The Gate of Inclusion, and the Vehicles Counted One, Two, Three
Establishing the One Vehicle — the Gate of Inclusion建立一乘・該攝門
Part 1 spent ten proofs pulling the One Vehicle apart from the three. Fazang now turns to the second of his two promised gates and does the reverse: shows that the three vehicles were, from the very start, never anything but the One Vehicle itself. He proves it with a piece of logic — "not different, not one" — that will recur throughout this treatise, and then spends the rest of the part doing something almost bureaucratic: counting the vehicles every way Buddhist texts count them, one through measureless, and sorting out exactly which sūtra means what by "two vehicles" or "three vehicles" when it uses those words.
The Text
1. The Gate of Inclusion — Not Different, Not One 該攝門・不異不一
Part 1 closed by naming the second gate, promised alongside the gate of distinguishing marks, without yet opening it. Fazang opens it here, and the logic he uses — a fourfold statement built on the single word 即, "simply is" — is one of the treatise's recurring tools.
二該攝門者。一切三乘等。本來悉是彼一乘法。何以故。以三乘望一乘有二門故。謂不異不一也。初不異亦二。一以三即一故不異。二以一即三故不異。問若據初門三即一者。未知彼三為存為壞。若存如何唯一。若壞彼三乘機。更依何法而得進修。答有四句。一由即一故不待壞。二由即一故不礙存。三由即一故無不壞。四由即一故無可存。由初二義三乘機得有所依。由後二義三乘機得入一乘。由四句俱即一故。是故唯有一乘更無餘也。二以一乘即三明不異者。隱顯四句。反上思之。是故唯有三乘。更無一也。此如下同教中辨。二不一者。此即一之三。與上即三之一。是非一門也。是則不壞不一而明不異。又此中不一是上分相門。此中不異是此該攝門也。
Two, as for the gate of inclusion: all of the three vehicles and so forth were, from the very beginning, entirely that same One Vehicle's own dharma. Why is this so? Because, when the three vehicles are considered against the One Vehicle, there are two gates — namely, "not different" and "not one."
Within the first, "not different," there are also two aspects. One, because the three simply are the one, they are not different. Two, because the one simply is the three, they are not different.
Question: if, going by the first of these two aspects, the three simply are the one, it is not yet clear whether the three continue to exist or are done away with. If they continue to exist, how can there be only one? If they are done away with, then upon what dharma do the faculties of the three vehicles rely, in order to advance further in practice?
Answer: there are four statements. One, because they simply are the one, there is no need to do away with them. Two, because they simply are the one, their continuing to exist is not obstructed. Three, because they simply are the one, there is nothing that is not done away with. Four, because they simply are the one, there is nothing left to continue existing. By virtue of the first two of these meanings, the faculties of the three vehicles have something to rely on; by virtue of the latter two, the faculties of the three vehicles are able to enter the One Vehicle. Because all four statements alike mean "simply are the one," it follows that there is only the One Vehicle, and nothing besides it.
Two, clarifying "not different" in the sense that the One Vehicle simply is the three: this uses the four statements of concealing and revealing, to be thought through by reversing what was just said, so that — from this angle — there is only the three vehicles, and nothing besides them. This is discussed further below, within the Common Teaching.
Second, "not one": this is the three that simply are the one, taken together with the one that, as above, simply is the three — this is the gate of "not one." It is, then, without destroying "not one," that "not different" is clarified. And here, "not one" belongs to the gate of distinguishing marks discussed above, while "not different" belongs to this gate of inclusion.
The pivot word doing all the work here is 即, which we have translated "simply is" — a stronger claim than mere resemblance or correspondence, closer to identity, but an identity that runs in both directions without collapsing into sameness. "The three simply are the one" does not erase the three vehicles; it means that nothing about being the three vehicles is separate from being the One Vehicle. Fazang's fourfold statement then draws out every combination this identity permits: because they simply are the one, they need not be destroyed (they can go on being practiced); their continuing is not blocked; yet equally, because they simply are the one, there is nothing about them that is not already dissolved into the One, and nothing left over as a separate "three" once the One is seen. All four hold together, without contradiction, because "simply is" was never a claim about erasing one term into the other.
