華嚴經探玄記 1.47

1.47

第四會相違者，問：此二說既各聖教互為矛楯，未知為可和會、為不可會耶？答：無會無不會。初無會者，既並聖教，隨緣益物，何俟須會。即是《智論》四種悉檀中各各為人悉檀，亦是《攝論》四意趣中眾生樂欲意趣，於一法中或讚或毀，是故二說不須強會。二無不會者，有二門：一約教應機、二約機領教。前中但佛教門了與不了，有其四位：一約攝機寬狹、二約言教具闕、三約益物大小、四約顯理淺深。初者，若唯攝二乘不兼菩薩，或唯菩薩不兼二乘，各攝機狹故非了義，若寬攝三機周盡方了義。二者若唯說小不兼說大，或唯說大乘不兼小乘教，言各有闕故非了義，若言包大小具足三乘方為了義。《深密經》等據上二門，戒賢所判亦有道理。三約益物大小者，若令一切眾生得小乘益，或令一切有情得大乘益，有得小益不能全令得究竟益，俱非了義；若能令彼一切眾生及入寂二乘悉皆當得大菩提益，方為了義。四顯理淺深者，若於緣起隨說實有，或雖破實猶存假有，既會相未盡、顯理未極，故非了義；若說緣生即是性空不礙緣起，融通無二，會緣既盡、理性圓現，方為了義。彼《妙智經》據上二門，智光所判甚有道理。是故二說各據別門互不相至，豈有相違？二約機領教者，問：二說三教各初說小，《華嚴》初說如何會釋？答：諸德三釋。一云：此三法輪約漸悟機說，《華嚴》最初約頓悟機說。若爾，《密迹力士經》初時具說三乘法，此為屬漸、為屬頓耶？若是漸教應唯說小，若是頓教應唯說大，彼既具三極成違害，是故此釋亦難用也。一云：若依顯了門，則有如前三法次第；若約祕密門，即諸說同時。若爾者，即初時小顯而大密，何不以大顯而小密耶？又判此顯密出何聖教？理既不齊、復無聖教，故難依用。此上二釋，此三法輪攝法不盡，初即漸而非頓，後即顯而非密。一云：但是如來圓音一演，異類等解，就小結集唯說小乘，就大結集唯說大乘，就通結集具說三乘。若爾，隨一結集俱無前後，何有如此三教次第？今解此難，便會二說。汎論如來圓音說法，大例有二：一為此世根定者說、二為此世根不定說。初中三節：一或有眾生此世小乘根性定者，見佛始終唯說小乘，如小乘諸部，結集三藏總無大乘。二或有眾生此世三乘根性熟者，見佛始終但說三乘，如《密迹力士經》。佛初鹿園說法之時，無量眾生得阿羅漢果，無量眾生成辟支佛道，無量眾生發菩提心住初地等，乃至廣說，《大品》、《大般若》亦同此說。以此義準，後時所說皆通具此三乘，如諸大乘經中所說。三或有眾生此世一乘根性熟者，即初見佛於樹王下華藏界中依海印定，唯為菩薩演說無盡圓滿自在無礙法門具足主伴，乃至終極亦同此說，以此法中通括九世攝前後故也。二為不定根者，有二位：一此世小乘根不定故堪可進入三乘位者，即初聞唯小以為不了，次聞唯大亦非是了，後聞具三方為了義。《解深密經》就此根辯。二此世小乘根不定故堪可進入一乘位者，即初唯說小為不了教，次通大小亦非了教，後會三歸一唯說一乘方為了教。《妙智經》當此意也。由根不定有此二門，是故二師各述一門，故不相違。由有如是此世根定及不定故，是故令彼教門或有前後、或無前後，準釋可知。

