三乘賴耶識如來藏法無我因中。有六義名義。而主伴未具。若一乘普賢圓因中。具足主伴。無盡緣起。方究竟也。以此得知非同教也。
記曰。一泯等者。則三亡而一顯。至別教唯有初門。
評曰。別教唯有初門者。誠是也。然準上記。文分諸乘。乃並列
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 前文解釋了標數（biāo shù，指設立名目的數量）。說的是顯教全部收攝。這裡引用了清涼（Qīngliáng，指清涼國師澄觀）的觀點，全部收攝了五教（wǔ jiào，指小乘教、大乘始教、大乘終教、頓教、圓教）。這是將誥（jiāng gào，指佛的教誨）的原因，現在全部收攝來解釋，分判諸乘（zhū shèng，指各種不同的乘，如聲聞乘、緣覺乘、菩薩乘）。那麼，分判諸乘，是該攝一切法門的嗎？文章責備那些不明白的人，就像強迫喝酒卻又討厭醉酒的人一樣。
記述說：這裡說的『同教』，指的是分判諸乘中，或者三乘，或者一乘，權巧方便和真實究竟沒有障礙，像牛角一樣相互支撐成立，而總稱為一乘（yī shèng，指唯一能引導眾生達到解脫的教法），是因為應合法界（fǎ jiè，指一切諸法的總稱），而有二門（èr mén，指兩種不同的修行途徑）。因為有二門，所以兩宗並立。應合法界，所以三乘和一乘沒有障礙。
評論說：這段文字具備三種宗法（zōng fǎ，指宗門的法則），其中的原因有總有別。而且華嚴笑庵（Huáyán Xiào'ān，人名）將『同一法界』作為『同教』得名的原因。法真（Fǎzhēn，人名）認為用『乘』來錯用了『宗』，因此極力反駁。現在記述仍然用『因為一法界，有其二門』作為原因，可以嗎？又說，『權實無礙，相互支撐成立』，是力量平等。那麼，用真實來成就權巧，能夠完全成就並泯滅權巧，歸於真實嗎？既然能夠完全成就，為什麼文章說『實現未必一向憑藉于權巧』？又說，『雖然具備，最終必定有窮盡嗎』？又泯滅權巧歸於真實，完全成就用真實來成就權巧，為什麼文章說『用真實，真實不會失去』？又說，『雖然具備隱顯，最終恒常沒有窮盡嗎』？
記述說：又說，這段文字在三乘和一乘才究竟，為什麼呢？因為稱合法界。
評論說：這段文字是就前教的三乘，后教的一乘作為門徑，來說明因緣的意義，不是就同教來說的。憑什麼知道呢？下文說：『如果三乘依賴阿賴耶識（ā lài yé shì，指第八識，含藏一切種子）、如來藏（rú lái zàng，指一切眾生皆具的佛性）、法無我（fǎ wú wǒ，指諸法無自性）的因中，有六義名義，而主伴沒有具備。如果一乘普賢（Pǔxián，指普賢菩薩）圓因中，具足主伴，無盡緣起，才究竟。』用這個可以得知不是同教。
記述說：一泯等，那麼三乘消失而一乘顯現，到別教只有初門。
評論說：別教只有初門，確實是這樣。然而按照上面的記述，文章分判諸乘，是並列的。
【English Translation】 English version: The previous explanation clarified the established numerical categories (biāo shù, referring to the establishment of numerical designations). It stated that the Manifest Teaching (顯教, xiǎn jiào) encompasses everything. This quotes Qingliang (Qīngliáng, referring to National Teacher Qingliang, Chengguan), encompassing all Five Teachings (wǔ jiào, referring to the Small Vehicle Teaching, the Initial Great Vehicle Teaching, the Final Great Vehicle Teaching, the Sudden Teaching, and the Perfect Teaching). This is the reason for the proclamations (jiāng gào, referring to the Buddha's teachings), now explained by encompassing everything, differentiating the various Vehicles (zhū shèng, referring to various different vehicles, such as the Hearer Vehicle, the Solitary Realizer Vehicle, and the Bodhisattva Vehicle). Then, is differentiating the various Vehicles encompassing all Dharma gates? The text scolds those who do not understand, like those who force drinking but hate being drunk.
The Record states: The 'Same Teaching' here refers to, within the differentiation of the various Vehicles, either the Three Vehicles or the One Vehicle, where skillful means and ultimate reality are without obstruction, mutually supporting each other like horns, and are collectively called the One Vehicle (yī shèng, referring to the only teaching that can guide all beings to liberation), because it corresponds to the Dharma Realm (fǎ jiè, referring to the totality of all dharmas), and there are Two Gates (èr mén, referring to two different paths of practice). Because there are Two Gates, the two schools are established side by side. Because it corresponds to the Dharma Realm, the Three and One Vehicles are without obstruction.