Notice the closing move: "not one" is quietly identified with the whole of Part 1's gate of distinguishing marks, and "not different" with this part's gate of inclusion. The two gates promised at the very start of the treatise turn out to be two names for the two halves of a single non-dual relationship — difference that is real, and non-difference that is equally real, neither canceling the other.
2. The Common Teaching, and Seven Ways to Clarify the One Vehicle 同教・明一乘七義
Fazang now names the Common Teaching explicitly and divides its discussion into two: first distinguishing the vehicles (this part's business), then fusing root and branch (Part 3's). Within distinguishing the vehicles there are six layers, counting the One Vehicle, the two vehicles, the three vehicles, and on up through measureless vehicles. The first layer — clarifying the One Vehicle — itself has seven approaches.
◎二同教者於中二。初分諸乘後融本末。初中有六重。一明一乘於中有七。初約法相交參以明一乘。謂如三乘中亦有說因陀羅網及微細等事而主伴不具。或亦說華藏世界。而不說十等。或一乘中亦有三乘法相等。謂如十眼中亦有五眼。十通中亦有六通等。而義理皆別。此則一乘垂於三乘。三乘參于一乘。是則兩宗交接連綴引攝成根欲性。令入別教一乘故也。二約攝方便。謂彼三乘等法。總為一乘方便故。皆名一乘。所以經云。諸有所作皆為一大事故等也。三約所流辨。謂三乘等。悉從一乘流故。故經云。汝等所行是菩薩道等。又經云。毘尼者即大乘也。四約殊勝門。即以三中大乘為一乘。以望別教雖權實有異同是菩薩所乘故。故經云。唯此一事實。餘二則非真。又云。止息故說二等。此文有二意。一若望上別教。餘二者則大小二乘也。以聲聞等利鈍雖殊同期小果故。開一異三故。若望同教即聲聞等為二也。又融大同一故。五約教事深細。如經云。我常在靈山等。六約八義意趣。依攝論。如問答中辨。七約十義方便。如孔目中說。依上諸義即三乘等並名一乘。皆隨本宗定故。主伴不具故。是同非別也。
As for the Common Teaching, it has two parts. First, distinguishing the vehicles; second, fusing root and branch. The first part has six layers. One, clarifying the One Vehicle, which has seven aspects within it.
First, clarifying the One Vehicle in terms of the mutual interweaving of dharma-characteristics: even within the three-vehicle teachings there is talk of things like Indra's Net and the subtle and fine, yet without host and retinue being fully present; or there is talk of the world of the lotus-treasury, yet without speaking of "the ten" of everything as the One Vehicle does. Conversely, even within the One Vehicle there are characteristics belonging to the three-vehicle dharmas — as when, among the ten eyes, the five eyes are also included, or among the ten superknowledges, the six superknowledges are also included — yet in each case the meaning and the principle differ entirely. This is the One Vehicle reaching down into the three vehicles, and the three vehicles interwoven into the One Vehicle; it is by this that the two tenets connect and link together, drawing beings in and shaping their faculties, desires, and dispositions, so as to bring them into the One Vehicle as its own Separate Teaching.
Second, in terms of gathering in the expedient means: the dharmas of the three vehicles and so forth are, altogether, an expedient means for the One Vehicle, and are therefore all called "the One Vehicle." Hence the sūtra says: "Whatever is done is done for the sake of the one great matter," and so on.
Third, distinguishing in terms of what flows from what: the three vehicles and so forth all flow from the One Vehicle. Hence the sūtra says, "What you are practicing is the bodhisattva path," and so on; and another sūtra says, "The vinaya is itself the Great Vehicle."
Fourth, the gate of surpassing excellence: this takes the Great Vehicle among the three as itself the One Vehicle, since, although it differs from the Separate Teaching in being expedient rather than real, it is equally what a bodhisattva rides. Hence the sūtra says: "Only this one thing is real; the other two are not true," and again, "It is because of bringing beings to rest that two are spoken of." This passage carries two senses. First, judged against the Separate Teaching above, "the other two" means the greater and lesser two vehicles — since the śrāvaka and the rest, though differing in sharpness and dullness, alike aim at a lesser fruit, and so one is opened out as different from three. Judged against the Common Teaching, it is the śrāvaka and the rest alone who count as "the two," since here the Great Vehicle is fused together with the One as identical.
