法華玄義釋籤 19.14

19.14

次與《華嚴》對辨者，今一家意，豈欲貶於法界融通、普賢遍入、文殊彌勒妙用無邊耶？但據彼部文猶帶行布，序首結集，自云始成，存行布故，仍未開權；言始成故，尚未發迹。此之二義，文意之綱骨、教法之心髓，而彼部不開不拂，焉知化迹無優劣耶？圓理無殊，故今許云「可為連類」，斥人師不了，故復論之。於中為二：初總明同異，次別比決。初連類者，如《華嚴》中說十住時，有十慧菩薩，法慧為首；說十行時，有十林菩薩，功德林為首；說十向時，有十幢菩薩，金剛幢為首，並云承佛力說；至說十地時，有三十六菩薩，皆以藏為名，金剛藏為首、解脫月居末。是金剛藏入大智慧光明三昧，十方皆爾。從三昧起，告諸菩薩言廣大如法界等，次列十地名竟，云三世十方諸佛無有不說此十地者，一切菩薩隨順佛說，作是說已默然而住，一切菩薩聞是語已渴仰欲聞，各各念言何故金剛藏菩薩說十地名已默然而住？眾中有菩薩名解脫月，知眾心念，說五行偈請金剛藏，金剛藏復說六行偈止云，眾生少信故我默然。解脫月復請云：大眾直心清淨善脩助道種諸善根（云云）。金剛藏復止云：眾雖清淨不久行者，智慧未明了。解脫月復請云：諸佛皆護念願說十地義，諸菩薩同聲偈請，諸佛放光照，光中偈讚竟。金剛藏復稱歎十地義深妙難思謙退已，次方乃云承佛力說，復誡眾令諦聽恭敬。又云：我之所說者如大海之一渧，次方廣說十地功德等。此乃三請兩止，猶闕《法華》一請一止，故云「連類」。況《法華》所請獨顯本迹一實長遠耶？又連類者，但云止請、不云所說之法，法非連類，不可為儔。而人師偏著，謂加於《法華》者，自古弘經論師不曉佛意，唯見《華嚴》事廣文長菩薩致請，而謂《華嚴》加勝《法華》，近代已來讀山門教者，仍有此說。誤哉！誤哉！況以人師但以請主勝劣相形，不云法門觀智勝此，而近代匠者更以教體謂勝《法華》，豈非誤耶？總明同異竟。

Next, regarding the comparative analysis with the Avataṃsaka: how could the intention of our school today be to deprecate the unhindered merging of the dharma realm, the universal penetration of Samantabhadra, or the boundless wonderful functions of Mañjuśrī and Maitreya? It is only that, relying on the text of that collection, it still contains gradual stages (krama-saṃskāra); in the opening sequence of compilation, it spontaneously speaks of 'initial attainment' [of Buddhahood]. Because it retains gradual stages, it has not yet opened the provisional; because it speaks of initial attainment, it has not yet revealed the original [span]. These two meanings are the backbone of the textual meaning and the marrow of the teachings, yet that collection neither opens nor wipes them away; how could one not know that in the traces of transformation there is superiority and inferiority? The perfect principle is no different, which is why [the text] now grants that it 'can be placed in the same category'; rebuking the teachers of the past for their lack of understanding, it discusses it again. In this there are two parts: first, generally explaining the similarities and differences; next, specifically making a comparative determination. First, as for placing them in the same category: as in the Avataṃsaka, when preaching the ten abodes, there are ten 'Wisdom' bodhisattvas with Dharma-wisdom (Dharmamati) at their head; when preaching the ten practices, there are ten 'Forest' bodhisattvas with Merit-forest (Guṇavyūha) at their head; when preaching the ten dedications, there are ten 'Banner' bodhisattvas with Vajra-banner (Vajraketu) at their head; all are said to preach by receiving the Buddha's power. When coming to the preaching of the ten bhūmis, there are thirty-six bodhisattvas, all named 'Garbha' (Treasury), with Vajragarbha at their head and Vimukticandra at the end. This Vajragarbha enters the samādhi of the radiance of great wisdom, and so it is in the ten directions. Rising from the samādhi, he tells the bodhisattvas that it is vast as the dharma realm, and so forth; next, having listed the names of the ten bhūmis, he says that among the Buddhas of the three periods and ten directions, none do not preach these ten bhūmis, and that all bodhisattvas accord with what the Buddhas preach. Having spoken thus, he remains silent. When all the bodhisattvas hear these words, they thirst and long to hear, and each reflects: 'Why does Bodhisattva Vajragarbha, having spoken the names of the ten bhūmis, remain silent?' In the assembly there is a bodhisattva named Vimukticandra who knows the thoughts of the assembly's minds and speaks a verse of five lines to request Vajragarbha [to speak]. Vajragarbha again speaks a verse of six lines to stop him, saying: 'Because sentient beings have little faith, I remain silent.' Vimukticandra requests again, saying: 'The great assembly has straightforward, pure minds, well cultivates the aids to the path, and plants all roots of good,' and so forth. Vajragarbha stops him again, saying: 'Although the assembly is pure, those who have not practiced for long do not yet have clear wisdom.' Vimukticandra requests again, saying: 'The Buddhas all protect and remember [them]; please preach the meaning of the ten bhūmis.' The bodhisattvas request in verse with a single voice, the Buddhas emit light to illuminate them, and in the light praise them in verse. After Vajragarbha again praises the meaning of the ten bhūmis as profound, wonderful, and inconceivable, and modestly declines, he then says he preaches by receiving the Buddha's power, and again admonishes the assembly to listen attentively and be reverent. He also says: 'What I preach is like a single drop in the great ocean,' and only then extensively preaches the virtues of the ten bhūmis, and so forth. This constitutes three requests and two stoppages, still lacking one request and one stoppage compared to the Lotus Sūtra; hence it is called 'in the same category'. How much more so since the request in the Lotus Sūtra uniquely reveals the single reality and long duration of origin and traces? Furthermore, as for 'in the same category', it only refers to the stopping and requesting, not to the Dharma that was preached; the Dharma is not in the same category and cannot be equated. Yet human teachers cling one-sidedly, claiming that it surpasses the Lotus Sūtra; from antiquity, exegetes and treatise masters who propagated the sūtras did not understand the Buddha's intent, and seeing only the vast events, long text, and bodhisattva requests in the Avataṃsaka, claimed that the Avataṃsaka was superior to the Lotus Sūtra. In recent times, among those who read our mountain school's teachings, there are still those who make this assertion. How mistaken! How mistaken! Furthermore, these teachers merely compared the superiority and inferiority of the requesters, without saying that its doctrinal gates, contemplation, and wisdom were superior to this; yet modern masters further take the teaching's essence to be superior to the Lotus Sūtra—is this not an error? The general explanation of the similarities and differences ends here.