The Commentary states: This passage possesses three kinds of doctrinal principles (zōng fǎ, referring to the principles of a school), and the reasons for them are both general and specific. Moreover, Huayan Xiao'an (Huáyán Xiào'ān, a person's name) takes 'the same Dharma Realm' as the reason for the name 'Same Teaching'. Fazhen (Fǎzhēn, a person's name) believes that using 'Vehicle' misused 'School', so he strongly refuted it. Now the Record still uses 'because of one Dharma Realm, there are its Two Gates' as the reason, is that acceptable? It also says, 'Skillful means and ultimate reality are without obstruction, mutually supporting each other', which is equal strength. Then, using reality to accomplish skillful means, can it completely accomplish and extinguish skillful means, returning to reality? Since it can completely accomplish, why does the text say 'Realization does not necessarily always rely on skillful means'? It also says, 'Although it is complete, will it ultimately have an end?' Also, extinguishing skillful means to return to reality, completely accomplishing using reality to accomplish skillful means, why does the text say 'Using reality, reality is not lost'? It also says, 'Although it possesses concealment and manifestation, will it ultimately be eternally without end?'
The Record states: It also says, this passage is only ultimate in the Three Vehicles and One Vehicle, why? Because it accords with the Dharma Realm.
The Commentary states: This passage is about taking the Three Vehicles of the former teaching and the One Vehicle of the latter teaching as gateways, to explain the meaning of cause and condition, not about the Same Teaching. How do we know? The following text says: 'If the Three Vehicles rely on the Alaya Consciousness (ā lài yé shì, referring to the eighth consciousness, containing all seeds), the Tathagatagarbha (rú lái zàng, referring to the Buddha-nature inherent in all beings), and the Dharma Non-self (fǎ wú wǒ, referring to the non-inherent existence of all dharmas) in the cause, there are six meanings, but the principal and attendant are not complete. If the One Vehicle of Samantabhadra (Pǔxián, referring to Samantabhadra Bodhisattva) in the perfect cause, the principal and attendant are complete, and the endless arising of conditions is ultimate.' From this, we can know that it is not the Same Teaching.
The Record states: When the One extinguishes the others, then the Three disappear and the One manifests, and in the Separate Teaching, there is only the initial gate.
The Commentary states: The Separate Teaching only has the initial gate, that is indeed the case. However, according to the above Record, the text differentiates the various Vehicles, which are juxtaposed.
余經。皆是第九眷屬經攝。良由是方便故。融本末乃是諸乘。得名一乘之因法。又應法界故。三一無礙。皆屬不融同教。今問曰。此泯權歸實門。分諸乘中來耶。融本末中出耶。若分諸乘中來者。眷屬經中豈有別教一乘。若融本末中出者。且本是不融同教。能毓圓通華嚴可乎。
記曰。以義從門。則權實常在。法界理圓。其體不二。
評曰。以義從門者。其門乃義門邪。法門邪。若法門者。何以章云。義門異故權實恒存。若義門者。何以義從義。
記曰。由此下作句數。至一唯一乘。普法獨立無一切故。如上別教。乃至非三非一者。性果圓極。如前所辨。
評曰。此之四句。為通結同別二門耶。獨結同教一門耶。若獨同教者。何以前云但為方便非主經邪。且初后二句。但為方便。非主經乎。莫是分乘窄融未寬乎。或唯一乘非一非三。引屬余經眷屬攝乎。若通結二門者。何科在融本末中邪。然學教菩薩在理所歸。句私其黨。誠欲以斯童之是務。契大經之沖玄。莫若法真大師焚折薪者也。
【現代漢語翻譯】 現代漢語譯本： 這些經文都屬於《第九眷屬經》（Jiǔ Dì Jiànshǔ Jīng，The Ninth Family Sutra）所涵蓋的內容。正是由於這種方便法門，融合了根本與枝末，才使得諸乘（zhū chéng，various vehicles/paths to enlightenment）得以被稱為一乘（yī chéng，One Vehicle/Path）的因法（yīn fǎ，causal dharma）。又因為應合法界（fǎ jiè，Dharma Realm）的緣故，三（sān，three）與一（yī，one）之間沒有障礙。這些都屬於不融合的同教（tóng jiào，common teachings）。現在我提問：這個泯除權巧迴歸真實之門（mǐn chú quán qiǎo guī shízhi mén，the gate of eliminating expedient means and returning to reality），是從區分諸乘中產生的呢？還是從融合根本與枝末中產生的呢？如果從區分諸乘中產生，那麼在《眷屬經》中怎麼會有別教一乘（bié jiào yī chéng，distinct teaching of One Vehicle）呢？如果從融合根本與枝末中產生，那麼根本是不融合的同教，怎麼能夠孕育圓融通達的華嚴（Huá Yán，Avatamsaka/Flower Garland）呢？