Fifth, in terms of the profundity and subtlety of the teaching-event: as the sūtra says, "I am forever on Vulture Peak," and so on.
Sixth, in terms of the intent of the eight meanings, following the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, as discussed in its questions and answers.
Seventh, in terms of the ten meanings as expedient means, as set out in the Kongmu Zhang. According to all the meanings above, the three vehicles and so forth are, every one, also called "the One Vehicle" — yet each is fixed within the limits of its own tenet, and host and retinue are not fully present in any of them. This is why they belong to the Common Teaching, not the Separate Teaching.
The line running through all seven approaches is a distinction Fazang has already used once, in Part 1: something can genuinely be called "the One Vehicle" while still falling short of the Separate Teaching's own One Vehicle, so long as it lacks "host and retinue fully present" 主伴具足 — the reversible, interlocking wholeness this treatise reserves for the Avataṃsaka alone. A three-vehicle text that mentions Indra's Net, or the world of the lotus-treasury, or reduces the three vehicles to a single expedient aimed at "the one great matter" (a direct quotation of the Lotus Sūtra's own famous phrase), is doing something real — reaching toward the One Vehicle, sharing its language and even some of its imagery — without yet being it in the full, Separate-Teaching sense. That is exactly what "the Common Teaching" names: a One Vehicle held in common with the three vehicles, rather than standing apart from them.
The Kongmu Zhang 孔目章 cited in the seventh approach is Zhiyan's 智儼 (602–668) own miscellany of topical essays on the Avataṃsaka — Fazang's teacher and the second patriarch of the Huayan lineage. Citing him by title, alongside the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, situates this whole sevenfold analysis as something Fazang inherited and is now systematizing, not inventing from nothing.
3. The Two Vehicles, Three Ways to Count Them 明二乘三種
Having finished the One Vehicle, Fazang turns to a much shorter but easily confused topic: what a text means when it uses the term "the two vehicles." It turns out to depend entirely on which pair is being contrasted.
二明二乘有三種。一者一乘三乘名為二乘。謂如經中四衢所授并臨門三車。此中合愚法同迴心。俱是小乘。故有二耳。二者大乘小乘為二乘。此則合一同三。開愚法異迴心。三者聲聞緣覺為二乘。此通愚法及迴心。又初約一乘。次約三乘。後約小乘。準可知之。
Two, clarifying the two vehicles — there are three kinds. First, the One Vehicle and the three vehicles are named "the two vehicles," as with the cart bestowed at the crossroads set against the three carts at the gate. Here, the Dharma-ignorant and those who have turned their minds back are combined together, both being the Lesser Vehicle — hence there are only two. Second, the Great Vehicle and the Lesser Vehicle are "the two vehicles." Here the One is combined together with the three, while the Dharma-ignorant are distinguished from those who have turned their minds back. Third, the śrāvaka and the pratyekabuddha are "the two vehicles." This includes both the Dharma-ignorant and those who have turned their minds back. The first, moreover, is reckoned in terms of the One Vehicle, the second in terms of the three vehicles, and the third in terms of the Lesser Vehicle — this may be understood by analogy.
Two technical terms are being distinguished here for the first time, and they will matter a great deal later in this treatise, particularly at Part 21's discussion of "the two vehicles turning the mind back." 愚法, literally "ignorant of the Dharma," names a śrāvaka or pratyekabuddha who never comes to accept the Mahāyāna at all — content, on Fazang's account, with a lesser fruit that this treatise (see Part 2's third topic, below) will go on to call not truly final. 迴心, "turning the mind back," names the opposite case: an arhat or pratyekabuddha who eventually turns toward the Great Vehicle and continues on the bodhisattva path. Both are, in different senses, "the two vehicles" — which is precisely why the term is ambiguous until you know which contrast a given passage has in mind.