Fourth, reconciling contradictions: Question: Since these two accounts are both based on sacred teachings yet contradict one another like spear and shield, is it unknown whether they can be reconciled, or can they not be reconciled? Answer: There is neither reconciliation nor lack of reconciliation. First, regarding there being no reconciliation: Since both are sacred teachings that benefit beings in accordance with conditions, what need is there to wait to reconcile them? This is precisely the individual siddhānta among the four kinds of siddhāntas in the Dà zhìdù lùn, and it is also the intention regarding the desires of sentient beings among the four intentions in the Mahāyānasaṃgraha, where within a single dharma there is praise in one case and deprecation in another; therefore, the two accounts do not need to be forcibly reconciled. Second, regarding there being no lack of reconciliation, there are two approaches: 1. In terms of the teaching responding to capacities; 2. In terms of capacities receiving the teaching. In the former, as to the Buddhist teaching being definitive or non-definitive, there are four aspects: 1. In terms of the breadth or narrowness of the capacities gathered; 2. In terms of the completeness or deficiency of the verbal teaching; 3. In terms of the greatness or smallness of the benefit to beings; 4. In terms of the shallowness or depth of the principle revealed. As for the first, if it only gathers the two vehicles and does not include bodhisattvas, or only gathers bodhisattvas and does not include the two vehicles, because the gathering of capacities is in each case narrow, it is not definitive; if it broadly gathers the three capacities exhaustively, only then is it definitive. As for the second, if it only explains the small and does not also explain the great, or only explains the Mahāyāna and does not include the Hinayāna teaching, because the words are in each case deficient, it is not definitive; if the words encompass both great and small and completely provide the three vehicles, only then is it definitive. The Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra and so forth rely on the above two approaches, and what Śīlabhadra distinguished is also reasonable. As for the third, in terms of the greatness or smallness of the benefit to beings, if it causes all sentient beings to attain the benefit of the Hinayāna, or causes all sentient beings to attain the benefit of the Mahāyāna, yet some attain small benefits while it cannot completely cause them to attain the ultimate benefit, both are non-definitive; if it can cause all those sentient beings and the two vehicles entering quiescent extinction all to attain the benefit of great bodhi in the future, only then is it definitive. As for the fourth, the shallowness or depth of the principle revealed, if with respect to dependent origination it teaches real existence according to [capacities], or although it refutes the real it still preserves nominal existence, since the integration of appearances is not exhaustive and the revelation of the principle is not ultimate, it is not definitive; if it teaches that dependent origination is itself empty of nature without obstructing dependent origination, fused and non-dual, so that conditions are completely integrated and the rational nature is fully manifested, only then is it definitive. That Jñānaprabha Sūtra relies on the latter two approaches, and what Jñānaprabha distinguished is extremely reasonable. Therefore, the two accounts each rely on different approaches and do not impinge on one another; how could there be any contradiction? Second, in terms of capacities receiving the teaching: Question: Both accounts of the three teachings each teach the Hinayāna at the beginning; how is the initial teaching of the Avataṃsaka Sūtra to be reconciled and explained? Answer: The masters have three explanations. One says: These three dharmacakras are taught with respect to capacities of gradual awakening, while the Avataṃsaka Sūtra was taught at the very beginning with respect to capacities of sudden awakening. If so, in the Guhyakādhipatinirdeśa Sūtra, the dharmas of the three vehicles were fully taught at the initial period; does this belong to the gradual, or does it belong to the sudden? If it were the gradual teaching, it should only teach the small; if it were the sudden teaching, it should only teach the great. Since it fully possesses all three, it constitutes an extreme contradiction and flaw; therefore, this explanation is also difficult to adopt. Another says: If one relies on the manifest gate, there is the sequence of the three dharmas as before; if one considers the secret gate, all teachings are simultaneous. If that were so, then at the initial period the small would be manifest and the great secret; why would the great not be manifest and the small secret? Furthermore, on what sacred teaching is this distinction between manifest and secret based? Since the principle is inconsistent and there is no sacred teaching, it is difficult to rely on and use. In the above two explanations, these three dharmacakras do not exhaustively encompass all teachings: the former is gradual and not sudden, and the latter is manifest and not secret. Another says: It is merely that when the Tathāgata's single round voice preaches, different species understand accordingly: from the perspective of the compilation of the Hinayāna, only the Hinayāna was spoken; from the perspective of the compilation of the Mahāyāna, only the Mahāyāna was spoken; from the perspective of the common compilation, all three vehicles were fully spoken. If so, according to any single compilation there is neither before nor after; how could there be such a sequence of the three teachings? Now, resolving this objection immediately reconciles the two accounts. Generally discussing the Tathāgata's teaching of the Dharma with the round voice, in broad terms there are two: 1. Taught for those whose capacities in this life are fixed; 2. Taught for those whose capacities in this life are not fixed. In the first, there are three sections: 1. Some sentient beings whose capacity and nature for the Hinayāna are fixed in this life see the Buddha from beginning to end only teaching the Hinayāna, like the various Hinayāna sects whose compilation of the Tripiṭaka completely lacks the Mahāyāna. 2. Some sentient beings whose capacity and nature for the three vehicles are matured in this life see the Buddha from beginning to end only teaching the three vehicles, as in the Guhyakādhipatinirdeśa Sūtra: when the Buddha first preached the Dharma in the Deer Park, immeasurable sentient beings attained the fruit of arhat, immeasurable sentient beings accomplished the path of pratyekabuddha, immeasurable sentient beings aroused the bodhimind and abided on the first bhūmi, and so forth in extensive detail; the Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā and the Mahāprajñāpāramitā also agree with this teaching. Conforming to this principle, what was taught in later periods all comprehensively and fully possessed these three vehicles, as taught in the various Mahāyāna sūtras. 3. Some sentient beings whose capacity and nature for the One Vehicle are matured in this life directly see the Buddha at the beginning beneath the king of trees in the Padmagarbha-lokadhātu, relying on the sāgara-mudrā samādhi, expounding solely for bodhisattvas the inexhaustible, perfect, unobstructed dharma gate complete with lord and retinue; down to the very end it is also taught like this, because within this dharma it comprehensively includes the nine times and gathers together before and after. Second, for those of unfixed capacities, there are two positions: 1. Because their Hinayāna capacity in this life is not fixed, they are capable of advancing into the position of the three vehicles: initially hearing only the small, they consider it non-definitive; next hearing only the great, it is also not definitive; later hearing that which fully possesses the three, only then is it definitive. The Saṃdhinirmocana Sūtra explains with respect to this capacity. 2. Because their Hinayāna capacity in this life is not fixed, they are capable of advancing into the position of the One Vehicle: initially teaching only the small is a non-definitive teaching; next encompassing both great and small is also not a definitive teaching; later converging the three into the one and teaching only the One Vehicle is the definitive teaching. The Jñānaprabha Sūtra corresponds to this meaning. Due to the unfixed nature of capacities there are these two gates; therefore, the two masters each expounded one gate, and thus they do not contradict each other. Because there are such fixed and unfixed capacities in this life, they cause those teaching gates to sometimes have a sequence of before and after, or to have no sequence of before and after, which can be understood by conforming to this explanation.