記曰：從意義的角度來看，權巧與真實始終存在，法界的道理圓滿，其本體不是二元對立的。
評曰：從意義的角度來看，這個『門』是義門（yì mén，gate of meaning）呢？還是法門（fǎ mén，gate of dharma）呢？如果是法門，為什麼章節中說：『因為意義之門不同，所以權巧與真實恒常存在』？如果是義門，為什麼說『意義從屬於意義』？
記曰：從『由此』以下構成句子的數量，直到『一唯一乘，普法獨立無一切故』（yī wéi yī chéng, pǔ fǎ dúlì wú yīqiè gù，One and only One Vehicle, the universal dharma is independent and without all things），就像上面的別教，乃至『非三非一』（fēi sān fēi yī，neither three nor one）那樣，是性果（xìng guǒ，nature-fruit/result of inherent nature）的圓滿極致，如同前面所辨析的那樣。
評曰：這四句話，是總結貫通同教與別教二門呢？還是僅僅總結同教一門呢？如果僅僅是同教，為什麼前面說『只是爲了方便，不是主要的經典』呢？而且最初和最後兩句，只是爲了方便，不是主要的經典嗎？莫非是區分諸乘太狹窄，融合還不夠寬廣嗎？或者說，唯一的一乘既非一也非三，是引用並歸屬於其他經典或《眷屬經》所涵蓋的內容嗎？如果總結貫通二門，那麼應該歸屬於融合根本與枝末中的哪個部分呢？然而，學習教義的菩薩在理上有所歸屬，語句偏袒其黨羽，如果真的想用這種孩童般的努力，來契合《大經》（Dà Jīng，Great Sutra）深奧玄妙的道理，不如法真大師（Fǎ Zhēn Dàshī，Master Fazhen）焚燒柴薪的做法。
【English Translation】 English version: These sutras all fall under the scope of the Ninth Family Sutra. It is precisely because of this expedient means that the fusion of the fundamental and the derivative allows the various vehicles to be named the causal dharma of the One Vehicle. Moreover, because it accords with the Dharma Realm, there is no obstruction between the three and the one. These all belong to the non-fused common teachings. Now I ask: Does this gate of eliminating expedient means and returning to reality arise from the differentiation of the various vehicles, or does it arise from the fusion of the fundamental and the derivative? If it arises from the differentiation of the various vehicles, how can there be a distinct teaching of the One Vehicle in the Family Sutra? If it arises from the fusion of the fundamental and the derivative, then the fundamental is the non-fused common teaching, how can it nurture the perfectly interpenetrating Avatamsaka?
Commentary: From the perspective of meaning, expedient means and reality always exist, the principle of the Dharma Realm is complete, and its essence is not dualistic.
Critique: From the perspective of meaning, is this 'gate' the gate of meaning or the gate of dharma? If it is the gate of dharma, why does the chapter say: 'Because the gates of meaning are different, expedient means and reality always exist'? If it is the gate of meaning, why does it say 'meaning belongs to meaning'?
Commentary: From 'Therefore' onwards, the number of sentences is counted, until 'One and only One Vehicle, the universal dharma is independent and without all things,' like the distinct teaching above, and even 'neither three nor one,' is the perfect culmination of the nature-fruit, as discussed earlier.
Critique: Do these four sentences summarize and connect both the common and distinct teachings, or do they only summarize the common teaching? If it is only the common teaching, why did it say earlier 'it is only for convenience, not the main sutra'? Moreover, are the first and last two sentences only for convenience, not the main sutra? Could it be that the differentiation of the vehicles is too narrow, and the fusion is not wide enough? Or is the one and only One Vehicle neither one nor three, is it cited and attributed to other sutras or the content covered by the Family Sutra? If it summarizes and connects the two gates, then to which part of the fusion of the fundamental and the derivative should it belong? However, the Bodhisattvas who study the teachings have a rational affiliation, and the statements are biased towards their own group. If one truly wants to use this childlike effort to align with the profound and mysterious principles of the Great Sutra, it would be better to follow the example of Master Fazhen burning firewood.