4. The Three Vehicles, and Why the Great Vehicle Must Contain All Three 明三乘三種
This is the longest single argument in the part: a defense, built out of half a dozen scriptures and treatises, of the claim that the Great Vehicle is not simply one lane alongside the śrāvaka and pratyekabuddha lanes, but already contains a complete three-vehicle structure — a śrāvaka basket, a pratyekabuddha basket, and a bodhisattva basket — within itself.
三明三乘亦有三種。一者一乘三乘小乘名為三乘。此為顯法本末故。上開一乘下開愚法。故有三也。以經中愚法二乘並在所引諸子中。故知三乘外別有小乘。三車引諸子。故知小乘外別有三乘。三人俱出至露地已。更別授大白牛車。故知三乘外別有一乘。問何以得知愚法二乘在所引中耶。答以彼愚法約大乘終教已去並不名究竟出三界故。何以故。以人執煩惱未永斷故。但能折伏而已。故彌勒所問經論云。一切聲聞辟支佛人。不能如實修四無量。不能究竟斷諸煩惱。但能折伏一切煩惱故也。又經云。汝等所得涅槃非真滅度。又經云。若不信此法得阿羅漢果。無有是處。又大品云。故得阿羅漢等果。當學般若波羅蜜。是故當知。羅漢實義在大乘中。是故大乘必具三也。故普超三昧經云。如此大乘中亦有三乘。則為三藏。謂聲聞藏緣覺藏菩薩藏。唯大乘中得有三藏。餘二乘中則無此也。入大乘論中。亦同此說。是故當知。門外三車不通愚法。以法華非小乘故。其瑜伽聲聞決擇及雜集等論。辨聲聞等教行位果及斷惑分齊。與婆沙俱舍等不同者。是其事也。是故當知。一乘三乘小乘分齊別也。由此義故。大智度論云。般若波羅蜜有二種。一共二不共。言共者。謂此摩訶衍經。及餘方等經。共諸聲聞眾集共說故。不共者。如不思議經不與聲聞共說故。解云。不思議經者。彼論自指華嚴是也。以其唯說別教一乘。故名不共。義準知之。如四阿含經。名不共。以唯說愚法二乘教故。如大品等經。共集三乘眾。通說三乘法。具獲三乘益。故云共也。此中通大之小非愚法。通小之大非一乘。依此三義故。梁攝論云。善成立有三種。一小乘。二三乘。三一乘。其第三最居上故。名善成立。即其事也。若言說大品等時一音異解得小果故有三乘者。說華嚴時何不異解得小果耶。又說增一等時。何不異解得大果耶。是故當知。三宗各別。理不疑也。
二者大乘中乘小乘為三乘。此有三義。一則融一乘同大乘。合愚法同小乘故唯三也。教理可知。此約一乘辨。二則大乘中自有三乘。如上所說。三則小乘中亦有三。如小論中自有聲聞法緣覺法及佛法。此中佛法但慈悲愛行等。異於二乘故也。
Three, clarifying the three vehicles — there are also three kinds. First, the One Vehicle, the three vehicles, and the Lesser Vehicle are named "the three vehicles." This is in order to reveal the root and branch of the Dharma: above, the One Vehicle is opened out as distinct; below, the Dharma-ignorant are opened out as distinct; hence there are three. Since, in the sūtra, the two Dharma-ignorant vehicles are already included among the sons being led out, we know that, beyond the three vehicles, there is separately a Lesser Vehicle. The three carts lead the sons out; hence we know that, beyond the Lesser Vehicle, there is separately the three vehicles. Once all three kinds of persons have gotten out and reached the bare ground, the great white-ox cart is bestowed on them separately again; hence we know that, beyond the three vehicles, there is separately the One Vehicle.
Question: how do we know that the two Dharma-ignorant vehicles are already included among those being led out? Answer: because, judged from the standpoint of the Final Teaching of the Great Vehicle onward, the Dharma-ignorant are, none of them, said to have truly and finally gotten out of the three realms. Why is this? Because their grasping at a personal self and their afflictions have not been eternally severed — they are only able to subdue them. Hence the Treatise on the Sūtra Requested by Maitreya says: "None of the śrāvakas or pratyekabuddhas are able to genuinely cultivate the four immeasurables, nor are they able finally to sever all afflictions — they are only able to subdue all afflictions." And a sūtra says: "The nirvāṇa you have attained is not the real cessation." And another sūtra says: "There is no such thing as attaining the fruit of arhatship without believing this Dharma." And the Larger Perfection of Wisdom says: "In order to attain the fruit of arhatship and the rest, one should study the perfection of wisdom." One should therefore know that the true meaning of "arhat" lies within the Great Vehicle, and that the Great Vehicle must therefore contain all three within itself.
