華嚴經探玄記 1.24

1.24

第四釋相違者，問：經中亦云「為求緣覺者說十二因緣」，何故不名緣覺藏耶？答：以諸緣覺亦唯斷我執、唯證生空，果成羅漢、入滅不殊，望於菩薩俱是下乘，故不別說。問：等俱是下，何故獨名聲聞藏？答：以緣覺亦有出無佛世，無教者故；聲聞不爾，故偏得名。問：小乘教中亦有詮示菩薩乘法，何不亦名菩薩藏耶？答：以彼宗菩薩所斷所證所入涅槃亦與二乘無差別故。又以菩薩唯一不多，故亦不說。問：若爾，何故《普超三昧經．三藏品》及《入大乘論》，說彼三乘即為三藏：一聲聞藏、二緣覺藏、三菩薩藏。答：彼經論中皆云大乘之中有此三藏故，非謂小也。問，即據此文，緣覺有藏，與《莊嚴論》如何會釋？答：前據理果不異故合也，此約教行小別故分也，是故二說不相違也。

Fourth, resolving contradictions: Question: Sūtras also say, 'For those seeking [to be] pratyekabuddhas, the twelve links of dependent origination are taught.' Why then is there no pratyekabuddha basket? Answer: Because pratyekabuddhas also only sever the grasping at self and only realize the emptiness of persons; in fruit they become arhats and their entering cessation is no different. Looked at in comparison to bodhisattvas, both are the lower vehicle; hence it is not spoken of separately. Question: If both are equally the lower [vehicle], why is it uniquely named the śrāvaka basket? Answer: Because pratyekabuddhas also appear in world-ages without Buddhas, where there are no teachings; śrāvakas are not so; hence it exclusively receives the name. Question: In the Hinayāna teachings, there are also expositions of the bodhisattva vehicle; why is that not also named the bodhisattva basket? Answer: Because in that school, what the bodhisattva severs, what they realize, and the nirvāṇa they enter are likewise not different from those of the two vehicles. Furthermore, because a bodhisattva is solitary and not multiple, it is also not spoken of. Question: If so, why do the 'Three Baskets Chapter' of the *Samantamukha-parivarta-samādhi Sūtra* and the *Mahāyānāvatāra-śāstra* state that the three vehicles are precisely the three baskets: (1) the śrāvaka basket, (2) the pratyekabuddha basket, and (3) the bodhisattva basket? Answer: In those sūtras and treatises, it is always stated that these three baskets exist within the Mahāyāna, not meaning the Hinayāna. Question: Even based on this text, a pratyekabuddha has a basket; how is this reconciled with the *Mahāyānasūtrālaṃkāra*? Answer: The former combined them because principle and fruit do not differ; the latter separated them because teaching and practice have slight differences. Therefore, the two explanations do not contradict each other.