Hence the Sūtra of the Universally Surpassing Samādhi says: "Even within this Great Vehicle there are also three vehicles, forming three baskets — namely the śrāvaka basket, the pratyekabuddha basket, and the bodhisattva basket. Only within the Great Vehicle can there be three baskets; the other two vehicles have no such thing." The Treatise on Entering the Great Vehicle says the same. One should therefore know that the three carts outside the gate do not include the Dharma-ignorant, since the Lotus Sūtra is not the Lesser Vehicle. The same holds for how the Yogācārabhūmi's "Determination Concerning Śrāvakas" and the Abhidharmasamuccaya and similar treatises distinguish the teaching, practice, position, and fruit of the śrāvaka and the rest, and their delimitation of the severing of affliction, differently from the Mahāvibhāṣā, the Abhidharmakośa, and the like. One should therefore know that the One Vehicle, the three vehicles, and the Lesser Vehicle are delimited as genuinely distinct.
For this reason, the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra says: "The perfection of wisdom is of two kinds: one shared, one unshared. 'Shared' means this Mahāyāna sūtra together with the other Vaipulya sūtras, taught in common with the assembled śrāvakas. 'Unshared' means, as with the Acintya Sūtra, not taught in common with the śrāvakas." Explanation: "the Acintya Sūtra" — that treatise is itself pointing to the Avataṃsaka, since it alone teaches the One Vehicle as its own Separate Teaching, and is therefore called "unshared." By analogy the same holds for the four Āgama sūtras, which are also called "unshared," since they teach only the two Dharma-ignorant vehicles. Sūtras like the Larger Perfection of Wisdom, by contrast, gather together the assembly of the three vehicles, teach the dharma of the three vehicles in common, and confer the benefit of all three alike — hence they are called "shared." Here, the Lesser that is common to the Greater is not the same as the Dharma-ignorant, and the Greater that is common to the Lesser is not the same as the One Vehicle. On the strength of these three distinctions, the Liang Mahāyānasaṃgraha says: "What is well established is of three kinds: the Lesser Vehicle, the three vehicles, and the One Vehicle — the third of these occupies the very summit, and is therefore called 'well established.'" This is precisely the point.
If it is said that, when the Larger Perfection of Wisdom and the like were taught, a single voice was understood differently by different hearers, some attaining a lesser fruit — and that this is why there are three vehicles — then, when the Avataṃsaka was taught, why was it not understood differently, with some attaining a lesser fruit? And when the Ekottarika and similar sūtras were taught, why was it not understood differently, with some attaining a greater fruit? One should therefore know that the three tenets are each genuinely distinct, and there is no room for doubt about this.
Second, the Great Vehicle, the Middle Vehicle, and the Lesser Vehicle are "the three vehicles." This has three senses. First, taking the One Vehicle as fused together with the Great Vehicle, and combining the Dharma-ignorant together with the Lesser Vehicle, so that there are only three — the teaching and its principle can be understood accordingly; this is reckoned in terms of the One Vehicle. Second, within the Great Vehicle there are, of itself, three vehicles, as explained above. Third, even within the Lesser Vehicle there are, likewise, three: as in the smaller treatises, which themselves contain the dharma of the śrāvaka, the dharma of the pratyekabuddha, and the dharma of the Buddha — here "the dharma of the Buddha" means only such things as loving-kindness and compassionate conduct, distinguishing it from the two lesser vehicles.
The claim that only the Great Vehicle possesses "three baskets" 三藏 — a śrāvaka basket, a pratyekabuddha basket, and a bodhisattva basket, all within Mahāyāna literature — sounds backward to a reader used to "Tripiṭaka" as a name for the whole Buddhist canon, Mahāyāna and non-Mahāyāna alike. Fazang's point is narrower than it sounds: he is arguing that only Mahāyāna sūtras, on his classification, actually contain a complete internal account of all three vehicles' teaching, practice, and fruit — the older Āgama literature, on this reading, teaches only the Dharma-ignorant two vehicles and nothing of the bodhisattva path at all. Whether or not one accepts the historical claim, the argumentative shape is worth noticing: Fazang is willing to overturn an intuitive reading of a familiar term ("three baskets") whenever his classification scheme requires it, and he always supplies scriptural citations to do so.
The Mahāprajñāpāramitā-śāstra's distinction between a "shared" and an "unshared" Perfection of Wisdom becomes, in Fazang's hands, direct proof that the Avataṃsaka occupies a wholly separate rank from every other Mahāyāna scripture, including the great Perfection of Wisdom sūtras themselves: only the Avataṃsaka qualifies as the "Acintya Sūtra," the inconceivable sūtra not taught in common with any śrāvaka audience at all.
5. Four Vehicles, Five Vehicles, Measureless Vehicles 四乘・五乘・無量乘
Fazang closes out the counting exercise by pushing past three, showing that the same vehicles can be split or combined into four, five, or, in principle, as many as there are teachings in the world.
四者或為四乘。亦有三種。一謂一乘三乘為四。此則開一異三。合二聲聞故也。二謂一乘三乘小乘人天為四。此總開意也。三謂三乘人天為四。準上可知。五者或為五乘亦有三種。一謂一乘三乘小乘為五。二謂三乘人天為五。三謂佛與二乘天及梵亦為五。並準釋可知。六者或無量乘。謂一切法門也。故此經云。於一世界中。聞說一乘者。或二三四五。乃至無量乘。此之謂也。上來分乘竟。
Fourth, it may also be reckoned as four vehicles, likewise of three kinds. First: the One Vehicle and the three vehicles, separately counted, make four — this opens the One apart from the three, while combining the two kinds of śrāvaka together. Second: the One Vehicle, the three vehicles, the Lesser Vehicle, and the vehicles of humans and gods make four — this is the sense of opening everything out fully. Third: the three vehicles together with the vehicles of humans and gods make four — this may be understood by analogy with what precedes.
Fifth, it may also be reckoned as five vehicles, likewise of three kinds. First: the One Vehicle, the three vehicles, and the Lesser Vehicle make five. Second: the three vehicles together with the vehicles of humans and gods make five. Third: the Buddha, together with the two lesser vehicles, the gods, and Brahmā, likewise make five. All of these may be understood according to the explanations already given.
Sixth, or it may be reckoned as measureless vehicles — meaning the whole of the Dharma-gates there are. Hence this sūtra says: "Within a single world, those who hear the One Vehicle taught may hear it as two, three, four, five, and so on up to measureless vehicles" — this is what is meant. The above concludes the discussion of distinguishing the vehicles.
Our source text reads 戒為四乘 at the head of this fourth count, where every parallel item in the list — "or as three," "or as five," "or as measureless" — uses 或, "or." We follow that parallel and read it as 或為四乘; the character 戒 ("precept," "moral discipline") makes no sense in context and appears to be a transmission error somewhere in this text's textual history. Readers checking against a different edition of the Taishō should expect to see 或 at this point.
Stepping back from the arithmetic: what all six counts share is the assumption that "how many vehicles are there" has no single correct answer, only a correct answer relative to which contrast a passage is drawing. This is itself already an argument for the position that closes this part — that the three vehicles were never separate from the One Vehicle to begin with, only ever the same reality counted differently depending on where the line is drawn. The next part turns from counting the vehicles to actually fusing them: root and branch, gathered into a single, unbroken dharma-realm.
Part Two Complete
This closes Part Two: the gate of inclusion and its "not different, not one" logic; the Common Teaching's seven ways of clarifying a shared One Vehicle; the careful sorting of what "two vehicles" and "three vehicles" mean depending on context; and the vehicles counted all the way from one up through measureless.
Part Three finishes the discussion of the Common Teaching by fusing root and branch into a single dharma-realm, then closes out Gate One entirely and moves through the whole of Gate Two — the teaching, the meaning, and the benefit that each vehicle actually confers.